Hi keithonearth,
Thank you for the detailed explanation and for keeping the map updated with the latest on-the-ground changes.
I appreciate you pointing out the road closure and the temporary bike-only access. It’s very helpful to hear directly from local mappers, especially in areas where conditions are changing quickly due to construction. Our edits sometimes rely on GPS traces and other data sources that may not immediately reflect recent closures, so your clarification helps provide important context.
You’re absolutely right that when there’s a conflict between local knowledge and our available data, it’s better for us to first leave a comment on the changeset and ask for clarification rather than reverting the edit outright. I’ll make sure to pass this feedback along to the team so we can be more mindful of this approach going forward.Thanks again for reaching out and for your continued contributions to OSM.
Regards,
Sanjana

Hi keithonearth,
My name is Sanjana, and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft.Thank you for your insight. Regarding my edits according to our telemetry from last week, we have GPS traces(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X8l3Ny_Mh3cRMsHWm1G9hTyVF5fNKy34/view?usp=sharing) that show the activity of vehicles between Broadway and 10th Street. On the page of the Broadway Subway Project (https://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/broadway-subway-project.aspx), information about the restrictions mentions that 'No through traffic between Broadway and 10th Street is expected,' but local access for residents and businesses is maintained. This is also confirmed by activities from our proprietary telemetry. Based on this information, from our perspective, the connection between Broadway and 10th Street does not look like it is exclusively designated for bicycles only. That's why I decided to change the highway class.
However,If you have any more up-to-date information or local knowledge regarding this,we would be glad to receive confirmation that vehicle traffic is still not allowed here.Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Happy Mapping!
Regards,
Sanjana

Hi Wolfy1339,
My name is Sanjana, and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you very much for your careful review and for correcting the issues resulting from my recent edit. I sincerely appreciate your attention to detail.
You are absolutely correct that the road alignment was adjusted significantly, and I should have ensured that the surrounding features were reviewed and updated accordingly. I regret the oversight and will be more attentive in future edits.
Thank you for going forward and fixing the map.

Regards,
Sanjana

Hi weblogdryads,

My name is Sanjana, and I'm a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Occasionally, Lyft-owned aerial imagery does not align with other imagery sources. In this instance, imagery matched, but there is presence of active Lyft telemetry data (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ea8zSZBUGLFsBiPxXc5I5VS5TWrXOY_y/view?usp=sharing), I thought that the part is accessible for everyone & I updated the highway as service.

I apologize for the change and any inconvenience it may have caused, and I’ll be more attentive with future changesets.

Regards,
Sanjana

Hi Spaghetti Monster,
My name is Sanjana, and I'm a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you so much for paying attention & fixing my mistake. Agree with you, that there is a level difference between way & way. Please accept my apologies. I’ll be more attentive when pushing changesets up.
Thank you for your contribution to OSM!
Regards,
Sanjana

Hi meisoof,

My name is Sanjana, and I’m part of the OSM mapping team at Lyft. Many thanks for letting me know about the latest data & correcting my mistakes. I added a missing segment & corrected ways based on Lyft owned aerial imagery, which was from September 2024. Agree with you, now I see that the Goring Extension (way/1466085542) shouldn’t be removed from the data according to active telemetry.
Sorry for that & for any inconvenience these edits may have caused. I’ll be more cautious in future when pushing changesets up.

Happy Mapping!

Thanks,
Sanjana

Hi IllOnlyBeAMinute,
My name is Sanjana, and I’m part of the OSM mapping team at Lyft. I created the ways using Lyft-owned aerial imagery. As there was no street-level imagery available at the entrances or exits, I couldn’t verify private access and left the roads untagged for private use. If you possess local knowledge, I’d greatly appreciate it if you’re adjusting the map accordingly.
I apologize for missing gates and appreciate your observation. I hope this helps clarify my edits. Please let me know if you’d like to discuss anything further, and thank you for your contribution.
Happy Mapping!
Regards,
Sanjana

Hi galen8183,

My name is Sanjana, and I'm a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for your insight. Regarding my edits- I added lane details in this changeset. To accurately apply lane tags. I divided one segment into two shorter ways. Initially, there were two relations on the roundabout & after the split it remained on all the segments. The bus relations have remained where it was.
In any case I apologize if I unintentionally broke the PTv2 relations. Thank you for promptly correcting the relation and your contribution! Unfortunately, bus relations are not our area of expertise & are not within the scope of the lanes project https://github.com/Test-DCT/OSM-LYFT-DCT/issues/26.
We do not validate the accuracy of the applied bus relations. Instead, we focus on maintaining integrity and avoiding disruptions during significant geometric changes. I hope for your understanding in this matter.

Happy Mapping!
Regards,
Sanjana

Hi, Hoserab!
My name is Sanjana and I’m mapper in the OSM team at Lyft.
Thank you for addressing this turn restriction and removing it. The one-way tag indeed permits only a single maneuver when exiting the area. I apologize for the excessive mapping and appreciate your detailed explanation :)

Happy mapping, Sanjana

Hi Baloo Uriza,

My name is Sanjana, and I'm a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for your comment. I appreciate you pointing out my mistake regarding the inaccurate addition of the turn:lanes, which were already correctly added. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience my edits may have caused, and I will be more attentive in the future.
However, regarding the turn:lanes value, I rely on the OSM wiki, which states that the 'none' value should be applied if there are no lane markings or signs determining the allowed maneuvers on the lane. turn=*#Identifying_a_turn_indication:~:text=or%20%3Cempty%3E-,There%20are%20no%20turn,-indications%20on%20this
Could you specify what you reference to when mentioning the possibility of turn lanes “none” value usage based on access:lanes tagging?

Thanks for your contribution to OSM!

Best regards, Sanjana