Hello,

Here are more names to correct:

way/69340663
way/69340659
way/69340656
(then resolve note/1718388 )

way/26139507
way/26139506
way/68515327
way/114687540
way/69340799
way/69340728
way/69340696
way/69340628
way/69340707
way/69340650
way/69340843
way/69340784
way/69340776
way/69340667
way/69340627
way/82576348

way/446074013
way/179214820
way/22713943
way/462328400
way/5647809
way/462328400
(St. Clair or Saint Clair not "Street Clair")

way/52007926 Saint Nicholas not Street Nicholas

way/462322017
way/462302066
way/83330703
way/83073409
way/34620980

Hello,

Unfortunately here as well there are several mis-capitalizations and errors:

way/35351634, way/36518312, way/36518326, way/35349342 start with lowercase - please resolve note/1796443 when updated
way/462094737 "south"
way/69706599 "south"
way/462065486 "Lane East Clinton Harbord" - doesn't match Geobase, missing direction
way/8099899 "Lane East Clinton Harbord" - doesn't match Geobase, missing direction
way/22788167 "college"
way/462050986 is this really named "Lane West Oakwood West Oakwood" - Geobase indicates another name
way/462050985 is this really named "Lane West Oakwood East Oakwood" - Geobase indicates another name
way/32118974 "south" miscapitalized
way/462046152 name missing a direction
way/462046151 name misspelled "East"
(please resolve note/1770793 after these last two are updated)

Plus a few others that have been corrected already

derp, deleted cycleway=lane from way/557114975/history by accident...

Some of the streetcar and platform alignments are estimated, because they were under construction when the Esri imagery was taken. I saw all of these from ground level, so they're not _wrong_, but they might be a metre or two off.

I have retagged those stations in changeset/70448954 and changeset/70448805

Seems I accidentally dragged a bit of Richmond Street along with the lane. Sorry about that, will fix at some point.

at Highway 407 station way/671185119 we pray that the train comes? :) it got landuse=religious

Hello,

My understanding of boundary=administrative (searching for Canada) and osm.wiki/Canada_admin_level is that giving Edmonton admin_level=4 makes it its own province. The fact that it's a provincial capital is indicated with capital=4.

Can you confirm that Edmonton has in fact seceded? :) Or am I misreading the tagging guidance?

Thanks,
Jarek

this changeset has been discussed in talk-ca https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2019-May/009307.html

Ah alright, thanks. I'm not super familiar - is an inclinator kind of like a really small funicular railway? For moving people up a hill?

I'm guessing you might have searched the editor presets for "cable car" or something similar - but unfortunately the one shown in the iD editor as "Cable Car" is an aerial cable car.

Of the OpenStreetMap categories, funicular is probably the closest. I'll let you fix it, no big rush.

Extra tip: If it is something like a funicular, generally in OSM "forward is up". Currently that would have it going from 15 green up to 16 tee - if that is not correct, right-click the way and reverse it.

Hi Paul,

A while back, you added an aerial cable car (a gondola) at the Mississaugua Golf & Country Club: way/489344070

It is a straight line about 39 metres long, between the 15 green and the 16 tees.

Is there really a small aerial cable car there?

If not, do you know what might be in that location, and what it might have supposed to have been?

Thanks,
Jarek

I've also adjusted tracks I previously drew around Adelaide/Victoria - they didn't seem to match Esri now (or any imagery really) even though I tagged my initial drawing as based off Esri. Has Esri imagery shifted, or was I just crazy off?

Yes - but note that Andrew's edit was in 2011 and mine was in 2019 after I surveyed in 2019.

Hey Ezekiel,

Please read the note on way/112648294

The current state in real world matches Esri imagery but not Bing.

Your edit moved the path to match Bing which means it is now incorrect.

Could you please correct it? Thanks

Housekeeping: This changeset has been discussed in the "imports" mailing list, please see https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/2019-April/005967.html and follow-up messages.

Ah alright, that makes sense. Yeah the sub-meter accuracy is challenging, and it's not like a phone GPS will give us that resolution especially near to towers downtown. Maybe someone else has professional equipment and can give us a couple of readings to help guide the imagery... I guess City data is not yet license-cleared, if it even is accurate.

If I split and come to an imagery shift I'll leave a sharp transition as well, that's a good idea.

Hello,

What is the intended purpose of the area way/679612843 which you described as parking=lane? Your edit summary says "rough postal area of M5H" but this is not tagged on the area itself. If it is the postal area, what is the source of the information?

Thanks,
--Jarek

Hey Nate, one more question. Do you know/remember which imagery and offset settings you used for the streetcar track alignment on Queen around McCaul? I was looking to continue this but can't find anything that matches. Do you have an offset programmed and if so can you share it?

Right but there are parts that can connect two non-motorway links, like way/31122178 - in fact the entire route from T3 to Silver Dart, or the loop back from T1 to T3 way/347398399. Are these technically under freeway regulations? Is this even defined in law, or a legal grey area?

Hm, I might need to dig through Mapillary/OSC or survey to double check...

Hi Kevo, I noticed your past edit to airport link roads here. I recently made a note note/1702007 suggesting downgrading a whole bunch of the links that don't inescapably lead onto freeways to a lesser road class (some examples in the note). As you wrote here, several of these had and some still have foot=yes on them. Or are all the ways here currently tagged as motorway_link in fact explicitly forbidden to bicycles? If you have any thoughts on this could you comment on the note? Thanks!