Hi CBradioCZ, it looks like you've done an large-scale import of these parcel lockers, but have not provided a source nor a link to the wiki page or discussion about this import.

Can you please provide these details?

Thanks,
Max

Reverted in changeset/187253510

Thanks for the quick response!

Hello, it looks like you've added oneway=no;yes to way/7739372, which is an invalid tag. Was this a typo? I can't confirm exactly which direction this road is from streetside imagery, so if you could confirm that would be great, thanks!

Hello, you tagged Thanon Sri Takuapa as oneway=no;yes, was this a typo? This isn't a valid tag, and it should either be no or yes. Can you clarify if this is a oneway road or not, and in which direction?

Hello, can you please explain how the one way system works here? oneway=yes;no isn't a valid tag. It may be better to split the way into multiple ways and tag them individually depending on their oneway status.

Hi! Thanks for your message. I wasn't too sure the best way to tag these either, and I had a bit of a discussion with some other mappers about it. The main challenge being that the blinker lights are sometimes only for 2 directions, but the light is physically in the centre of the intersection (making it tough to know how to tag direction).

The Tag:traffic_signals=blinker page does not include the stop=* tag, and my take on it is that since stop signs are still present, we can map the stop signs at their actual location (the stop line), then not include stop=* on the blinker since the blinker isn't what requires cars to stop, it's the stop sign (I think, I don't know NY law very well).

I hope this makes sense, I'm just kind of throwing ideas out there and in no way am making a final rule of law on how to tag these! Please let me know what you think, new ideas are always welcome!

Hi Sieva, thanks for your quick response!

I missed that import page, sorry! If this was an older import that was discussed and then got revived then it's probably fine to skip the buy in period.

The guidelines can be a bit confusing, so no worries, the import itself is totally fine and it's great to have this information in the OSM database now.

As for the fixme tag, I think the source:addr tag that was added as well is enough to determine this was from an import.

Would you like me to make the edit to remove the fixme, or would you like to?

Hi Sieva, thanks for working on this.

I can't seem to find a wiki page for this import, and it doesn't look like you made a forum post for community buy-in.

Per osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines , both of these should be created and linked in the changeset tags.

I also noticed that every imported node has a fixme=* tag attached to it, which makes working with the validator in Vancouver quite difficult. I would be partial to bulk-removing the fixme tag. Additionally, if it's true and the addresses may be inaccurate, they may not have been a good candidate for importing in the first place.

I look forward to hearing from you and discussing this import.

Best regards,
Max

Hi Portal Master,

It looks like you've added a lot of amenity=shelter nodes on top of the buildings that are here. Why is this?

amenity=shelter is usually for freestanding shelters in public or private areas designed to protect for weather and sun, like a bus stop shelter or picnic table cover.

Thanks,
Max

No worries! Was there over Canada Day and figured I’d get it updated :) I think the bridge is slightly offset to the north of where it should be but I didn’t have means to verify

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