I have deleted "Toronto (city)" in changeset/69438590

It seems to me that most other such labels can probably be deleted as well (Kingston's is in the middle of a lake) but I don't know details about these other cities and some of the relations have had changes since, so I'll leave it to local or more experienced mappers.

Sorry, I meant Walmer, not Widmer. Got confused with the street between Peter and John.

Hello,

What is intended to be the meaning of the circular way way/680992979 which has only
addr:street=yes as a tag? That it's an urban area? But the urban area here is much larger.

About the 510C, I passed by the Oxley @ Charlotte stop that it should be using (will be updating that area shortly) and the streetcar stop sign there says:

"September to June: No evening service Monday to Friday, no late evening service Saturday, Sunday or holidays. June to September: AM rush hours only Monday to Friday"

It doesn't exactly match well with the schedules posted on TTC website, and the schedules on the website make more sense in that TTC might want to keep 510s making turns out of the way of 504 cars especially during rush hours and frankly the extra run to Queens Quay probably doesn't take that much time but helps people at Cityplace. But that's the sign.

Individual schedules http://www.ttc.ca/Schedule/schedule.jsp?Route=510S&Stop=s.b._on_Spadina_Ave_at_Dundas_St_West_South_Side have only a few 510C runs in the evening turning back at King. I don't know if they actually run like that, could camp out at King and Spadina in the evening one day and check. But until they actually fully drop the 510C King designation we can probably keep it.

The wheelchair=limited might be left over from the initial roll-out, for example at Nassau node/393549550/history it was added in September 2014 and not changed since. TTC shows the route and every stop as accessible so I think it's pretty safe to upgrade to wheelchair=yes. If you want to double-check in survey, check for the blue wheelchair symbols on stop poles.

So, checking the wiki pages public_transport=stop_position and public_transport=platform it is pretty clear that shelter, departures_board, etc are recommended on the platform. I had not actually realized that, so I might have mistagged a few. I think it might also have been that I re-purposed the tram_stop node as the stop_position, so it kept the shelter tags it had.

Double checking I see some stops where I put shelter and wheelchair tags on both stop_position and platform, like relation/9465080. I don't think the duplication hurts much (only thing would be potential for error if the shelter is removed and the tag is changed on one but not the other) so might as well tag on both?

But thanks for noticing, I hadn't realized and hadn't thought about it much. Will adapt going forward.

What do you think of a project to make the 510 relations fully PTv2 - with one relation per direction and full tagging? I've been thinking of trying to do a comprehensive Spadina update for that - the tracks are all split and stops seem well mapped only needing some platforms (and possibly double-checking announced names at Queens Quay and Spadina intersection). Having a route as PTv2 would give us "final" validation that the tagging we've been using works.

If you care about rendering on openstreetmap-carto, you can do railway=platform instead of railway=tram_stop on the public_transport=platform to get a platform rendered and no two stop markers. I don't think it's a firm requirement, so only if you choose, but it might make sense particularly for the RoW lines.

Hello,

We shouldn't tag future stations as railway=station because that tag is for active stations where you can catch a train. It should probably be something like railway=proposed + proposed=station.

The glued ways are very annoying yes. What I found works for me in JOSM is: 1) Ctrl-F and search for "railway"; 2) click on the street/tram in question, it should select the streetcar way; 3) press G to unglue the whole way at once, in the dialog select to give tags and memberships to existing nodes; 4) before doing anything else, click-and-drag on the way and move it onto one of the tracks (or more generally offset from the highway). Doing this gives me the existing way, although with all-new nodes, in a reasonable position, and I then adjust the geometry (because the nodes are new, they can be deleted/recreated as convenient).

I do not know of a way to transfer history in JOSM (beyond what "replace geometry" in Utilsplugin2 does, but that doesn't seem applicable here) but would love to find out as well. That, and "undo changes to this one object which I changed by accident 40 changes ago". I found the "unglue whole way" function by blind-trial-and-error myself...

When actually splitting a way, JOSM initially asks what part should get the history, but you can save a default answer.

Nice progress with this! Tooling / bikeshedding note: it might have been nice to retain and reuse way/30679544/history to potentially improve history browsing? I've been trying to reuse the existing railway=tram ways, though to be honest don't know if it makes much of a difference.

Hi,

You changed a foot path to an abandoned rail line. Do you know the area? Is the former rail line now a public footpath? If yes it should have a highway=path in addition to railway=abandoned, to have it show as a path that can now be used by pedestrians. Do you know where the path connects to other streets or roads? If you have any information, commenting on note/1585085 or notes linked from there would be much appreciated.

I also have no idea how I ended up "editing" way/667697356 - sorry!

This got slightly messy with conflicts with Nate_Wessel's edits on College Street and of the 505 and 504 relations around Dundas West station. Hopefully nothing broke...

That looks good I think. Oh I also saw https://osmand.net/blog/guideline-pt posted recently and it seems to match that as well. Oh, when upgrading the whole 506 to ptv2, membership of the route relation might need to be updated as well - node/3584751593 should probably be platform in both stop_area and route, and node/6372373322 should probably be added to the route relation as stop. But that's not as critical while we have one relation for both 506 directions.

Yeah I've been slowly splitting the tracks, it's not too bad and gets me around the city :). Currently working on intersections of Spadina and tracks from Bathurst to McCaul. It does clear up things - my favourite fact (to be double-confirmed in survey) is that Coxwell loop only allows exiting to north on Coxwell, not onto Queen Street - wouldn't know that from current mapping! I can continue on that and finish the system eventually, hopefully this still this decade. The way the tracks are currently glued to the highways is kind of annoying as well - e.g. the former track on Lansdowne way/9454827 ended up being kept in your changes. "G" to unglue in JOSM and then drag them off to the side a bit...

Don't have local examples, sorry. I've just been looking at Berlin, because of past experience and because I figure that if anyone got it detailed correct it's the Germans. Over there the streetside stops are tagged like relation/5780880 and RoW stops like relation/5824731 or when mapped as area relation/8450284

At the risk of sounding annoying like "it's better in Europe" I think just adopting the Berlin scheme is a decent option if we don't have better ideas

Thank you. I updated those and a couple more problems (like a leftover "Collage" misspelling) in changeset/68624921

Hello, any news on this? I am planning to delete node/6182594235 - am I missing something about its purpose and placement?

Hello,

Here are some more lane names to correct:

way/458702564 says "Street Helens" rather than "Saint Helens"
way/83327467 misspelled name
way/13821698 missing "Saint" in "Saint Clarens"
way/462556813 says "West Clarens" instead of "Saint Clarens"
way/26139878 is unlikely to be named "Lane North Dufferin Park East", something is missing there
way/8111629 misspelled should be Yarmouth
way/8111625 misspelled should be Yarmouth
way/8111606 misspelled should be Yarmouth
way/9105688 missing "Lane" in the beginning according to your naming scheme
way/7913156 misspelled "Aveneu", and anyway "Avenue" should not be there according to your naming scheme
way/7913173 misspelled "Aveneu", and anyway "Avenue" should not be there according to your naming scheme
way/7913149 misspelled "Christie"

way/7913138 likely mis-capitalized "Deborah brown Lane"

way/9105667 mis-capitalized name
way/8111609 mis-capitalized name
way/8111612 mis-capitalized name
way/8589541 mis-capitalized name
way/126855130 mis-capitalized name
way/8111604 mis-capitalized name
way/462518646 mis-capitalized name

Thank you

I'd have put the label for St. Paul's node/6269087402 somewhere more like north of St. Clair West station. Currently it's quite offset from the centre of the riding.

My understanding was that PTv2 was a tightening and improvement of previous public transit tagging, so I personally wouldn't put version=2 on something that doesn't fully conform to ptv2. I guess it could be a preference thing.

With mapping platforms/shelters as ways like way/678033452, are you intending to show the shelter, or the platform? I ask because that particular one seems drawn a bit bigger than the shelter seen in imagery.

Also to be honest I'm not really a fan of amenity=shelter on ways with public transit tagging because amenity=shelter is such a generic tag - or at least let's have a shelter_type=public_transport on it.

Should we try to come up with guidelines on how to do transit stops in Toronto? In other cities I was seeing a linear way with public_transport=platform + bench=yes + shelter=yes and a node with highway=bus_stop/railway=tram_stop for a virtual (streetside) "platform"; or area with public_transport=platform + area=yes + shelter=yes for actual platforms (like on streetcar RoWs and safety islands). Will that work for ptv2 in Toronto?