Oh yeah, it hasn't been used in Toronto before. I saw it's done in Montreal and I think we should start it here too, so I started doing it and I saw PcMouse1 joined in. Having sidewalks as separate ways but with no names makes routing basically visual-only. Are you okay with me putting these names back, then? We should probably announce/document it somewhere to reduce confusion.

Hi,
We've been adding the names to sidewalk so that pedestrian routing would give actually useful directions, including the street names to walk down rather than "walk on walkway". Is there a particular reason you don't think they should be there?

Hi,
I added the names to sidewalk so that pedestrian routing would give actually useful directions, including the street names to walk down rather than "walk on walkway". Is there a particular reason you don't think they should be there?

Hey madbats,

So this change, for which you wrote "High Park zoo isn't considered a "zoo", even though it's in the name", actually made one of the animal enclosures a second zoo, while keeping the existing zoo. Presumably that's not what you've meant? I can clean that up - but what do you think the High Park Zoo should be described as? I'll admit that it seems a zoo to me - there's animals on display. How would you describe it?

Cheers,
Jarek

I made the change in osm.org/changeset/159978906 - thanks!

Here's more detail and reasoning on the changes. Please also check the earlier discussion in osm.org/changeset/155375493

Use highway=pedestrian for ways that are wide, I would call them "boulevard-like", and used by both pedestrians and cyclists, and also wide enough for two-tracked vehicles, and used by the trackless train. Also for Spring Road north of Centre Road, which in practice is almost entirely pedestrian, and much more pleasant to walk on than you'd expect from a highway=service.

Use highway=cycleway with foot=yes for some other ways that are wide and comfortable to cycle on and in fact ridden on fairly frequently. (This also matches the iD preset for multi-use path)

Remove name Cherry Hill Trail from parts that are not near Cherry Hill. This name is not signed. I can believe it has some use, but surely only where there's cherries, not all the way down to Colborne Lodge Drive.

OK thanks. We have the gate at Davenport osm.org/node/9602055914 - perhaps that one should have access=private? (currently it's only tagged for deliveries) And access=permissive and ownership=private might be better tagging for the roads.

Hi, can you tell us a little more about this edit that changed Wychwood Park roadways from access=permissive to access=private?

access=private means that individual permission is always required to enter, for everyone.

A "private road" or "private property" might not necessarily be access=private. It was previously tagged access=permissive which means "Open to general traffic until such time as the owner revokes the permission which they are legally allowed to do at any time in the future."

In osm.org/note/4350769 there is a report that it's signed as private property, but access is not prohibited.

Could you comment here or on the note linked?

Thanks,
--Jarek

Hi,

Sorry for delay replying here.

I can agree that highway=path is a little problematic.

One issue is that there isn't a widely-accepted definition of what a path actually is, and there's a lot of discussion in the community right now. Some examples:
- https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/pathway-for-ways-not-used-by-or-intended-for-cars/118981
- https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/documenting-the-problems-with-highway-path/119103
- https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/history-of-proposals-to-fix-highway-path-ambiguity-and-a-wayforward/118877
- https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/documenting-solution-proposals-for-highway-path/119773

So for this case I think the problem we're seeing is that this is what we could call "a wide pathway" but there's no agreement on whether it's a highway=path

In Canadian terms, its built form is similar to a multi-use path or a shared-use path. Some of these are indeed wide enough for a car to drive on. There's no general agreement on how to tag those. Some that are primarily used by cyclists get by with highway=cycleway and possibly foot=yes, for example the trail over the Humber bridge osm.org/way/33398082 or the Humber River Trail osm.org/way/873348032

In this case I don't think it should be a cycleway, because cyclists aren't really the primary or usually not even half of the users (partly due to hills, partly due to frequent crowding with pedestrians).

But what I don't like here is a highway=service tag. I read that tag as a car-focused tag, or at least car-first. To me, highway=service are laneways leading to garages, or in High Park, the service roadway leading to the greenhouses osm.org/way/14345156 - it's not really where you'd walk as recreation.

What do you think about tagging this path as highway=footway? It would align with its primary use. We could tag width=* to indicate the size. Alternatively, for "more substantial" foot paths, there's highway=pedestrian - and that's used on Spring Road and Deer Pen Road within High Park - so it could be an option here too.

For the path along the bottom of the pond, along The Queensway, I would actually suggest highway=cycleway? It's similar in practice to the ravine/river trails or the Humber bridge.

Cheers,
Jarek

Cool, thanks! Just as a heads up, I tweaked the note on the stops in osm.org/changeset/159749749 and marked some more stops as disused

Hello,

In addition to my previous comments about the PXO, I have one more:

You tagged tactile_paving=yes on crossings like osm.org/node/12308510874 (Barondale and Cortina east leg) and osm.org/node/12308510868 (west leg). Those crossings don't have tactile paving. I was checking my photos from walking along here in mid-October and they look like this: https://imgur.com/a/akXCsxs - the curb is indeed lowered, but there is no tactile paving at all.

Can you check what you tagged the tactile paving based on, and make corrections accordingly?

Thanks,
--Jarek

Hey, thanks for updating the relation! One problem though - the 501 goes on Church Street, not Victoria Street - both ways.

Hey, thanks for fixing up these super old unsplit sidewalks!

FYI, the "zebra" markings used in Toronto are actually called "ladder" in OSM.

OSM's "zebra" doesn't have the thin lines perpendicular to the thick stripes, "ladder" does.

Check them osm.wiki/Key:crossing:markings

This edit wrongly deleted a PXO I mapped, please see discussion in osm.org/changeset/158682128

Sorry, the deleted crosswalk was actually in osm.org/changeset/158682620 - another of your edits in the area

Hello,

In this edit you deleted a crosswalk with flashing lights (PXO) at Barondale and west side of Whistler Crescent: osm.org/node/12255805575/history . I added it in osm.org/changeset/157977678 having seen it in in-person survey. I would ask that you do not delete data in areas you are not familiar with, and check OSM history if unsure.

Hey PcMouse1,

Looking at this change to Sherbourne Street again - you drew in the bike track, but didn't change cycleway tagging on the highway=tertiary (so now two bike tracks are showing, one on the road and one cycleway), didn't update the local cycle network relation, and didn't give the cycle tracks a name. I think these are pretty important to make this useful for data consumers. Would you do it?

Cheers,
Jarek

Sorry, what I meant is I want the instruction to be "turn right onto Sherbourne Street cycle track" rather than "turn right onto unnamed cycle track". When I'm reading or listening to the instructions I want the name of the street because that tells me the street name sign to watch for when I'm riding.

Hey there,

If you add the bike lanes/tracks as separate ways, can you please assign name=Sherbourne Street? That way the name will be displayed in text routing instructions -- "turn right onto Sherbourne Street" rather than only "turn right onto cycle track".

Thanks!

(source is survey today)