I saw earlier today that the point of connection of this foot path (red dash) and the cycle / walk path (blue dash) is not directly underneath Clementi Ave 6 (as it was previously indicated on OSM), but rather on the west of Clementi Ave 6. I tried to make this change on OSM, and adjusted the surrounding paths accordingly based on what I saw.

I believe some of these condo roads might be car parking aisles. Would be great if these roads can be tagged with service = carpark aisle too! :)

Some others in the OSM community shared with me that it would be good for condo roads which are parking spaces to have service = parking aisle. I think the condo roads might be too overemphasised if those which are actually car parking aisles don’t have the service = carpark aisle tag. At low zooms I find that these roads largely obscure the condo features.

To better reflect the function and reality of these parking aisles, and also to adjust the emphasis of these roads. At low zooms, I find that this condo can largely be obscured by these roads, which I think is not what is desired also.

I think some of these roads should be parking aisles for underground car parking spaces! Would be great if service=parking_aisle is added for the roads which are parking aisles :)

I recall these roads at Milliena Square are basement carparks, primarily carpark aisles for cars to park. Would recommend they should be tagged as service=parking_aisle 🙂

Specifically just the small green park beside Eurasian Heritage Gallery

Hi @minh_nguyen, ok, thank you for letting me know!

I mean I noticed there was such a footpath which connected the Rail Corridor and Bukit Merah bus interchange. Just walked past there this evening :)

Dear junior20,

Could you share the reasons for doing this changeset?

I find that this changeset is inaccurate and doesn't reflect reality.

1) Hong Lim Park has been tagged as forest. Although Hong Lim Park has some trees and covers, it is not a forest. It is more a park which has events every now and then.
2) The Singapore River has been added with park features which extend on both sides of the river. I just walked Singapore River earlier this evening. First, some parts of the Singapore River do have parks on both sides, but not all parts. Second, the proportion is way off. In reality, the river is much wider than the parks, not the other way around. I don't think it's right to make the parks dominate the Singapore river, while the Singapore river then becomes very thin on the map.

Please share your reasons, or revert these edits. Thank you!

Ok thx!

If not the entire Caspian condo is covered by all these thick road displays and can be hard to view, especially at low zoom levels. I agree that roads are critical data, but their display should not come at the expense of almost completely obscuring the building and condo features (especially at low zoom levels)

Apparently the Google Street View for this area is completely outdated as well! Have submitted a report to Google for them to review the Google Street View.

Would appreciate if other mappers, especially those more experienced, can review the pathways drawn on this area! I have been frequently walking here recently and I don't think these path displays here are 100% accurate. I've tried adding some paths and features which exist in reality but are missing from OSM.

When editing, I noticed there were many pathways listed as "demolished" in the editor*

Also when editing, they were many pathways that were listed as "demolished". Is there any value in keeping these pathways that are labelled "demolished"? If not, I would suggest that we remove them so that the map is more clean cut and not cluttered. We also wouldn't want to get confused with paths that actually don't exist in reality anymore.

Hi Andy, ok no worries and noted.

Hi Andy, sorry and noted. Appreciate if you can help rectify it. Thank you!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170874975

Appreciate if you can help to correct and rectify it, especially if you know better. Thank you!

Sorry Andy, it was unintended. Thanks for letting me know!

I agree and am ok with adding key routes back, especially those that are essential for navigation. I agree with GrabSG_Zack and GrabSG_AndyAng that it’s important, too.

What I hope and appreciate moving forward is that we have discretion when mapping and perhaps no need to map out every single carpark pathway in detail if it doesn’t help in map navigation. Ultimately, those are that driving to malls might also be walking around the mall areas after they park their vehicles. If the map is too bloated with many heavy road inlays, it might be not helpful for them, too.

If we can all be mindful not to make the map look too bloated with excessive details (i.e. overmapping), I believe we will all win.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/171233115