Thanks for adding this!

I will have to come back to this to clean it up further

Heads up that the houses you added no longer exist. I removed them in osm.org/changeset/133573934

Oh I see you were the initiator of that thead, haha. I assume you are well familiar with the discussion then. (I am only aware of the discussion, not familiar the conclusion of the discussion)

I'm not sure this change to the name is appropriate. See the talk-ca mailing list discussion from a few months ago: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2022-December/thread.html

Hello, karaga, can you help me understand why you made this change?

Thanks,
Joel

Hello, can you help me understand the difference between building=stadium and building=grandstand? This looks more like a grandstand than a stadium to me.

Thanks

Just FYI, the tower you added (osm.org/node/10050527076) is a duplicate of another (osm.org/node/1285280395). I have merged the two osm.org/changeset/133536221

Hello, you made a duplicate of the Iskut River. Can you review this?

Hi ocwl,

Again, I appreciate the work you are doing. I just want to give you a heads up that you are undoing other user's work.

> They were already appearing on opencyclemap.com as bicycle crossings
From what I see, opencyclemap only shows bicycle routes, not bicycle crossings or cycleways.

> I don't care if it is marked as a foot or gravel path in OSM
You may not care but other users do. This is not your map but everyone's map so please respect that we should strive to represent the real world as accurately as possible.

> Just go change it yourself
I tagged these as pedestrian crossings prior to your edits. It is unreasonable to expect me to go back and fix your work, especially when I had already done so.

> please stop harassing me with your insistence for perfection
I am sorry you see this as harassment, it is definitely not my intention. As I noted earlier, I am not striving for perfection, just trying to prevent you from removing data from the map.

Thanks,
Joel

Hi ocwl,

It looks like you are still tagging pedestrian crossings as bicycle crossings. Can you please explain?

Thanks,
Joel

Hi Bo,

Great first changeset. Welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Yea, I agree. I'm a cyclist myself and I wish the city would provide more separated cycleways with bright crossings that make drivers aware of us. It is getting better, slowly.

Hi ocwl,

Whatever the iD editor (the web editor you are using to edit OSM data) says is a guide, the tags are the real data.

Personally, I do not know how to treat unmarked crossings. Setting them to bicycle=yes may be okay.

As for crossings that are marked for pedestrians but not cyclists, I believe setting bicycle=yes is incorrect. The wiki specifically says *=yes should only be used if cycling is legal, which it is not.

Regardless of what we think the city intends, my opinion is that what is on the ground is the reality that we must abide by.

I have made some changes where you have assigned bicycle=designated tags to crossings that do not permit bicycles.

Please consider what's on the ground as the truth (osm.wiki/Ground_truth)

Thanks,
Joel

Hello Spaghetti, why did you remove the capacity tag?

Did you see the source provided in the changeset that added this node? 100 is the correct value.

Thanks,
Joel

Hi ocwl,

I agree the crossings are part of the Deer Lake Parkway Urban Trail (the Deer Lake Urban Trail _relation_), but the crossings themselves (the _ways_) do not appear to be designated for bicycles.

I hate to be a stickler because you are doing good work. It's just that over the last couple of years I have been very particular about all the crossings I have mapped to make sure they reflect the ground truth regarding being designated for bicycles or not. Some intersections have a sign specifically (see https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2421402,-122.9683874,3a,15y,269.31h,92.74t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sCopDLT15gieAC5Fuduv-5w!2e0!5s20220701T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) but most will use specific road markings to show a crossing is intended for bicycle use (see https://quietly-image-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/item_122559_1280px_1eafbd28c7954084b8e44329f575b642.jpeg from https://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/signs-signals-regulations.aspx)

Just because a path is part of a bicycle route, does not necessarily mean it is designated for bicycles. I think the wiki says the same thing: osm.wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Ddesignated

Unfortunately, the laws in BC require cyclists to dismount at every pedestrian crossing, even if it is along a bicycle route. I have been mapping these crossings so it is clear to those who may be planning their bicycle journey that "legally" they will have to dismount at each intersection.

Sorry for the wall of text. Let me know what you think.

Joel

Hi ocwl, thanks for your ongoing efforts to get all the cycling infrastructure updated in the Lower Mainland. Amazing work.

I noticed that you added bicycle=designated to several crossings here along Moscrop. I have not seen any indication that these are designated for bicycles. Can you clarify?

Thanks,
Joel

Thanks for adding this!

I'm going to remove the name since you have already correctly identified it as a ping pong table

Hi Connor, thanks for adding this.

Since the driveway connects to a one-way road, it should be implicit that there is no left turn so I removed the turn restriction tag.

If 96 Ave were not one-way at this point, the turn restriction would be created as a 'Relation'. The wiki has a useful GIF showing how to do this in the iD editor: osm.wiki/Relation:restriction#iD

Hi ocwl, thanks for updating the bike lanes/paths.

>> Corrected duplication of bike path and cycle track
I'm not sure I agree that this was duplicated. When the cycle lane is separate from the road (via a barrier) I think it is best to map these as separate ways. Thoughts?