Hello,
Can you indicate whether you have the permission of the VdQ in order to use this data?

The osm license and CC-BY 4.0 that use the VdQ are not compatible.

See https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/

Hello,
Thank you for trying to improe address and building footprints data.

The city's interactive map is not an approved source, as the data is for consultation only. It isn't meant to be reused elsewhere

While the city does publish some open data regarding addresses, its data is licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 which is not compatible with osm, it needs an explicit permission with a waiver.
https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/

Hello,
Thank you for trying to improe address and building footprints data.

The city's interactive map is not an approved source, as the data is for consultation only. It isn't meant to be reused elsewhere

While the city does publish some open data regarding addresses, its data is licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 which is not compatible with osm, it needs an explicit permission with a waiver.
https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/

Could you add that to your change sets in the sources?

Yeah, sometimes the locations don't match exactly between the locality and the station sign. The actual station sign location should take precedence.
In cases where there is a locality that references the station sign or junction, it should be merged with the newly created railway site

Yep I see the signs. The main track end sign is something that can be mapped as well, though there isn't a defined railway tagging for signals or signs in Canada.
You can help out by adding your knowledge to osm.wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Work_Rules_in_North_America#CROR

Just a reminder to not use Google Street View for OSM

Bonjour,
Pouvez vous indiquer si vous avez la permission de la VdQ afin d'utiliser ces données?

La license de osm et la CC-BY 4.0 q'utilise la VdQ ne sonts pas compatibles.

Voir https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/

It seems as though in my last comment, I failed to mention `railway=site`

osm.wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging#Other_operating_sites

If it's an actual junction, then `railway=junction`, if not `railway=site`

> The "designated timetable locations" fall into a category that doesn't quite fit with OSM's tagging scheme and I've noticed that using the "junction" tag is the convention that the community in North America seems to have settled into

It's a false convention. The tag `railway=junction` should only be used for actual junctions.

> With that being said, if you think there's a more appropriate designation for these that I may have overlooked, I'm willing to hear it.

I talked with other mappers and all agree that `railway=junction` is not the proper tag.
I concur that these aren't actual stations, and more designated locations/control points.

> It also has the bonus of making them show up more prominently on Open Railway Map, where the information is most desired.

That would be tagging for the renderer, since it's not the proper tagging being used.

> With respect to the node I added in Lorette, it's the precise location of the station name sign marking the designated location of Lorette at mile 152.4 of the Trois-Rivières subdivision, and is meant to be separate from the nearby "locality" node.

The locality node actually refers to the "station" if you check out it's entry in the Banque de noms de lieux du Québec, or even the Canadian Geographical Names Database.

A locality point can refer to a railway site/junction.

> These are the operating locations that appear in railway employee timetables, which are mostly private, though there are some public avenues to obtain this information

Are you able to provide the source? Because time tables aren't necessarilly approved sources to use as they are private and most likely copyrighted.

See osm.wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging_in_North_America#Private_Data

---

The railway tagging is very euro-centric (in fact it's very much based on German practices as the original authors were German), and we mappers of North America have to untangle the differences in meanings and conventions.

Unless there is an actual junction, these should most likely be tagged as `railway=site`
osm.wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging#Other_operating_sites

I suggest that you refer to osm.wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging_in_North_America
osm.wiki/Canada/Railways

There are a good deal of railway mappers present in the OpenStreetMap US Slack https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

And as always, there is also the community forum where things can be discussed.

Hello, Thank you for your edits adding the `junction:ref` tag!

Could you please make sure to update the rest of the exit ramp when you edit tags for destination and `junction:ref` instead of only the first way that branches off

Bonjour, la communauté Québecoise désire utiliser les noms francophones pour les opérateurs.

changeset/170857543

Bonjour, merci de rajouter des données ferroviaires dans osm.

Il ne faut pas utiliser `railway=junction` pour tous les points désignés sauf s'il s'agit réellement d'une jonction ferroviaire. Voir osm.wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging#Operating_site_types

Le point que tu as rajouter node/13078361864/
est déjà present par l'import de CanVec node/1201245967

Aussi, vous avez indiquer seulement Bing comme source, comment avez vous trouver ces noms? Il serait bien de l'indiquer

If your preferred language is English, that is no problem, I just assumed since some of your changeset comments are in french and you are editing in Quebec

Please don't change the road classification, the community consensus is that this is not a trunk road, and should be left as-is.

changeset/167597979

Please don't change the road name.
That portion is not named Boulevard Lacroix.
It has been confirmed on the ground

changeset/167597961

Your changeset has been reverted.

Community consensus is that this road is not a trunk road. Please do not re-tag it as so

Please read the following community discussion
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/route-du-president-kennedy-saint-georges-to-maine-usa-trunk-road-or-not/117398

Hello,
Please make sure to connect all taxiways together, and not leave them hanging.

Don't simply mark all markings on a taxiway as a taxiway

Hello,
It seems that you have broken the boundary relation for Middleton Park.

Some boundary lines were split, and aren't connected anymore.

Actually, Metrolinx has already disclosed the type of electrification in their documentation.
https://assets.metrolinx.com/image/upload/v1737998921/Documents/Engineering/CPG_Performance_Specifications_for_ET_EW.pdf

Section 1.2

« The Metrolinx Electrification system shall be a 2 x 25 kV ac (1 x 25 kV ac in the limits of the Pearson
subdivision), 60 Hz autotransformer traction electrification system. »

I'm not the one who originally added that. I just made sure it was consistently tagged.

Hi, indeed it was simply a typo, and `access=private` was meant. I have fixed it

Yup! Thanks for the fix!

Hello,

Please don't map fictional routing of railways.
There isn't *any* concrete route selected yet for Alto. The project hasn't even been approved for construction yet, and won't be up for approval for another 4-5 years.

Once a route has been selected, then feel free to map it.

Thank you

changeset/163346800