maxwellward have been discussed with 16 replies of this OpenStreetMap Contributormaxwellward have been discussed with 16 replies of this OpenStreetMap Contributor| Changeset | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 187253510 by maxwellward @ 2026-08-10 20:44 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | finn-hound ♦37 | thank you banana |
| 186253000 by maxwellward @ 2026-07-23 19:00 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | Kostaki01 ♦1 | Heya, I was the one who added the original stop tag (though it appears I somehow made a typo with spelling minor Oops!)A project I have been doing is mapping blinker lights in Northern NY, which while technically being traffic lights still have stop signs at them.Some blinker lights have all... |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | maxwellward | Hi! Thanks for your message. I wasn't too sure the best way to tag these either, and I had a bit of a discussion with some other mappers about it. The main challenge being that the blinker lights are sometimes only for 2 directions, but the light is physically in the centre of the intersection ... | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | Kostaki01 ♦1 | I think that makes sense.You are correct that the blinker does not make the cars stop: The stop signs do, and I have been mapping the stop signs as well to make it clear which roads require stopping.But the blinker lights are not the feature which makes trafffic actually stop, so it doesn't... | |
| 184996684 by maxwellward @ 2026-07-02 19:50 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | DENelson83 ♦109 | Wow! Thank you so much for doing this. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | maxwellward | No worries! Was there over Canada Day and figured I’d get it updated :) I think the bridge is slightly offset to the north of where it should be but I didn’t have means to verify | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | DENelson83 ♦109 | Well, I simply extended the alignment of 6th Street to get the bridge alignment, and I think it is actually slightly to the south of the alignment of 6th. | |
| 184074975 by maxwellward @ 2026-06-13 23:10 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | maxwellward | Thread: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/city-of-coquitlam-street-light-import/144010/7Wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vancouver/Imports/Coquitlam/Street_Lamps |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | Zarr ♦17 | Are these not supposed to have an overarching highway=street_lamp tag? | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | maxwellward | No, they are using the new light:*=* namespace as discussed in the forum thread. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | Zarr ♦17 | One reason I asked is because there seems to be a combination of both including and not including the street_lamp tag, which I assume is the script merging old and new data together. Looking through the wiki's I am just unclear if light_source is supposed to be an entirely new format or used in... | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | maxwellward | highway=street_lamp isn’t part of the new tag scheme that’s correct. I overlooked removing highway=street_lamp from the merged data. Light source doesn’t use the highway tag as not all light sources are inherently on a road or path. They could be in a garden, building, etc. In ... | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | Zarr ♦17 | Honestly I dont have an answer either way. On the one hand it would be beneficial for data consistency, however on the other, with the legacy tag still so prevalent, there could be issues w.r.t. users adding duplicate data with apps like Streetcomplete (which uses the old tag format) | |
| 184074981 by maxwellward @ 2026-06-13 23:11 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | maxwellward | Thread: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/city-of-coquitlam-street-light-import/144010/7Wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vancouver/Imports/Coquitlam/Street_Lamps |
| 181294305 by maxwellward @ 2026-04-13 20:29 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | ajmat ♦479 | Partially Revert of 181228582 |
| 179880253 by maxwellward @ 2026-03-15 00:35 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | joel56dt ♦198 | I like this idea but I think the implementation is not right.It is helpful to include "stop=all" for 4-way stops and "stop=minor" for all others.I noticed you have removed this helpful information from some 4-way stops. For example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3361... |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | maxwellward | 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 someon... | |
| 178841969 by maxwellward @ 2026-02-21 02:59 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | KevinOs ♦28 | Was just working there and saw this too wondering what the heck it was, thanks for removing ! |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | maxwellward | Thanks for the confirmation! Glad to help. | |
| 178483234 by maxwellward @ 2026-02-13 03:47 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy ♦541 | Hi!In Quebec, it is legal to cross the street at any intersection, on either side, except when there is a no-pedestrian sign at the intersection, which is rare and not present at this intersection. For this reason, please keep the unmarked crossings so routing can follow the law. The fact that i... |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | maxwellward | 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 ... | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy ♦541 | The main issue is that almost nobody will cross the street twice if they arrive on the opposite side, so we feel it better model the real paths of pedestrian. And a routing engine that will tell you to cross the street twice instead of once would feel weird too for the end-user. In places like Japan... | |
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | maxwellward | 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. | |
| 5 | ~ 7 months ago | ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy ♦541 | Yes, no problem, or add informal=yes:-) | |
| 6 | ~ 7 months ago | maxwellward | Great! Thanks for your comments, always good to sort these things out :) | |
| 7 | ~ 7 months ago | ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy ♦541 | Added informal=yes :-) | |
| 173561066 by maxwellward @ 2025-10-21 01:45 ~ 10 months ago | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | DanhengOSM ♦21 | changeset过大，请拆分之 |
| 173302325 by maxwellward @ 2025-10-15 05:48 ~ 10 months ago | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | skfd ♦294 | i think you deleted new part of the building that replaced the parking. i think its operational and not just construction |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | maxwellward | 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 ... | |
| 3 | ~ 10 months ago | skfd ♦294 | i added it from phone when walking by. its a new wing of the same hotel, it's massive! | |
| 4 | ~ 10 months ago | maxwellward | 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! | |
| 5 | ~ 10 months ago | skfd ♦294 | thank you!! 🫡 | |
| 173033155 by maxwellward @ 2025-10-09 06:24 ~ 11 months ago | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | akotys ♦2 | Hi. Thank You. But There is still restriction on a stretch of road a few hundred meters immediately after exit 56 direction east. |
| 169540318 by maxwellward @ 2025-07-27 06:30 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | silversurfer83 ♦4,316 | Hi Maxwell,There is debate among the community whether "crossings" of sidewalks with service highways like these parking driveways need to be tagged specially. Could you check with the maproulette challenge to see if there are any special instructions regarding these?cheers ... |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | maxwellward | 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 ... | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | silversurfer83 ♦4,316 | Thanks for the speedy reply.I appreciate you taking on feedback on your work.Are you planning on reverting the more obvious examples? | |
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | maxwellward | 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. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 year ago | maxwellward | 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 a... | |
| 6 | ~ 1 year ago | silversurfer83 ♦4,316 | currently I think these should go untagged. the connecting node should be enough | |
| 168894701 by maxwellward @ 2025-07-14 00:29 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | snoozingnewt ♦86 | Checking in - are you planning on finishing later or should I take it over the next few daysBest,snoozingnewt |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | maxwellward | Hey, thanks for checking! I've got another project to work on so feel free to take over.Have fun!Max | |
| 164558945 by maxwellward @ 2025-04-05 16:17 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | NeisReview ♦2,460 | #DataImportHi, welcome to OSM!Thank you very much for importing the street lamps. Is the license compatible with OSM?Looking forward to hearing from you. |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | maxwellward | 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-licenceLet me know if there’s any issues or if you ... |