That makes sense to me! Thanks for the detailed explanation, I'm fully on board with your way of thinking here.

Hey, thanks for the update. My understanding from the media release and project website is that the regular name of the bridge is Stal̕əw̓asəm though, so I think the [name=] tag should be Stal̕əw̓asəm insteaad of Riverview.

Just found a map of Transmission lines on the Government of Canada OpenData site!

https://search.open.canada.ca/openmap/384d551b-dee1-4df8-8148-b3fcf865096a

Based off this data, it looks like the BC Hydro maps are missing some notable lines.

Hello again!

The source for these lines is a BC Hydro schematic in response to a BC One Call request. You area correct, there is one conduit which runs along 7th avenue and then turns north along Alberta street at a utility vault. I'm not sure why I didn't add it at the time, but I believe it was because I was focused on the conduits directly connected to the substation.

Hey there! For the portion along Main Street between Prior & National Avenue, I worked on a project at an adjacent building site where we had a BCOC & review with the BC Hydro.

This is from their Transmissions team:

"BC Hydro Underground Transmission Circuit 2L053 is installed under Main Street. This section of 2L053 is a 230,000 volts, concrete duct bank installed, cable circuit that is approximately 4.3m west of the property line."

Our utility locators were also able to confirm the presence of the conduit under the road.

Similarly, we had projects near E2nd & Main, and along Prince Edward which had this same transmission conduit.

I think the BC Hydro maps might be out of date because we keep running into transmission lines where we don't expect them!

Hi Meark,

You are correct that there are no sharrows northbound, but the data already reflected that prior to your edit with cycleway:right=shared_lane and cycleway:left=no.

The southbound shared lane is what Joel restored in the most recent changeset.

Nyan

I don't know why I said Bing... I meant that Mapbox had the most up to date imagery.

No worries! You and I share the same goal of improving the cycling dataset in Vancouver, so I figured I'd check in case I had gotten things wrong.

I personally use StreetComplete as well, but only while I'm cycling or walking about since it's got the simplest ui for making these kind of updates.

I've found that Bing is the most up to date OSM approved aerial imagery in Vancouver. Even then it's about two years old, so I only really trust it for anything that existed pre-2023.

I've got quite a few new buildings that need correct footprints, so my fingers crossed that some new aerial imagery comes out sometime this year!

Hey, I just wanted to double check your rational for cycleway=no along 14th Avenue between the Arbutus Greenway & Cypress.

I've ridden this section a few times and there are sharrows painted on the ground. My understanding of the tag is that sharrow pictograms should be tagged as shared cycleways; is that not the case?

Haha didn't realize you were online so I went and did an edit of it as well. No harm no foul!

Cycleway=no is not correct on SE Marine Drive by the night street bridge. The buse lane has sharrows meaning that it is shared cycleway.

But it's great you had the thought to make these changes! The current tagging scheme not immediately intuitive and I can see why you would've upgraded these roads.

Looking forward to seeing more of your contributions :)

Prior, Venables & 12th Avenue are classified as Secondary Arterials by the City.

While they do have higher traffic volumes traffic, these roads are not part of the Major Road Network and with the exception of Prior street, are not designated truck routes.

For these reasons, these roads should remain as Tertiary highways, not Secondary.

The dataset is found in the city's OpenData Portal at this address https://opendata.vancouver.ca/explore/dataset/bikeways/

Yeah, I felt the same way haha. I finally felt confident enough to make these changes after working on some smaller scale areas.

I see what you're saying about mapping them separately, I actually went through the same line of thought as you and went back and forth between the idea of separating podiums from their towers.

I think neither what I did here or the alternative you've suggested is the right way going forward, and I'll explain below.

I think it's much better to have one way to represent the whole building, and parts to represent distinct portions. In general, towers and podiums should be mapped as building parts as part of a single building footprint. This is because the podium and tower portions of buildings usually have distinct internal layouts and typically have different building materials and architectural design/visual look.

Having two separate building ways define the same structure is bad data to have in OSM. Splitting towers from podiums as separate buildings would imply that the podium structure is comprised of two adjacent buildings, which is usually isn't the case in real life.

Mapping them as separate building parts as I've done here has the exact same problem, as it implies that the podium portion of the tower area is a separate unit than the rest of the podium.

This would be problematic when we have retail usage at the podium level, since separating the parts into two buildings would imply that the retail area is located within two distinct buildings, instead of one comprehensive shopping structure.

How I think I should have mapped the Brentwood towers is having the entire podium footprint mapped as a building part, and then the tower portion mapped as a building part on top of it with the building:min_level= tag starting at the first floor above the podium.

The Marine Gateway development (way/360225154) is a good example of what I'm talking about here. If the office tower above the cineplex was mapped as a separate structure, the supposed "building" would have cut straight through the cineplex, Winners and T&T supermarket.

I think a good way to think about it is to imagine walking through the building. If there is a corridor that ends up crossing two mapped buildings, then maybe they shouldn't be separate.

So at the end of the day, I think that the guidelines in the wiki actually have it right. We should be using building parts, just not quite the way I've done it here.

The median along Cambie is not a traffic island. Medians are bigger and longer, and are used to seperate opposing directions of traffic. Traffic islands are intended for traffic calming and are very localized. It would be best to remove this tag from the median.

I absolutely agree; I think it's great!

Yeah that makes sense. Thanks for looking it over!

Hey Joel,

Great question!I agree with you in general, I like to show bike path as seperate geometry as well. This generally works well where the infrastructure is standalone or has unique pathing and connections that are useful for cyclists using the map to navigate.

The differentiating factor for me comes down to whether the municipality treats cyclists as vehicles or pedestrians in the design of the infrastructure. (Which gets annoying because they can't seem to make up their mind, and sometimes you go from one to the other within the same route)

In general, I would say that drawing it separate from the roadways is warranted when if the cycle lane is part of a Multi-Use Path or is provided a dedicated crosswalk/signal when it crosses intersections, then it's most likely better to draw it separate from the road. (Such as the cycle infrastructure along Gilmore in central Burnaby, or the Central Valley Greenway in False Creek)

Otherwise, it's best to just tag the road with the cycle track since it's essentially an additional vehicle lane that is reserved for bikes (which is the case within this area).

Hope that helps! I've been thinking of starting getting documentation on the wiki for this as well sometime since we seem to be getting exponentially more bike infrastructure in the region and it would be nice to have a consistent standard.

Nyan

That makes sense to me; will revise.

Nyan Saik