Thanks, I wasn't aware of this. I added some additional explanation on the forum.

Hi Matt, just trying to understand what you were trying to fix here. It looks like you changed the building=fire_station to amenity=fire_station, which is incorrect.

Thanks,
Joel

Okay that makes sense. Thanks.

Thanks for adding these businesses. Welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Hi ocwl, for my learning: why split the road segments like these were?

osm.org/way/1215130725
osm.org/way/1215130727

Thanks!
Joel

I have a bookmark set to osm.org/history#map=12/49.2493/-123.0186

I regularly review the changes in the Vancouver area and I'm not just commenting on your work. It may feel like I am only commenting on your work but you can ask any other frequent editor in the area and they will know I have commented on their work. TBH, I find reviewing the local edits helpful for me to learn how to improve how I map and helpful for me to coordinate with how/what other mappers are doing. After all, OSM is a community project so it makes sense that the community has some dialogue.

Thanks for repairing this. I only realized I was doing this after I had finished a few.

Cool OSM/wiki tool! I will be checking this out in more detail.

Nice work! Thank you for adding these.

A tip: once you have drawn a building, you can select it and press the Q key to 'square up' any angles that are close to 90 degrees. It cleans up how the buildings look since most will have 90 degree corners.

Hi Muzzle, I don't see how these are parks. Can you help me understand? I think this has been mistagged.

Thanks,
Joel

Thanks for updating it. I like to check out what other people are doing to try to avoid rework. I have improved my mapping a lot by learning how other people do it.

👍 thanks.
My nitpick: I would avoid naming features like 'Undercover Area'. That might better fit as a description= than a name=

Hi ocwl, I am wondering what you intended by crossing=pedestrian_signals. I don't see this tag value documented anywhere.

This crossing does not have any signals, just flashing lights. Vehicles must stop regardless of the flashing lights if pedestrians (or bicycles) are present. I believe crossing=uncontrolled is most accurate.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Joel

Thanks for the explanation. I can get on board with that.

Joel

Hi nyan,
I'm wondering what you mean "cluttering connections". I would like to better understand your motivations for this change so I can keep it in mind for my future mapping. In general, I believe it is better to explicitly map features (like bike paths) so they can have more detail (like crossing markings, two-stage-turns, width) but I understand there are trade offs.
Thanks,
Joel

Thanks for fixing this (and adding the explanation). I had previously misunderstood the guidelines for drawing intersections so I am sure there are several more like this. I have recently been working on improving intersection details in Vancouver so I hope to fix the rest of them when I see them.

@WoodWoseWolf thank you for trying to fix this and submitting to the DWG.

As an aside, how did you identify this? Are you specifically looking for this type of Pokemon Go vandalism?

Thanks,
Joel

Thanks!

Hi ocwl, I was about to add these bike paths as separately mapped ways until I saw your note and thought I should reach out.

Since we have mapped the rest of the bike paths in Vancouver as separate ways, I think it would be better to maintain consistency and do the same here. Any idea what in particular was confusing the routers? I would like to take another stab at this.

Thanks,
Joel