I have seen that, and I take your point regarding the centerlines. In other cities, I've been a big advocate of tagging sidewalks on street ways.

I do however think it's interesting in toronto to map sidewalks separately, and especially marked crossings where they exist. There are a lot of complicated situations like around Lansdowne Ave just to the east of this changeset where crossing the street can be quite difficult and is actually prevented by barriers in some cases. In other cases, it feels like s stretch to connect a path e.g. through a park to a centerline when it really only comes up to the sidewalk.

I think the real problem is the inconsistency.

Ah... that's a weird outcome. I'm not sure I agree with making the connection though if the crossing is unmarked. Crossings on streets like this are allowable and common at any point. For sidewalks in this area I've been trying to map just what's actually built/painted on the road.

I definitely see the pros and cons to that approach, but I think it's better than what's going on in most of Toronto right now.

I'm of the mind that what we really need is better pedestrian routers.

I've reverted this changeset. The user created a large lake that doesn't exist and removed some sections of highway that don't appear to be under construction or otherwise out of service.

It looks like this was probably accidental - was a first edit.

I have reverted. Please verify that the data is now correct. Sorry for the bother!

Your original alignment better corresponds with the GTFS data from the agency. There must be something wrong with the data I'm using. I will revert!

Best,
Nate

"Geopositioning" was a bit of a slippery word for me to use. The data I was looking at obviously wasn't a satellite based GPS, because yeah, those don't work in tunnels, and this was very regular. About a dozen or more "GPS" traces followed more or less exactly the same path, which indicates to me that they were probably based on a known tunnel alignment plus some distance-based measure of a vehicle's progress through that tunnel.

I'll verify this with the GTFS data in a moment and report back.

I feel like there are bigger fish to fry here... look just a little to the west to see what I mean.

You might have noticed that much of this area is a mess of unedited TIGER imports whose tags bear little relation to reality.

I think I probably deleted something that was not a residential road but was tagged that way.

I can't tell for sure, but I probably deleted an inaccurate TIGER import representing a minor driveway or track as a residential road. It's probably much easier just to draw it back in than to revert.

Oh gosh. I must have been copy-pasting tags a little too quickly D:

Good catch!

Oh it's lovely up here :-)
A bit harder to map in OSM because of the density and the mediocre imagery though.

Are you going to the NACIS conference in CO by any chance?

-Nate

I've been cruising around Ohio for a while deleting bad tiger data... as a rule, I don't touch anything if it's been edited by a human.

Honestly, some of these may have been better reclassified as highway=service,service=driveway, or as tracks... but I think it takes about as much time to reclassify them properly as to just draw them again from the imagery.

This tiger data is such a mess in places :-/

Oh, how strange. I'm surprised I didn't catch that... suppose I never went back for a second look. Good catch!

See: www.openstreetmap.org/way/14642451
I believe you need to break these segments out and add a bridge=yes separately. And then just make sure you keep them in the route relation.

I know only enough ancient greek right now to be a danger. ;-)

I'm sticking with name, because the greek characters are the only actual signs on the buildings.

Good call with the alt_names. Is there something like a tag for name:english?

I know I have one of those wrong (I think it was actually a Tau and not a Theta for one of them), but I'm on campus now so I'll check in a minute and correct it!

Is it in the future if the infrastructure is already finished and in place? Or should it be a route relation (presumed active) that brings the stop into existence?

Can a bus stop exist without a bus? Would it matter if that bus were in the past or the future? Would it demand a location between both?

I'm not really asking so much as having fun with ontology. Your tagging is probably more correct :-)

Ha! I was trying to edit on my phone while I waited for the dentist. Took me 15 minutes to add that stupid hat shop.

Ah! Looks like it's already fixed. My tiles just hadn't updated.

Well of course there is a page just about that...

To be honest, I'm not sure why boundaries exist in OSM if they can't be related to a real feature... but I bet there's a page just for that dicussion already too.

Is there an easy way to fix it? Or does it need to be reverted somehow?