I tried to revert this changeset but it looks like someone has already corrected/updated the boundary for India, creating edit conflicts. It may be easiest now to correct the problem manually.

changeset/100152522

I have reverted this and your previous changeset. I'm not sure what else you did, but you somehow managed to delete the relation describing the city boundary of Leduc. I strongly advise that relatively new editors like yourself steer clear of complex relations like these as the potential for damage can be pretty high.

The wiki describes the proper use and structure of these relations in detail, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

I don't mean to be discouraging, and everyone's efforts are appreciated, but deleting a city boundary is a pretty big problem. It is important to take the time to fully understand the impact of your edits.

Looks like you got a bit ahead of actual construction here. I just rode Bloor and there is no lane yet between Indian Road and Sterling Road. I think the installation is delayed due to the construction around there taking up a full lane. Sewers or something.

Crudely drawn landuses are really not very helpful here. You've created a residential area for example that roughly overlaps parks, retail and schools.

Please, if you can't do something with some care and attention to detail, do not edit in this area!

Thanks!

Why would highways not be a valid part of a boundary relation?

Yep - I did :-)

Be careful with the copy/paste feature - I just found a couple places where a whole street (geometry + tags) was accidentally copied into new location, probably while you were trying to copy tags only.

JOSM seems to have changed their ctr+v vs ctr+shift+v behavior recently.

Thanks!

This was vandalism and has been reverted.

It does look like that.

It looks like I managed to get that perfectly backwards somehow. It should have been a no_left going the opposite direction. I've fixed it. Good catch! Thanks.

Yep - it works in OSRM. Let me know if you see issues with other routers though.

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?