I deleted the address lines on East Main which were clearly wrong: ones that referenced addresses below 160 East Main. We know these are wrong because the bus station is at 160 East Main and they were well east of the bus station. But it looks like the rest of East Main addressing is also wrong, please see note/1631549 to help.

JOSM messed up source tag, it should be: "survey 2018-12-26; Bing and Esri imagery; alignments off Bing imagery"

sidewalk=separate and crossing=no tags are intended to attempt to tell data consumers not to use roads for pedestrian routing

What exactly is the stars system used here? What is the source?

way/8589544 misspelled
way/458585544 wrong
way/15578085 inconsistent "Saint"
way/9153056 formatting
way/462496327 misspelled
way/462496326 formatting

... and that's just from a quick look on 20 of the 104 ways edited in this changeset

18 Stafford corrected in changeset/65644827

JOSM keeps on messing up source tag for me. Source is survey 2018-12-18 and Esri imagery.

I notice I tagged 18 Stafford way/58335955 with height 21 m and 11 levels. That was my surveying notes, so it's not a typo, but one of these is obviously wrong. Will re-survey and correct.

Thanks! Can you follow-up in note/958633? One of your colleagues is asking about the name of a way which you changed from highway=service to highway=residential.

Hello,

what is the source for the road names for way/130348904/history ?

Source is own survey in late October 2018. JOSM left over wrong source tag. Sorry for confusion.

Source tag is wrong, I forgot to delete previous value from JOSM. Please disregard source tag.

Thank you for sorting out the paths in this area. Much appreciated :)

also visible in Mapillary https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=43.63751944444444&lng=-79.4346&z=17&focus=photo&pKey=5qml5UkOOmYZmkN3Zo01xg

Hi, could you take a look at note/1598552 about the side ramps off the Bayview-Bloor Ramp?

Hello, you made one roadway of Father David Bauer Drive a secondary highway way/143668956, but the roadway in opposite directory remained a tertiary highway way/143668957, as did the remainder of the road. Did you mean to do this?

Thank you for the info, it is appreciated. I sent over a link to OSM's Data Working Group, they are likely in better position to make decisions about these edits.

Thank you for the background. I'm still a little unsure about this edit, maybe you can give some information about the following?

Is there any way to tell if this is part of an organized project, or what might be called a "challenge", to tag accessibility of Canadian bank branches?

Is it possible on wheelmap.org to contact original editors? Is it possible to tell who made the changes?

Unfortunately the addressing appears to be tragically bad. Just off the first page of edited nodes: node/5764250555 is somewhere in Alberta (area code 780) but placed in NYC, node/5764235857 area code 780 placed in UAE, node/5764172454 is for Saskatchewan but placed in Brisbane, node/5764189153 Saskatchewan on Long Island, node/5764161353 Sasketchewan in Colorado, node/5764158353 Saskatchewan in rural Australia, node/5764130155 in the right province but ~1000 km off, node/5764117253 BC in Washington.

On third page of changed nodes we have nodes intended to be in Quebec. At least I didn't see any of these in Australia. But for example node/5763959054 should probably be near node/715928900 which means it's about 12 km off - subtly wrong, but those are the worst!

node/5763941655 has missing street name so it's probably in wrong location - searching on the internet suggests that it's Boulevard Arthur-Sauvé. Similar deal with node/5763937853. node/5763841153 duplicates already existing node/2437893262, and node/5763805954 duplicates node/496143392.

The trend continues in more recent edits, for example node/5796377255 is about 1.5 km off.

Additionally, as these span the country, they are extremely unlikely to come from one person. At most they are entered by several people. But it would take at least half a dozen to have surveyed all of these in person. Is it supposed to advertising? A commercial service adding companies to OSM - poorly?

As you might be able to tell, I'm concerned that this is basically taking information from a website and manually adding it to OSM - not very carefully at that. Adding to the fact that _most_ of the nodes I've seen in this changeset are in the wrong place, I'm really leaning towards recommending this for wholesale redaction. If we don't - who will go through and fix these nodes, and the other ones created through this account?

Hey Mike,

The note note/1446752 suggests that the one-way stretch on Dawson extends one block further west. If you have a moment, could you confirm/double check, write a brief message, and make edits as/if needed?

User's other edits also appear to be partially wrong, e.g. node/5754257021