Hello oba510,

I understand your point. I have restored these to their original classification of highway=footway in changeset/175118961. Thank you and have a good day!
VLD318 / Owen

Hello rskedgell,

I will keep this feedback in mind going forward. Thank you for the advice.

VLD318

Hello SomeoneElse,

Regarding the discussion in the thread, a lead representative from our team, RVR015, responded on my behalf. I apologize if it appeared I was ignoring it. We are monitoring the ongoing discussion.

Concerning Brownley Road, I acknowledge that there are several residential driveways in this area that I did not include as crossings, however omitting them was intentional and I believe it does not negatively impact the data quality. My understanding was that private driveways like these typically should not be tagged as crossings, based on a general consensus within the OpenStreetMap community that such minor features usually do not pose significant safety concerns to warrant explicit tagging, and would detract from "true" crosswalk data.

For your reference, here are links to relevant information from the OSM wiki:

crossing:continuous=*#:~:text=When%20the%20road%20that%20crosses%20a%20continuous%20sidewalk%20is%20a%20minor%20service%20road%2C%20such%20as%20a%20driveway%20or%20a%20car%20park%20entrance%2C%20there%20is%20community%20consensus%20that%20this%20is%20not%20worth%20tagging%20explicitly%3B%20instead%20the%20node%20should%20simply%20be%20left%20without%20any%20tags

osm.wiki/Talk:Key:crossing:continuous

I hope this clarifies why I chose not to include these. If others wish to add the driveways and crossings here, they are welcome to do so.

Thanks,
VLD318

Hi SomeoneElse. Thank you for catching this mistake. I added the tag highway=footway to way/1435936890 in changeset/174157862.

Hi SomeoneElse2. Thank you for catching this typo and making the change.

Hi SomeoneElse2. Thank you for catching this mistake. The correct value for crossing:signals should have been crossing:signals=yes. I have updated ways 1344335492 and 1344335491 and node/12436861257 accordingly in changeset/174157745.

Hello SomeoneElse,

I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. I’ve reverted my changeset to restore the footway to its previous version.

Thanks, Owen / VLD318

Hello Udarian,

Thank you for the feedback, I'll keep this in mind with future changesets.

- Owen