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

Okay, I hope I got the left restriction right as osm.org/relation/9407368 in osm.org/changeset/68263699

I also opened an issue in OpenRouteService https://github.com/GIScience/openrouteservice/issues/467 as it seems it also has similar issues with very sharp lefts elsewhere.

Thanks again for reporting and adding information!

Thanks for adding these. I'm not entirely sure, but we _might_ also need to encode a no_left_turn from osm.org/way/239208188 to osm.org/way/236565624 as that's currently still "legal" and as far as I can see it is what https://maps.openrouteservice.org/directions?n1=46.429916&n2=-80.998587&n3=17&a=46.433539,-81.035328,46.450351,-81.003549&b=0&c=0&k1=en-US&k2=km does (note that its "sharp left" is indicated before the eastbound on-ramp joins in).

I think that restriction will require splitting the ways, and that might be difficult to do in iD (though I've not kept up with iD's capabilities these days). If you can't see a way to do it let me know and I'll try to do it in another editor.

Thanks again,
--Jarek

Hi, thanks for your updates to the rail lines around here. I noticed that south of Hagersville there are still some bits left over as "SOR", in particular in osm.org/relation/7414399. Is that intended, or an oversight?

Ah it's because I changed membership of osm.org/way/76559091 in 504A osm.org/relation/7904594/history from undefined to "forward". Derp.

Why is the bounding box so big towards the east? https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=68027514 confirms I didn't change anything east of Shaw...

Sorry, w osm.org/changeset/67906992

Cześć,

nie możemy dać amenity=place_of_worship, ponieważ jest to dawny kościół. Tu już nie ma place_of_worship (świątyni, miejsca kultu, Andachtstätte). W osm.org/node/6324083209 zmieniłem na disused:amenity=place_of_worship. Dodałem naprawdę dużo danych do osm.org/way/269446404

For comparison, London, England osm.org/relation/65606 which similarly doesn't really fit into UK's administrative structure has only one admin_centre with place=city