Changeset comment continued: where final layout was not clear from City imagery (because it shows the rebuild in progress) I left the cycleway tags in place (since it'll be either lane or better), and removed parking tags (because parking might not be there in the final layout).

Having passed through here last year, I am reasonably confident what's tagged now is not wrong, but I haven't done a detailed survey. Local surveys to add parking details and/or refine cycleways are welcome/appreciated.

(I removed the phone number because the company website now lists a different one. The address and email are still the same on the website.)

Hi, thank you for the response, I appreciate it.

My initial goal with the crossing=no tag was to instruct routers not to have pedestrians cross here, rather than e.g. to communicate with other mappers that there really isn't a crossing here.

Routers incorrectly routing on the road rather than the sidewalk and crossing the street in unsafe places rather than on crossing ways is still an issue today, e.g. osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=43.723463%2C-79.458302%3B43.722979%2C-79.456049 (and it's the same with all 3 routers on OSM.org: GraphHopper, OSRM, Valhalla)

But I think I see the issue you're pointing to: with a crossing=no tag at an intersection, a router can't know if they shouldn't route pedestrians along one street, along the other, or both. And in this case, routing along Dufferin Street would be valid, as long as the side of the street isn't changed.

And while I would say that a good pedestrian router shouldn't route along Dufferin Street itself given that sidewalks are mapped along it, equally, that good router wouldn't route along Dufferin Street to get anywhere from the T intersection.

So tagging the intersection itself crossing=no would be ambiguous for any router that attempts to read it, and not needed for a router that correctly prefers sidewalks.

And tagging crossing=no north and south of the intersection would only be useful for communication with other mappers, since it wouldn't change the situation for the routers. And at least in Toronto we haven't had a problem with mappers mapping crossings that don't exist, so I don't think it's particularly important to do so.

So I don't think a change here is really necessary now.

Thanks again!
--Jarek

As a point of interest, this changeset and the related changeset/164738300 are the result of about 35 survey notes and 20 photos

source was also a mix of Esri and Mapbox aerial imagery, sorry for missing it in the source tag

Hey there, quick question. In this changeset you've deleted a crossing=no tags at
node/432744847/history

I was wondering if this was because a tool was complaining about them?

I've used crossing=no tags to reinforce where there is no pedestrian crossing at an intersection, because I found that pedestrian routers sometimes tend to leave sidewalks and use roadways to cross a bigger street at locations where there's actually no crossing. This usage is also supported by the OSM wiki: crossing=no?uselang=en

So if a tool is complaining or not supporting these, that would be good to know.

Hello,

This is a signalized crossing, with traffic signals and markings. It is a couple of years old so it's not visible on all imageries yet - it is on the City of Toronto imagery which is available in JOSM. Please check OSM history to read changeset comments before changing signalized crossings to unmarked ones.

Hi andrewpmk,

In this changeset (a long time ago) you mapped the channelized section of Mimico Creek around the 401/427 interchange as a drain, for example way/19454008/history#map=16/43.67463/-79.57007

I am now discussing remapping it as waterway=river, on the reasoning that, even channelized, it is part of the river: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/is-a-channelized-river-still-a-river/127905

Please let me know if you have any opinions on this.

Changes to mark St. Thomas Expressway extension as under construction and downgrade of Centennial Avenue have been reverted in changeset/163821836 and changeset/163822024

hgv=destination, maybe.

Possibly most hgv=no in Toronto (tagged based on the "crossed-out truck" sign) should be hgv=destination? But definitely this one, since it's a prominent use

Is there really hgv=no on Gladstone way/15803443 - right next to the Cadbury factory that sends out shipments via truck?

oh yeah, I removed the alt_name:fr because it's misspelled oops ("Linge" vs "Ligne")

Hey, so, as a follow-up, I posted about this on the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/announcement-request-for-comments-naming-sidewalks-in-toronto/124205 and no one in Toronto seems much interested and international commentariat is against it, so I won't be doing it anymore

Oh yeah, it hasn't been used in Toronto before. I saw it's done in Montreal and I think we should start it here too, so I started doing it and I saw PcMouse1 joined in. Having sidewalks as separate ways but with no names makes routing basically visual-only. Are you okay with me putting these names back, then? We should probably announce/document it somewhere to reduce confusion.

Hi,
We've been adding the names to sidewalk so that pedestrian routing would give actually useful directions, including the street names to walk down rather than "walk on walkway". Is there a particular reason you don't think they should be there?

Hi,
I added the names to sidewalk so that pedestrian routing would give actually useful directions, including the street names to walk down rather than "walk on walkway". Is there a particular reason you don't think they should be there?

Hey madbats,

So this change, for which you wrote "High Park zoo isn't considered a "zoo", even though it's in the name", actually made one of the animal enclosures a second zoo, while keeping the existing zoo. Presumably that's not what you've meant? I can clean that up - but what do you think the High Park Zoo should be described as? I'll admit that it seems a zoo to me - there's animals on display. How would you describe it?

Cheers,
Jarek

I made the change in changeset/159978906 - thanks!

Here's more detail and reasoning on the changes. Please also check the earlier discussion in changeset/155375493

Use highway=pedestrian for ways that are wide, I would call them "boulevard-like", and used by both pedestrians and cyclists, and also wide enough for two-tracked vehicles, and used by the trackless train. Also for Spring Road north of Centre Road, which in practice is almost entirely pedestrian, and much more pleasant to walk on than you'd expect from a highway=service.

Use highway=cycleway with foot=yes for some other ways that are wide and comfortable to cycle on and in fact ridden on fairly frequently. (This also matches the iD preset for multi-use path)

Remove name Cherry Hill Trail from parts that are not near Cherry Hill. This name is not signed. I can believe it has some use, but surely only where there's cherries, not all the way down to Colborne Lodge Drive.

OK thanks. We have the gate at Davenport node/9602055914 - perhaps that one should have access=private? (currently it's only tagged for deliveries) And access=permissive and ownership=private might be better tagging for the roads.