So, checking the wiki pages osm.wiki/Tag:public_transport%3Dstop_position and osm.wiki/Tag:public_transport%3Dplatform it is pretty clear that shelter, departures_board, etc are recommended on the platform. I had not actually realized that, so I might have mistagged a few. I think it might also have been that I re-purposed the tram_stop node as the stop_position, so it kept the shelter tags it had.

Double checking I see some stops where I put shelter and wheelchair tags on both stop_position and platform, like osm.org/relation/9465080. I don't think the duplication hurts much (only thing would be potential for error if the shelter is removed and the tag is changed on one but not the other) so might as well tag on both?

But thanks for noticing, I hadn't realized and hadn't thought about it much. Will adapt going forward.

What do you think of a project to make the 510 relations fully PTv2 - with one relation per direction and full tagging? I've been thinking of trying to do a comprehensive Spadina update for that - the tracks are all split and stops seem well mapped only needing some platforms (and possibly double-checking announced names at Queens Quay and Spadina intersection). Having a route as PTv2 would give us "final" validation that the tagging we've been using works.

If you care about rendering on openstreetmap-carto, you can do railway=platform instead of railway=tram_stop on the public_transport=platform to get a platform rendered and no two stop markers. I don't think it's a firm requirement, so only if you choose, but it might make sense particularly for the RoW lines.

Hello,

We shouldn't tag future stations as railway=station because that tag is for active stations where you can catch a train. It should probably be something like railway=proposed + proposed=station.

The glued ways are very annoying yes. What I found works for me in JOSM is: 1) Ctrl-F and search for "railway"; 2) click on the street/tram in question, it should select the streetcar way; 3) press G to unglue the whole way at once, in the dialog select to give tags and memberships to existing nodes; 4) before doing anything else, click-and-drag on the way and move it onto one of the tracks (or more generally offset from the highway). Doing this gives me the existing way, although with all-new nodes, in a reasonable position, and I then adjust the geometry (because the nodes are new, they can be deleted/recreated as convenient).

I do not know of a way to transfer history in JOSM (beyond what "replace geometry" in Utilsplugin2 does, but that doesn't seem applicable here) but would love to find out as well. That, and "undo changes to this one object which I changed by accident 40 changes ago". I found the "unglue whole way" function by blind-trial-and-error myself...

When actually splitting a way, JOSM initially asks what part should get the history, but you can save a default answer.

Nice progress with this! Tooling / bikeshedding note: it might have been nice to retain and reuse osm.org/way/30679544/history to potentially improve history browsing? I've been trying to reuse the existing railway=tram ways, though to be honest don't know if it makes much of a difference.

Hi,

You changed a foot path to an abandoned rail line. Do you know the area? Is the former rail line now a public footpath? If yes it should have a highway=path in addition to railway=abandoned, to have it show as a path that can now be used by pedestrians. Do you know where the path connects to other streets or roads? If you have any information, commenting on osm.org/note/1585085 or notes linked from there would be much appreciated.

I also have no idea how I ended up "editing" osm.org/way/667697356 - sorry!

This got slightly messy with conflicts with Nate_Wessel's edits on College Street and of the 505 and 504 relations around Dundas West station. Hopefully nothing broke...

That looks good I think. Oh I also saw https://osmand.net/blog/guideline-pt posted recently and it seems to match that as well. Oh, when upgrading the whole 506 to ptv2, membership of the route relation might need to be updated as well - osm.org/node/3584751593 should probably be platform in both stop_area and route, and osm.org/node/6372373322 should probably be added to the route relation as stop. But that's not as critical while we have one relation for both 506 directions.

Yeah I've been slowly splitting the tracks, it's not too bad and gets me around the city :). Currently working on intersections of Spadina and tracks from Bathurst to McCaul. It does clear up things - my favourite fact (to be double-confirmed in survey) is that Coxwell loop only allows exiting to north on Coxwell, not onto Queen Street - wouldn't know that from current mapping! I can continue on that and finish the system eventually, hopefully this still this decade. The way the tracks are currently glued to the highways is kind of annoying as well - e.g. the former track on Lansdowne osm.org/way/9454827 ended up being kept in your changes. "G" to unglue in JOSM and then drag them off to the side a bit...

Don't have local examples, sorry. I've just been looking at Berlin, because of past experience and because I figure that if anyone got it detailed correct it's the Germans. Over there the streetside stops are tagged like osm.org/relation/5780880 and RoW stops like osm.org/relation/5824731 or when mapped as area osm.org/relation/8450284

At the risk of sounding annoying like "it's better in Europe" I think just adopting the Berlin scheme is a decent option if we don't have better ideas

Thank you. I updated those and a couple more problems (like a leftover "Collage" misspelling) in osm.org/changeset/68624921

Hello, any news on this? I am planning to delete osm.org/node/6182594235 - am I missing something about its purpose and placement?

Hello,

Here are some more lane names to correct:

osm.org/way/458702564 says "Street Helens" rather than "Saint Helens"
osm.org/way/83327467 misspelled name
osm.org/way/13821698 missing "Saint" in "Saint Clarens"
osm.org/way/462556813 says "West Clarens" instead of "Saint Clarens"
osm.org/way/26139878 is unlikely to be named "Lane North Dufferin Park East", something is missing there
osm.org/way/8111629 misspelled should be Yarmouth
osm.org/way/8111625 misspelled should be Yarmouth
osm.org/way/8111606 misspelled should be Yarmouth
osm.org/way/9105688 missing "Lane" in the beginning according to your naming scheme
osm.org/way/7913156 misspelled "Aveneu", and anyway "Avenue" should not be there according to your naming scheme
osm.org/way/7913173 misspelled "Aveneu", and anyway "Avenue" should not be there according to your naming scheme
osm.org/way/7913149 misspelled "Christie"

osm.org/way/7913138 likely mis-capitalized "Deborah brown Lane"

osm.org/way/9105667 mis-capitalized name
osm.org/way/8111609 mis-capitalized name
osm.org/way/8111612 mis-capitalized name
osm.org/way/8589541 mis-capitalized name
osm.org/way/126855130 mis-capitalized name
osm.org/way/8111604 mis-capitalized name
osm.org/way/462518646 mis-capitalized name

Thank you

I'd have put the label for St. Paul's osm.org/node/6269087402 somewhere more like north of St. Clair West station. Currently it's quite offset from the centre of the riding.

My understanding was that PTv2 was a tightening and improvement of previous public transit tagging, so I personally wouldn't put version=2 on something that doesn't fully conform to ptv2. I guess it could be a preference thing.

With mapping platforms/shelters as ways like osm.org/way/678033452, are you intending to show the shelter, or the platform? I ask because that particular one seems drawn a bit bigger than the shelter seen in imagery.

Also to be honest I'm not really a fan of amenity=shelter on ways with public transit tagging because amenity=shelter is such a generic tag - or at least let's have a shelter_type=public_transport on it.

Should we try to come up with guidelines on how to do transit stops in Toronto? In other cities I was seeing a linear way with public_transport=platform + bench=yes + shelter=yes and a node with highway=bus_stop/railway=tram_stop for a virtual (streetside) "platform"; or area with public_transport=platform + area=yes + shelter=yes for actual platforms (like on streetcar RoWs and safety islands). Will that work for ptv2 in Toronto?

Hey Nate, we probably shouldn't have the relation for 505 osm.org/relation/72295 as public_transport:version=2 since that requires (? or at least is very usually done with) a separate relation for each travel direction

I must say it is somewhat ironic to see for example this shelter osm.org/way/678164480 not having square angles ;)

Q key in JOSM is your friend

Hello,

Would you happen to know if the Umajin Toronto office still exists on Fort York Boulevard?

Sorry, this is "tagging for the router". See osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer : "Don't deliberately enter data incorrectly".

From imagery, osm.org/way/34366551 connects to the road. So then connect the path to the road and use crossing=no on the intersection of path and road that can be used to indicate that crossing is not allowed.

But tag the sidewalk properly or don't have it at all.

BTW, tagging it as a path to suggest it can be cycled on also makes cycling directions less useful since instead of specifying "ride on Manning Road" it will say "ride along this nameless path".

Why? It seems a sidewalk to me