I put bike access tags on the service road and sidewalk ways. That's how people actually access the bridge. I'll verify in bit that it works with the default OSRM bike profile.

I was just about to check that. Is it not working?

Hi Jonathan,
I've been adding marked crossings pretty consistently where they exist, but I'm not quite convinced that unmarked crossing points should be tagged as actual ways in the data.
I know that current routing applications don't handle this well though. If you add crossings that are only implied, please be sure to indicate that explicitly so they are not necessarily represented as infrastructure.

I've been changing some such ways to highway=footway, footway=crossing, crossing=unmarked;
though this is tagging from what I believe was a proposal that didn't end up being approved.

Cheers,
Nate

A bit more research: osm.wiki/Relation:dual_carriageway

See also:
osm.wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines#Divided_highways_.2F_dual_carriageways_.2F_motorways

Yeah, I find the short little splits pretty annoying, especially where they don't clarify anything relevant for routing like turn restrictions. I've been gradually unsplitting them over the last couple of years.

Any thing that's actually divided for a substantial distance like Spadina or St. Clair I think is fine; it's just those little short ones that bother me, especially if they keep dividing and undividing every few hundred meters.

I've been looking at the history on the ways and it seems like they were mostly introduced around 2010 by andrewpmk. Was that an import? Is there an argument to be made for this way of representing streets?

Thanks for catching that! Looks like someone mapped this a few days before I did - I wasn't sure if it had been uploaded and retagged or if maps.me hadn't uploaded it yet.

OK. I believe I just copied the names from the existing platforms. I certainly don't know what they are offhand.

I'm not planning to, but I might get around to it eventually. I'll focus on something else for now though if you feel like having a go :-)

That's what it was missing! I knew there was something wrong - thanks for catching that.

I was actually meaning to ask either you or the mailing list about this... I've been using a small offset to the ESRI World Imagery in JOSM, (0.45;-1.27) because I found this lined up well with existing OSM data around Parkdale. The offset seems less appropriate in other parts of the city though, and I've been judging on a case by case basis whether or not to use any offset or a tiny offset when I start editing. I've been working on the assumption that the existing OSM data is generally correct and that the imagery needs to be tweaked a bit if anything.

I noticed a couple places where our tracks didn't quite line up, and just left a bit of a sharp transition so it was at least clear where the jump was.
This is probably something we need to sort out on the mailing list and/or wiki though as we start to do more detailed mapping.

I'm all for it. This wouldn't be the first PTV2 route in the city, but it would definitely be the most detailed.

A couple related points:
I noticed there are three relations for the 510: A,B, and C. I only see A and B on the official map though. Is C real?

It seems like all the wheelchair tags related to this route are wheelchair=limited. Do you think this can be updated with the full deployment of the new streetcars? Or am I missing some other access limitation?

Related thought: where do tags about shelters, wheelchair access, departure boards, etc belong? I've been adding them to platforms since that is where things physically are, but I see you've added some to the stop positions, at least where the platforms aren't mapped yet.

Should I transfer tags from those?

Yep, looks like that is the more correct tagging. I had been thinking that tram_stop was for the platform area by analogy with highway=bus_stop. It seems though that railway=tram_stop should be tagged the same way (indeed coincident with) public_transport=stop_position.

Thanks for the tip!

Do you know if there is a way in JOSM to transfer history from one way to another?
I had been trying for a while to split the ways off the highway node by node to preserve history, but eventually found it was a lot easier to delete segments and just draw the new lines up to that point.

On a related note, I split the university into a multipolygon the other day and was glad to see all that crazy history at least ended up on the biggest polygon:
way/10905424

I assume JOSM would default to assigning the new way ID to the smaller half, but I don't actually know.

Accidentally forgot to change changeset comment - was actually adding detail to streetcar network.

Indeed, those glued ways are tricky. I just deleted that rail and discovered it was a 'to' way in a bicycle turn restriction. Looks like I wasn't the only one to miss it!

I'll start working, slowly, on splitting tracks west of ~Ossington. Some of the ones you've worked on look really nice! It's been a while since I looked at the map in the downtown area... though I see even part of Queen is split out now. Nice!

How does this look?
relation/9444948
I was skeptical about the wiki's suggestion to split out the rails at first, but now I think this makes a lot more sense and actually looks pretty nice. Getting it done for the whole city would be quite a task... but would certainly clarify a lot of things.

Those look pretty good to me. I'll try tagging a couple stops like that in the next day or two and you can let me know what you think.

I'd love to find a consistent way to tag stop areas. I know I'm not even being consistent with myself right now, as I try to figure out the best way to handle this.

I was intending to show just the shelter there. I'm not sure what else would constitute the platform area... I did a few stops with stop area relations, which would link together related amenities and stop positions.
relation/9414075
But I'm not sure how well supported these are. I think the idea is that anything related to the stop (e.g. signpost, shelter, waste basket, stop position etc) could be included, without having to strictly delimit the area where people are expected to wait.

Do you have any local examples of detailed and well-tagged stops that you think are better handled?

Hmm. True... though it is partly tagged according to version two, with some stop areas using the public_transport=platform tagging.

Probably the most correct thing to do is to remove the version number until it is definitely one or the other. I might have been tagging a bit aspirationally... it takes a lot of work to completely change a route from version one to two.