OpenStreetMap logo OpenStreetMap

Changeset When Comment
147028026

Thanks for the info!

147028026

I think street_side should be on public road only, otherwise it is hard for parsers to distinguish between private/customers and public road parkings. But maybe the acccess=customers is enough there.

Fast checking the parking page on OSM wiki got me thinking that it is way more complicated than that and we should read it again thoroughly. :-)

147028026

PLease keep parkings connected to roads, otherwise routing to them is undefined. Thanks!

145884813

There is no such chalet/rest area there. Reverting

145812774

Hi!

Please use bicycle=dismount for these paths, to avoid routing problems (some routing engines may block bicycle routing for small segments and create long detours for bicycle=no). It is almost always permitted to walk alongside a bicycle, except in some indoor areas. Thanks!

145478822

I think at least some of these exit names were legit. Can you explain how you decided that the names were not correct? Did you survey and verify with the signs themselves?

145056902

Are you sure the sidewalk has become a cycling path there? A second unpaved footpath is present around the trees but I do not see any cycling path. Can you confirm this is up to date information?

144750336

Super merci! À bientôt!

144750336

SVP, garder access=private pour les chemins à accès limité ou les chemins privés, car access=foot empêche les calculateurs de chemin d'envoyer quelqu'un à cet endroit. Il est tout-à-fait légitime pour un employé de vouloir lancer un calcul de chemin vers un lieu privé, surtout lorsque le lieu est loin d'un chemin public. C'est le travail des calculateurs de mettre un avertissement qui mentionne que le chemin est privé. access=no doit être réservé aux chemins où absolument personne ne peut aller (pont brisé, route non utilisable, inondée ou détruite). SVP ne mettre access=no que pour les routes qui sont définies dans le wiki:
For example, a stretch of roadway may be closed with a "Road Closed" sign and barricades due to a serious damage to a road or a long-term construction project. There may be a physical reason why no one would realistically be able to traverse the road.

Si vous vous opposez è cette définition, demandez un concensus sur la liste Canada ou dans un forum local.

Merci de votre support et de votre comréhension

144644286

It does not change a thing for me and for routing, but someone later on may change it back to use_sidepath for the reason that is is not forbidden. See:
foot=no

144644286

Yes I understand, that's why I put use_sidepath on the whole roundabout. foot=no means it is forbidden by law, which it is not. Only motorways in Quebec are forbidden to foot/bicycle traffic.

144644286

Technically not forbidden for pedestrian though. I have put use_sidepath so routing engines do not route pedestrian on the road, but there is no sign prohibitting pedestrian to walk there.

144343170

Routing engines will not route cars there when the correct access tag is set (access=private or access=customers)

144343170

Please keep service roads there. OpenStreetMap is very clear on that: map what is there, even if private or customers-only. Then add the correct access tags: access=private or access=customers

Are you the owner of this business?

Please read this wiki page for more info (even if this page talks about trails and tracks, it is even more true for service roads): osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

144096800

Perfect!

144160857

Hi! Please keep the POIs (shops, amenities) as near as possible to their main entrance, because otherwise, when we analyse accessibility for some of these POIs, they could snap to a backside road instead of the main door, which could make data analysis incorrect. Thanks!

90668801

Oh, I see, thanks!

90668801

Yes no problem! There does not seem to be any information in the wiki on shop=horseback and shop=equestrian

144096800

I don't know, I just added connections to roads so the paths that were already mapped were connected to the rest of the network to make sure they don't create unconnected islands. Looking at the current Géodésie Québec aerial imagery, most of them seem legit though, but could have been removed recently (I checked photos from 2018 and 2022). Feel free to remove any that you confirm are not usable now.

143862207

was*