Hello ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy,

Our team is conducting pedestrian mapping in the area, and we noticed that you added traffic signal nodes (such as node/12851072628) near crossings, which appear to represent the pedestrian crossing signals. They are currently tagged with traffic_signals=signal, but this seems to be more of a vehicle-focused signal tag. From the wiki, it looks like traffic_signals=pedestrian_crossing might be a better fit.

Would it be ok with you if we update these when we come across them?

- VLD157

Hello everyone,

I have mapped all of the driveways I could verify along this section of Beckenham Hill Road in changeset/178062300. Hope this helps!

Thanks, VLD157

Hello KelsonV,

At the intersection of Clark Lane and Phelan Lane, you added crossing:island=yes to a few of the crossing way segments, which conflicts with the ‘no’ value you had previously added to the nodes. It seems like this may have been accidental, so I wanted to let you know just in case.

way/1452454240
way/1452454241
way/1452454239

Best Regards,
VLD157 / Callista

Hello Phil / trigpoint,

The user VLD295 is no longer working with our team; however, I can respond on their behalf. Upon reviewing the changeset here, it appears that the modification to the oneway tag may have been a mistake. I see that you already made the appropriate updates to the features; Thank you for your assistance, and I apologize for any inconvenience this edit may have caused.

Happy mapping!
VLD157

Hi rskedgell,

Thanks for your feedback on this changeset. I’ve made edits to resolve the issues you mentioned. These can be found in changeset changeset/171518684 . The tag crossing:markings=surface was removed from the cycleway crossings to prevent conflicts with crossing=unmarked. I added the surface tags you suggested to replace it. Additionally, the traffic calming tags were re-added to the nodes they were on before. I believe I completed all the necessary fixes here, but if there is anything else please feel free to make further updates. Thank you, VLD157

Hello Udarian,

I understand your concern regarding the sidewalk continuing straight through the crossings. However, the purpose of the geometry split in this context is to show where vehicle cross-traffic is expected over the footway. To better indicate that the sidewalk is uninterrupted, perhaps in the future we could add the tag crossing:continuous=yes (crossing:continuous=*) to the crossing segments. Would you agree with this approach?

-VLD157

Hello Udarian,

I understand your concern regarding the sidewalk continuing straight through the crossings. However, the purpose of the geometry split in this context is to show where vehicle cross-traffic is expected over the footway. To better indicate that the sidewalk is uninterrupted, perhaps in the future we could add the tag crossing:continuous=yes (crossing:continuous=*) to the crossing segments. Would you agree with this approach?

-VLD157

Hello Jarek,

This mapper is no longer active with our team, but I can respond on her behalf.

The most likely reason that the tag was removed from this location is that it was placed on an intersect node with Cartwright Ave - our team member may have thought that this was incorrect since there is a valid crossing on that same road immediately to the west, very close by. (It does not appear that her edit was caused by a tool suggestion).

If your original edit was meant to indicate no crossing across Dufferin Street here, perhaps we can add a new node just to the north and/or south of node node/432744847 to add the crossing=no tag to, that way it will more directly show that it is for Dufferin Street.

Please let me know if this edit would be acceptable.

Thanks, VLD157

Hi rskedgell,

Thank you for the feedback, I’ll keep this in mind going forward.

-VLD157

Hi jonildarevila,

I noticed that you’ve added many names to buildings in the area of Hinolaso which seem like they might be personal residences. In OSM this type of naming is considered a privacy issue (see osm.wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information )
If they are personal names, can you please remove the name tag to protect the privacy of the residents? Thank you.

Hello Areesha123,

I was looking at changeset/156265595 and noticed that you have other recent changesets that are similar. I am curious what source was used to make these additions?

Hello manalnaseem123,

I was looking at changeset/156285683 and noticed that you have many other recent changesets that are similar. I am curious what source was used to make the additions?

Hello Allison P,
Thank you for pointing out our mistake here- I have updated to feature to correct the tagging.

Thank you very much for the suggestion!

The issue has been resolved. See changeset/146832844.

Hello SUMAYYA 23,
I am reaching out regarding your recent edits to ways 260448259, 1241035635, and 1241035634. These are part of multiple boundary relations, and now that highway tags have been added to them, they are causing invalid overlap with other features that the path intersects with. The highway tag does not seem correct for these sections (and the bridge added to 1241035635 also). Can you please resolve the issue?
Thanks,
VLD157

Thank you both for reaching out. I appreciate the advice of using the Geoportal2: street names / nazwy ulic layer as a reference in the future. I will be more careful about such situations going forward.

Hi Yunkers,
The road name was added in changeset/140541024 by user Tytko; I had only reverted the removal of the road (Removed in changeset/140773674) since it is visible in imagery. Thanks for reaching out and I hope that Tytko is able to help answer your question.

Hi MxxCon,
Thank you for reaching out to bring this to my attention. I'll keep it in mind going forward. The crossings at this intersection are updated now with the traffic_signals tag.

Thank you for the feedback. Unfortunately we do not currently have a way to filter out specific words for specific areas, but will take this info into consideration for future edits in the UK.