Hey Andrew, it looks like this change replaced all crossing=marked with crossing=uncontrolled? It led to some bad results, like osm.org/way/124486669 being tagged as crossing=uncontrolled even though it's a traffic light crosswalk. Can you fix these manually or should we undo the whole change? 6000 ways seems a lot to check manually...

Sorry I'm not sure I understand.

The Google image is not that clear, but from memory I think that sign says something like "no vehicles except authorized"?

Do you think that any piece of pavement in a Toronto park that has a sign "no vehicles except authorized" should be a highway=service? Because that's going to include a _lot_ of ways that are in practice overwhelmingly used by pedestrians.

Hi,

Can you point to what exactly on the wiki you read that made you believe this should be a highway=service?

My gut feeling is that paths should be tagged according to their prevalent use, and the small trackless train running on it April to October doesn't necessarily make it not a path. As another example, city parks dept vehicles (including pickup trucks) regularly drive on park paths or on Martin Goodman Trail. But I'd like to make sure I'm not completely off-base here.

Cheers,
Jarek

this one was also not fake, re-fixed it

for the record, this turbine _was_ real, but was removed around 2018

hey, FYI I re-added this wind turbine and added details - it's not fake osm.org/node/1884714324/history

(Survey incomplete here because it was getting dark and a bunch of house numbers were quite hard to see)

The boundary was previously mapped as osm.org/way/850663635/history

Also, can you comment on why you made this change after being requested not to do so 22 days ago in osm.org/changeset/152522508 , and furthermore given that St. John's is explicitly mentioned in the second paragraph of osm.wiki/Abbreviations ?

(Sorry, correction - St Andrews is of course in Scotland, not England, so I should have written "UK" in the first paragraph)

Hello cm81447,

As OSM members, we are well aware of the abbreviations guideline. It is not the case that "OSM does not allow abbreviations". In fact, England, the birthplace of OSM, has many localities which have "abbreviated" names such as St Ives or St Andrews. These are not expanded because they are not, in fact, abbreviations - that's just the name.

I would request that you would please familiarize yourself with _local_ OSM guidelines and perhaps discuss with the local community before changing the name of a provincial capital. As you are aware, local communities are free to set guidelines and norms which override OSM-wide guidelines - best exemplified by the UK examples mentioned above. The Canadian guideline is at osm.wiki/Canada/Tagging_guidelines#Municipality_Names .

Would you please revert this edit?

Thank you,
Jarek Piórkowski

Hey, can you comment on what you've changed here and why? Is Addison Lane this zig-zagging shape now? It doesn't seem to match aerial imagery

Hey Nate, a small request to be a bit more conservative with the changes here. Galley east of Roncesvalles still hasn't been painted with the counterflow lane as of today, even though you tagged cycleway:left=lane 5 days ago. It was indeed painted west of Roncesvalles, and is indeed planned to be painted to the east, but as I understand it they're waiting for resurfacing after watermain work to be complete before painting.

I'm monitoring the progress on this project so no need to tag planned changes that haven't happened yet.

Notes from survey on site: I did not find the bicycle repair station in mapped location. I asked staff at the miniature railway and one of them thought it might have been here previously but was removed a long while ago.

For the record, per discussion in osm.org/changeset/153868089 , this changeset has been reverted in osm.org/changeset/154124509

Per this discusssion, I have reverted this changeset and changeset 153875016 in osm.org/changeset/154124509

Hey, thanks for adding the bike share locations via maproulette. Would be a great project to survey them, set exact locations, and clear the fixmes.

Hi -- thanks all the detailed surveying you're doing in Toronto!

Quick note about the change to surfaces here. You've been using surface=concrete:plates. This value actually refers to prefabricated concrete plates that are made offsite and then trucked to where they are needed and attached together with special ties or buckles.

The vast majority of concrete sidewalks and paths in Toronto are instead poured in place: liquid concrete is poured onto the ground in between formwork, then once it hardens a bit, dilation gaps (acting as very basic expansion joints) are cut into it. This gives the appearance of separate "plates", but the plates might be different lengths and there are no ties between them. So I think surface=concrete is the better tag?

See osm.wiki/Key:surface#Paved for details and photos. Let me know if this makes sense or if I have something terribly wrong!

Hello,

> As OSM doesn’t have a classification for non-residential local streets, I think “Residential” is the closest, but open to other suggestions – but I do think these roads should be classified.

OpenStreetMap *does* have a classification for non-residential local streets, and it is precisely highway=unclassified.

The name "unclassified" (like some other OSM details) comes from British terminology, where roads are classified as "unclassified" in the meaning "road too small for a classification number" (more minor than tertiary) in their national government classification scheme. Please check osm.wiki/Tag:highway=unclassified for more information.

highway=unclassified is a valid OSM tag which doesn't need "fixing" or classifying.

Roads or streets of truly unknown classification are tagged as highway=road instead.

Hello Jackson,

with the new mapping with separate ways, routing looks like a mess:

https://bin.piorkowski.ca/2024/2024-06-14%20bike%20track%20routing.png

(screenshot of osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_bicycle&route=43.6465%2C-79.4387%3B43.6653%2C-79.4094 right now)

12 instances of "turn slight right" / "keep right onto Bloor West Bike Track", and that's with the router actually giving up on the bike track for some of the distance (1100 m on Bloor Street West) - if it hadn't, there'd be even more of these instructions.

In reality, you turn onto Bloor Street West and continue straight. There is no "slight right".

I'm really not convinced this is an improvement, can you comment?