Great! Thanks for your comments, always good to sort these things out :)

What do you think of crossing=informal for situations like this? It would retain routing ability, but be more clear for data consumers what the on-the-ground situation is.

Hello, thanks for your comment.

I double checked the wiki and it’s pretty clear in two distinct places that a crossing like this should not be mapped. See these two quotes:

> “ There should be some form of physical infrastructure (such as a dropped kerb or an island) that makes it clear that pedestrians are meant to cross here.”

> “Even if this is a legal crossing under state law, there is no pedestrian infrastructure to suggest that it should be mapped as an unmarked crossing.

That being said, I am not local to Quebec and do not want to force my own mapping conventions on the province and I know the wiki is not the definitive final decider of tagging. Due to this I will not re-remove this crossing, and I will keep the local convention in mind when mapping here in the future :)

👋 Hi pussreboots, thank you very much for your contribution!

Just a heads up, when working with buildings and other often square-like objects, please square the objects.

You can use "Q" on your keyboard (or right click -> "Square") to square off the corners of a building to more accurately match the aerial imagery.

If you have any questions, please feel free to respond here and I'd be happy to help.

Sounds good, thanks! I've updated it based on the half completed state in the aerials, once new aerials are available it can be updated to be more accurate. Thanks for the information!

If you mean the construction on the north side, it was previously attached to the hotel building, so it would have been incorrect if it was still listed as a building anyway (as the new construction has a gap between the buildings).

If possible could you survey the area and find out what the new building is? Should be as simple as updating the construction area back into a building when we know what it is. Footprint may need to be slightly adjusted.

Hey SilverSurfer,

Just wanted to check in quickly to see if you have any thoughts on how to tag these as well.

Currently they’re marked as highway=crossing, and the MapRoulette challenge is just to say if it’s marked or not (though I was occasionally adding more detail to the way around it). Do you think there should be a crossing node at all, or should the node at the intersection of the ways be completely untagged in these cases?

I will take a look at them soon once I get to my computer. I believe most are grade separated but a few may not be and I will revert.

Hi there,

Thanks for your comment. This is actually my MapRoulette challenge, but you’re still completely right.

I actually paused last night to send some examples to the OpenStreetMap Discord for clarification.

The most likely outcome is I’ll update the channel to exclude ones like this, and only have more clear ones with full grade separation.

Thanks!

Hey, thanks for checking! I've got another project to work on so feel free to take over.

Have fun!
Max

Hello! Thanks for your comment.

This data is available and compatible with OSM under the City of Courtenay’s Open Data License, which can be found here: https://data-courtenay.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/city-of-courtenay-open-data-licence

Let me know if there’s any issues or if you have any questions! I’m new to imports so open to feedback.