highway=street_lamp isn’t part of the new tag scheme that’s correct. I overlooked removing highway=street_lamp from the merged data.

Light source doesn’t use the highway tag as not all light sources are inherently on a road or path. They could be in a garden, building, etc. In this case they’re all on roads, but it’s a more flexible namespace in general.

I can definitely go through and remove the legacy tag from the merged data if you think it’d be best.

No, they are using the new light:*=* namespace as discussed in the forum thread.

Thread: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/city-of-coquitlam-street-light-import/144010/7

Wiki: osm.wiki/Vancouver/Imports/Coquitlam/Street_Lamps

Thread: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/city-of-coquitlam-street-light-import/144010/7

Wiki: osm.wiki/Vancouver/Imports/Coquitlam/Street_Lamps

Hello! Thanks for your contribution. When working on houses, it's best to use the Q key to square them off so they better reflect the reality on the ground. This helps eliminate the small crookedness that comes with free-drawing building outlines.

Hi Hilby, thanks for your contribution.

When writing changeset descriptions, please include more information about what is actually included in the changeset. This allows other mappers to understand your changes at a glance without having to dig into the changes individually. This can help streamline discussion and conversation surrounding your changes.

You can find guidance on writing changeset comments here: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thanks,
Max

Hi E_Mathieu,

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. Please note that something being private property does not mean it should be removed from the map.

Instead, proper access tags should be applied to prevent routing software from sending people down the path, and to signal to users that the path is private and not to be used.

I have reverted this changeset in changeset/182855314, but also gone ahead and added private access tags to this section of path.

You can find our policy on mapping private information here: osm.wiki/Mapping_private_information

And information about access tags here: access=*

Please let me know if you have any questions!

Thanks,
Max

Hi Seantreibh, thanks for your contributions.

When making changesets, please use the changeset description to write a summary of what you worked on. Your source can go in the source section when uploading your changeset.

This helps other mappers get a better of idea of what you've changed.

Thanks!
Max

Hi there, it looks like you added an ALPR to the centre node of this intersection.

There doesn't appear to be a post or pole overhanging the centre of this intersection. Do you know exactly where this ALPR actually is?

Thanks,
Max

Hello! Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for your contribution.

When contributing, please ensure that your changeset comments are descriptive of what was done, not simply "update" or random text. This helps other mappers get an idea of what was done without having to dive into the changed objects list.

Additionally, when mapping buildings, please draw the outline of the building, not of the plot of land the building is on.

If you wish to map the fence or wall around the buildings plot of land, you can use barrier=wall or barrier=fence on a way.

Please let me know if you have any questions :)

Max

Hello! Please note that private driveways should still be mapped on OSM, as we have a practice of "map whats on the ground", regardless of if it is private or public property.

Private driveways should instead be given the tag of access=private to indicate they are private property. This will prevent most routing software from sending people down these roads.

These driveways have already been added back by another contributor, and so I have gone ahead and added the private tag for you.

Please let us know if you have any questions!
Max

Hi ntzm, can you please clarify what +fhrs means? I've noticed you've made a few changesets with this description now and am curious :)

Hi Pawar1101, thanks for your contribution!

When adding buildings, it's generally best to "square" them after drawing using the Q key (in the iD editor). This fixes any slightly off angles and creates a cleaner and more accurate map.

Thanks!

Hi StarWagon, thanks for your contribution!

playground=map seems odd to me to be here, as that tag is used for painted maps on the ground at playgrounds.

I believe the tag you meant to use is tourism=information + information=map, which is for boards with maps on them, such as for the trail network.

Thanks,
Max

I don't believe this is "incorrect", as "all" is only really useful when it's on a single node, as routers don't need to know about all way stops when the stop signs are split.

That being said, the additional data doesn't hurt, and could be useful to someone looking through the data, so going forward I will include stop=all/minor on the split signs where applicable :)

Thanks for your comment

Tere, selged muudatuste komplekti kommentaarid aitavad teistel kaardistajatel tulevikus teie muudatuste kavatsust mõista.

Need ei pea olema ülidetailsed, aga isegi sellised asjad nagu „lisatud majad” või „fikseeritud tee geomeetria” võivad abiks olla.

masintõlgitud Google Translate'iga

Thanks for the confirmation! Glad to help.

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 :)