Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for these updates!

Hi Enderbyte99,
Adding such a large polygon is difficult to edit and is incorrect since it covers many areas that are not scrub. Is there a reason you added a single large polygon and not individual areas that a specifically scrub?

Thanks,
joel56dt

Thanks

I meant to add: looks like it was correctly labelled because there are bike sharrows painted on the ground.

Hi krmatthews,

Can you help me understand what was incorrectly labelled? For example, way 883924313 looks like it is was correctly labelled as a shared lane.

Thanks,
joel56dt

Hello, it looks like you changed the address but did not change the location of this node. You can either move this node to the correct location or delete this one and create another at the correct location.

Thanks,
Joel

Need to check my eyes. Just going to change the lane counts and restriction tags

Oh I am incorrect. I will revert this...

Welcome to OpenStreetMap! Let me know if you have any questions about mapping in Vancouver or OSM overall.

- Joel

Hi Zarr,

Thanks for your changes here and all your other regular contributions.

I have noticed that we map "combined curbs" a bit differently (for example nodes 8177740855 vs 8177740857). I am not convinced my method of adding two curbs to each corner is best and I don't want to add incorrect/misleading data to the map. The wiki is not clear and I am wondering if your method is adequate. Is it appropriate to have > 2 ways connected to a single curb node?
(I am aware that you also map two curbs in instances where they are clearly separate, such as node 5765177201)

Or, could we both improve how we map combined curbs? Would mapping them like node 11608418585 make more sense? If someone is crossing both roads they may not strictly need to step on to the first curb before starting their second crossing. In a situation where the 'intermediary' curb is raised but the other two are lowered, the data could be misleading. Routing for low-mobility users would interpret that the raised curb must be stepped on when in reality it could be bypassed. (I am probably over thinking all of this but curbs are one of the most tedious things I have decided to map so I definitely do not want to be spreading bad data.)

Thanks!
Joel

Okay you have made a convincing case and I agree with your reasoning. Thanks for explaining your thinking.

Thanks for catching that. I think I intended for "none" but have now revised it to "no".

Thanks!

👍
Hi SeanAtSparelabs,

Was this from a survey? The website doesn't appear to list this location. I am curious because you don't seem to be a local mapper based upon your edit history.

(It can be helpful to a source to changesets, even if source=survey)

Thanks!
joel56dt

Thanks for working on Brentwood. The complicated mix of interior/exterior paths and building shapes across levels has intimidated me away from touching this too much. Your changes are definitely an improvement.

Personally I still haven't wrapped my head around when a building should be it's own vs when it should be a building part. For the podium-tower design that is common in Vancouver, I think separating the tower from the podium is better at showing that the tower is very distinct from the podium. I think I am tending to prefer using building parts for when the difference is <= a few levels vs separate buildings when the difference is more significant. The wiki says "A building that has a three-story part and a six-story part is still a six-story building" but I don't think this is useful for all the types of buildings we get in Vancouver.

For example, osm.org/way/789720639 and osm.org/way/1030541270 could be their own building=* instead of building:part=* due to the fact that there are ~50 levels of difference between them and their adjacent podium.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
joel56dt

Hi coolguy999,

Welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Let me know if you have any questions about contributing to this project. It can be a lot of fun.

Your edits here and all edits to OpenStreetMap are public. I have reverted the changes you made in this changeset: osm.org/changeset/149181480

Thanks,
joel56dt

Hi keithonearth,

Thanks for the great additions, as always. Just one point I want to discuss: the coastline.

The wiki says the coastline should be mapped to follow the mean high-water springs line. I have typically used the flotsam in the aerial imagery to determine where this is but I noticed you lowered the coastline to be below the flotsam.

Is this intentional? If so, can you help me understand why?

Thanks,
joel56dt

Hi eiffelwong1,

Welcome to OpenStreetMap! Thanks for your edits.

One small note: land cover and land use do not necessarily share the same boundaries (the same nodes). In general they are independent so I try to map them as independent polygons. For example, if a forest extends into a residential area it would be incorrect not to map them as overlapping.

I mention this because I did a quick review of your changes and noticed this in osm.org/node/11758778179

Thanks!
joel56dt

Hi Aspen20,

Welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Can you help me understand why you removed this? It looks like it was correctly mapped to me.

Thanks,
joel56dt

I think cuisine=japanese is a better tag here. Their menu is primarily Japanese food other than sushi (is there even sushi on their menu?)