Hey Ezekiel,

Please read the note on osm.org/way/112648294

The current state in real world matches Esri imagery but not Bing.

Your edit moved the path to match Bing which means it is now incorrect.

Could you please correct it? Thanks

Housekeeping: This changeset has been discussed in the "imports" mailing list, please see https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/2019-April/005967.html and follow-up messages.

Ah alright, that makes sense. Yeah the sub-meter accuracy is challenging, and it's not like a phone GPS will give us that resolution especially near to towers downtown. Maybe someone else has professional equipment and can give us a couple of readings to help guide the imagery... I guess City data is not yet license-cleared, if it even is accurate.

If I split and come to an imagery shift I'll leave a sharp transition as well, that's a good idea.

Hello,

What is the intended purpose of the area osm.org/way/679612843 which you described as parking=lane? Your edit summary says "rough postal area of M5H" but this is not tagged on the area itself. If it is the postal area, what is the source of the information?

Thanks,
--Jarek

Hey Nate, one more question. Do you know/remember which imagery and offset settings you used for the streetcar track alignment on Queen around McCaul? I was looking to continue this but can't find anything that matches. Do you have an offset programmed and if so can you share it?

Right but there are parts that can connect two non-motorway links, like osm.org/way/31122178 - in fact the entire route from T3 to Silver Dart, or the loop back from T1 to T3 osm.org/way/347398399. Are these technically under freeway regulations? Is this even defined in law, or a legal grey area?

Hm, I might need to dig through Mapillary/OSC or survey to double check...

Hi Kevo, I noticed your past edit to airport link roads here. I recently made a note osm.org/note/1702007 suggesting downgrading a whole bunch of the links that don't inescapably lead onto freeways to a lesser road class (some examples in the note). As you wrote here, several of these had and some still have foot=yes on them. Or are all the ways here currently tagged as motorway_link in fact explicitly forbidden to bicycles? If you have any thoughts on this could you comment on the note? Thanks!

I have deleted "Toronto (city)" in osm.org/changeset/69438590

It seems to me that most other such labels can probably be deleted as well (Kingston's is in the middle of a lake) but I don't know details about these other cities and some of the relations have had changes since, so I'll leave it to local or more experienced mappers.

Sorry, I meant Walmer, not Widmer. Got confused with the street between Peter and John.

Hello,

What is intended to be the meaning of the circular way osm.org/way/680992979 which has only
addr:street=yes as a tag? That it's an urban area? But the urban area here is much larger.

About the 510C, I passed by the Oxley @ Charlotte stop that it should be using (will be updating that area shortly) and the streetcar stop sign there says:

"September to June: No evening service Monday to Friday, no late evening service Saturday, Sunday or holidays. June to September: AM rush hours only Monday to Friday"

It doesn't exactly match well with the schedules posted on TTC website, and the schedules on the website make more sense in that TTC might want to keep 510s making turns out of the way of 504 cars especially during rush hours and frankly the extra run to Queens Quay probably doesn't take that much time but helps people at Cityplace. But that's the sign.

Individual schedules http://www.ttc.ca/Schedule/schedule.jsp?Route=510S&Stop=s.b._on_Spadina_Ave_at_Dundas_St_West_South_Side have only a few 510C runs in the evening turning back at King. I don't know if they actually run like that, could camp out at King and Spadina in the evening one day and check. But until they actually fully drop the 510C King designation we can probably keep it.

The wheelchair=limited might be left over from the initial roll-out, for example at Nassau osm.org/node/393549550/history it was added in September 2014 and not changed since. TTC shows the route and every stop as accessible so I think it's pretty safe to upgrade to wheelchair=yes. If you want to double-check in survey, check for the blue wheelchair symbols on stop poles.

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...