I acknowledge your input and have reinstated the traffic signals tags for this crossing.

Thank you for your feedback,
VLD319

Hi Willkmis,
Thank you for your question. According to recent ground imagery, there are no pedestrian-specific traffic signals installed for this shorter crossing- they are only functioning for the longer segment. The “uncontrolled” value is appropriate here as it indicates that the crossing is marked but does not have any pedestrian signal control. The vehicular signals are accounted for by node node/3372448432. Please reach out with any further questions, thank you!
Thanks,
VLD319

Hello rskedgell,

I apologize for any inconvenience. I have extended and connected the footways to address the issue. Changeset #178027339.

Thanks, VLD319

Hi Udarian,

Thank you for letting me know about this mistake. I’ve reverted the changeset to restore the cycleway and sidewalk to the previous setup, which I see now is more accurate for the situation.

Happy Mapping,
VLD319

Hi Baloo_Uriza,

It appears that the tag for name=South Denver Avenue West was removed from way/15049115, way/80378527, and way/263275340 in this changeset. Looking at the history I see that you just updated the name for this road in a previous changeset and this removal may have been unintentional. Would you agree with re-adding the name tag to these ways?

Thanks,
VLD319

Thank you for the clarification. I understand and will not add foot=no tags going forward unless there is specific signage present prohibiting foot access.

Hi Pete,

I added foot=no tags here because foot traffic seemed meant to stay on the designated sidewalks next to this cycleway; the cycleway portion itself did not appear intended for pedestrians. I understand your concern regarding the absence of clear signage. Feel free to update the relevant ways as needed.

Thanks, VLD319

Hello Pete,

The foot=no tags that I added here were were meant to support pedestrian safety; All of the cycleway sections I added the tag to were in the roadway where it would be unsafe and unsuitable for foot traffic to walk (especially as there are designated crossings for pedestrians already at this intersection), so I thought that foot=no would be applicable. I do understand your point regarding the absence of explicit signage, so you are welcome update these features as you see fit.

Thanks, VLD319

Hello Pete,

Thank you for the information. My purpose here was only to fill in missing pedestrian ways, so the bicycle access was not my main focus. If you wish to include details regarding bicycle access to the sidewalks, please feel free to do so.

Thanks, VLD319

Description should say: Added marked zebra crossing tags to crossing way