Hi ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy,

Our team typically prefers to use sidewalk:left/right/both=* since they are a bit more specific. However sidewalk=no is not deprecated and remains a valid option as well.

Wishing you a pleasant day too!
-VLD319

Thank you for bringing this specific location to my attention. I apologize if my previous comment was unclear; I was speaking more generally about our approach to this type of service road crossing, rather than this exact location.

Regarding the specific crossing you highlighted, the decision to add tags was based on visual evidence suggesting regular use such as multiple vehicles visible at the back of the building in aerial imagery (See 2020, 2023, and 2025 Oakland County Orthoimagery) as well as a sign visible in Mapillary ground imagery (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1382405392134567&focus=photo) to direct the larger trucks using this service way to the south entrance. Since these indicators suggest regular traffic flow on the service way, we felt the tags were appropriate.

However, we greatly value your on-the-ground perspective and are happy to defer to your judgment as a local concerning this location.

Best,
VLD319

Hello aighes,

For the reason you mentioned above, our team does not add crossings to any residential driveways. However, it is our standard to add crossings for service ways like these that provide access to businesses/other amenities. While some may still be considered very minor crossings, they generally experience more vehicular traffic than normal driveways, so it is preferred to have the crossing there for safety.

Thanks,
VLD319

Hi iandees,

I apologize for any inconvenience. Thank you for catching and resolving the dragged node! I appreciate your help and will do my best to avoid this issue in the future.

Happy mapping!
-VLD319

Hi ItsAlyx,

Thank you for reaching out. The footway link at North Colonial Avenue has been recovered in changeset/181680160. I appreciate your feedback regarding these links and will keep it in mind going forward!

Cheers,
VLD319

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