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?)

Hi Zarr, I just noticed one of the crossing you mapped looks like it is based on outdated imagery. It looks like the Esri World imagery is more up to date than the Bing imagery. I'm not good about checking this myself. I just wanted to identify it - hopefully it helps your mapping efforts. Thanks!

osm.org/changeset/147758252

Check out the wiki page for mechanical edits: osm.wiki/Automated_edits

A good start would be to post on the Canada subforum of the OpenStreetMap community site: https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/ca/95

I think the community would be supportive but I have never made a large edit like this so I don't know.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for contributing! This is all great info that I see you have added. Let me know if you have any questions.

There is a great website that shows just vegetarian restaurants using OSM, not sure if you have seen it:
https://www.veggiekarte.de/?lang=en#14.0000/49.2388/-123.0476

Yes, thanks. These are just misspellings.

My mistake. Thanks for fixing this.

Hi feathered_ouul, thanks for updating the map!

Quick note: some of these 'crossing=marked' crossings are actually crossings with pedestrian signals so would be marked as 'crossing=traffic_signals'. For example: osm.org/node/3478231532

Also, I noticed a couple of crossings you marked as 'crossing=informal' when they would really be 'crossing=unmarked'. Informal crossings do exist but if they are at an intersection, they would just be unmarked.

Thanks!
Joel

Hi Enderbyte. The highway should not be split if there is no physical barrier between the two directions. None of the aerial of street level imagery shows a barrier - has this been added recently? Otherwise we may want to revert this changeset.

Hi Darren, it looks like you changed the address but not the location. Should the node for this amenity be relocated to Comox Street?