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 :)

👋 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.