Hello, Baloo Uriza
My name is Gaurav, and I’m a mapper with the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for your feedback. I’ll be more cautious when uploading changesets and will ensure new ways are properly centered and split in a manner consistent with street naming conventions.

Thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Regards,
Gaurav

here is the changeset changeset/177034539#map=15/43.59410/-79.52759&layers=N

Hi Jarek,
We have made the necessary edits in this changeset. Let me know if any issues occur further.

Happy Mapping!
Thanks,
Gaurav

Hello, Udarian!
My name is Gaurav, and I’m a mapper in the OSM team at Lyft. Based on the most recent Lyft-owned aerial imagery https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TTHTGPXVufve--GTEkkVvMKWxYJvUySo/view?usp=sharing as of 15 may 2025, the remaining part of the area way/1435702828#map=17/25.501979/-80.399134&layers=N is still under construction and also we do not have any telemetry data inside this area. Because of this, we’re not able to modify or add road data there at this time.
If you have more recent sources or local information about this area, we would be grateful if you could update the map accordingly.
Happy mapping!

The screenshots will be available for a month. Please let me know if you are unable to view them within this timeframe – I could generate them once again.

Regards,

Hello, Udarian!
My name is Gaurav and I’m a mapper in the OSM team at Lyft.
Thank you for highlighting the issue. I accept the fact that pedestrian features should be considered during the road remodeling at this location. I just missed that by mistake. I will make sure not to make such mistakes in the coming future. Our Lyft-owned aerial imagery does not clearly show pedestrian streets, so I have only fixed the obviously incorrect crossing in this changeset: way/1259577869

Thank you again for highlighting the issue and apologies for the inconvenience.

Best regards!

Hello, ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy!
My name is Gaurav and I’m a mapper in the OSM team at Lyft.
Currently, within the scope of our projects, we do not incorporate access tags, with a few exceptions. I fully understand what you mean by "bypass traffic" and why access tags are beneficial for mapping. Thank you for your suggestion and for providing such a detailed explanation. Your approach appears logical; however, we are not confident that it aligns with the vision of the entire OSM community. Specifically, the use of a private tag for residential areas — how is prevalent this practice within OSM? We will discuss your proposal and may reconsider our existing policy. I have added access to the roads in the changeset changeset/170612720 as this is a relatively undisputed case. However, the process of reviewing the policy may take some time, and there is a possibility that we may adhere to the current policy. I appreciate your understanding in this matter.

Best regards!

Hello, cubbe8
I see that you have deleted my edits recently here (changeset/167405432). It is possible you have had more up-to-date evidences to verify it. As previously mentioned, I decided to add restriction as per recent imagery dated 2025-05-23. But if according to your information this turn restriction sign is no longer there, then it should indeed be removed. Thank you for noticing it. We are truly grateful for your invaluable contributions and dedication to the OSM.

Best regards!

Hello, cubbe8
My name is Gaurav and I’m a mapper in the OSM team at Lyft. I decide to add turn restriction on the road segments as per May Lyft-owned street-view imagery taken from Broadway 42.36259, -71.08408 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y1lhvOux6C7HdRyuHdTxgTg_yw1Xv9DU/view?usp=drive_link) where a 'no left turn' sign is clearly visible. It seems to me that this turn restriction should be added again. Do you have any concerns about this? Could you please let me know what was wrong so that I can understand your point of view and make any necessary corrections to my edits.

Best regards!

Hello, DawsZed!

Thank you for your message and your kind words of appreciation. I made changes based on the latest Lyft-owned aerial imagery, as it is the only latest available source I have in this location. Thank you once again for letting me know about the removal of parking aisles as per the survey. I will take care of such things in the coming future.

Hello, Spaghetti Monster!
My name is Gaurav and I’m a mapper in the OSM team at Lyft.
Thank you for your message and making the required changes. It’s my fault. I apologize for connecting the overpass to the motorway. Thanks for pointing that out and I’m grateful for your feedback!

Hello, Jordan Leick & iandees
My name is Gaurav and I’m a mapper in the OSM team at Lyft.
Thank you for your message and correcting the required changes. I decided to add a slip road as per September Lyft-owned street view imagery I had here, overlooking the fact that the road had recently been removed. I apologize for this. It appears that you have more up-to-date data. Thanks for pointing that out and I’m grateful for your feedback!

Hello, wireguy
My name is Gaurav and I’m a mapper in the OSM team at Lyft.
Thank you for your message. Regarding the name tag for way/1328735779, it is hard to say that the name=16th Street should be added as there is not enough evidence to justify it. That's why I think it is better to leave this way without the name tag.
Best regards!

Hello, Allison P!
My name is Gaurav and I’m a mapper in the OSM team at Lyft.
Thank you for your message. I added the access=private tag to the newly added road because the access=private tag was already present on the existing adjacent road (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/13755330). There is no evidence to add or modify the access tag. Since we do not practice removing existing access tags without proper evidence that's why I decided to add access=private tag to the newly added road
Best regards!

Hello, Udarian!
My name is Gaurav and I’m a mapper in the OSM team at Lyft.
Thank you for your message, and for catching this error!
I accidentally added lane count and turn:lanes tags as the cable goes above the traffic road and I didn’t notice that I chose the cable instead of the primary road. I have corrected the mistake in the changeset- changeset/155138399
My apologies. I will be more attentive when pushing change sets up.
Best regards!

Hello, Lelio Alves!
My name is Gaurav and I’m a mapper in the OSM team at Lyft. The edits were made based on the latest background Nearmap (June 2024) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ffMmEyrn9mxO2AJIIWJTVmT3gZ4Jrob9/view?usp=sharing It appears that the geometry here might be slightly off. Could you inform me of the primary issue that needs to be re-checked?
Best regards!

Hi, joel56dt!
My name is Gaurav and I’m a mapper in the OSM team at Lyft. The edits were made based on the fresh Lyft-owned street view images (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Am0mcitkTs3axObjF04N9H0gFbbJ683r/view?usp=drive_link ) taken from Gilmore Avenue northbound (49.2647311, -123.0140327) dated 2024-04-19 (while the construction tag was added on 2024-04-05), where it is visible that the road is open for the traffic. Also we have the very active drivers GPS traces present in this area (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JOzg3XprOWr_llhuMjt59yLRxKohvaAc/view?usp=drive_link ). So based on this evidence I decided to remove the construction tag.
Best regards!