Thank you @RandomLipeño!

I have made the updates of amenity=parking_entrance and amenity=parking to the respective features. I also added a parking=multi_storey tag to [node/13038899930] since it could be confirmed by Mapillary and is mentioned in the amenity=parking_entrance wiki (amenity=parking_entrance).

I appreciate the context and your contributions here!

bellaroo

Hi RandomLipeño, thanks for reaching out!

I was aiming to make the parking garages more consistent and thought removing the roads would help clean up the data. I noticed the nearby parking=multi-storey feature (way/1323466091) wasn’t mapped internally, except for the service road connected to the amenity=parking_entrance (node/12246816795).

I do see now that, per the OSM wiki, further mapping can be done if someone can survey the inside of the garage based on the amenity=parking description (amenity=parking). Since the parking=multi-storey (parking=multi-storey) and parking=rooftop ((parking=rooftop) pages don’t explicitly mention internal mapping, I interpreted the standard approach to be tagging the feature area and entrance nodes only.

In your revision, the amenity=parking_entrance nodes I added were removed from the bus terminal feature that should also be updated to parking=multi-storey feature. I can go ahead and add those back in if you agree, unless you would like to add these back in?

Have a good day!
bellaroo

Correction: Source used was Maxar satellite imagery via MGP Pro 2025-01-19

Correction: Source used was Maxar satellite imagery via MGP Pro 2024-09-08

Correction: Source used was Esri World Imagery; Mapillary.

Correction:
Comment is "Added footway connection to Mall Aventura Santa Anita"
Source used was Esri World Imagery; Mapillary.

Hi 5m4u9,
Thank you for your question.

Members of our team are working on pedestrian connectivity and focused right now on Bolivia.

For [way/619269358](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/619269358), I added foot=no since the [Mapillary](https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&lat=-16.5117328&lng=-68.153459799972&z=17&pKey=929661531465122&x=0.5111354500390765&y=0.5059285779486546&zoom=0) confirmed that the way had no sidewalk pedestrian feature, and there was already modeled footway geometry to the north. I extended that footway connectivity to the secondary [way/619269362](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/619269362).

For [way/846845617](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/846845617), I added foot=no since there was already modeled footway geometry on the traffic_calming island and then extended the footway crossing geometry per this [Mapillary](https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-16.511605899972&lng=-68.1538031&z=18.528822848307087&x=0.32945511856782106&y=0.5286270790780735&zoom=0&pKey=2233558723700544&focus=photo) image.

For [way/1349250499](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1349250499), I left this without foot=no since [Mapillary](https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-16.511605899972&lng=-68.1538031&z=18.528822848307087&x=0.5472726080104197&y=0.5006069905933833&zoom=1.0777514372745451&pKey=600907198831867&focus=photo) confirms that there is sidewalk adjacent to the road.

In cases such as this, we are adding foot=no to segments of highway that are not for pedestrian use and we are ensuring that existing footways are modeled and adding footways when missing.

Let us know if you have any further questions on this.

Happy Mapping! :)

Correction: Source used was Maxar SecureWatch Imagery 2024-09-05