This edit was made by downloading everything in Waterloo Region edited by raptureboi [1], then going through each crossing and barrier=kerb to look for obviously incorrect tags. "Obviously incorrect" means things like bad geometry (e.g., a barrier=kerb on a node shared by multiple sidewalks), or curbs tagged with tactile paving when nothing resembling tactile paving is visible in 2024 imagery. If one of the tags was obviously incorrect on a node or way, I deleted that tag, as well as any other tag I couldn't verify via aerial imagery, such as whether there are (lowered) curbs.

[1] @raptureboi

This user has been adding these tags all over, even in cases where they are incorrect, as verified by aerial imagery, street-level imagery, and ground surveys. Tagging things as wheelchair accessible when they are in fact a raised curb that leads to a patch of grass is the sort of thing that makes the map worse than useless, so I reached out to raptureboi multiple times over the past few months, with polite comments on changesets and private messages, but they continued to edit without replying to me or addressing these issues. My most recent message let them know that it was my last warning before going to the DWG if they didn't at least reply, and while they didn't, they do seem to have stopped mapping entirely for now, so I'm trying to just go through and fix as much as I can myself.

This changeset is conservative in the sense that, despite the problematic mapping practices, I'm only touching tags, and I'm leaving anything that looks plausible. E.g., I've left lowered curbs when they didn't have any other obvious geometry or tagging flaws, and I limited the changeset to Waterloo Region since that's what I have 2024 imagery for. I also left in features whose tags are from raptureboi, but the history shows as originating from me because of my previous attempts to improve these features (e.g. by splitting curbs), since those are harder to find. I should have just done this at the start, but it took me a while to realize how extensive the problems are, so it's all a mess.

Should be "fee=yes" + "charge=3.25 CAD", at least according to the wiki.

Thanks for all the edits btw, awesome stuff.

Resolves note/4582010

Resolves note/4632554

Resolves note/4629622

iD is clearly warning you about some of the mistakes you're making. Please reply to my private message so we can discuss how to avoid these issues.

Thanks for the edits. :)

Are these bike paths, or bike lanes? I.e., is there any kind of physical separation from the roadway beyond paint?

Please don't put curb nodes (lowered or raised) in the middle of sidewalks, only put them where a single sidewalk and crossing meet. Otherwise, navigation apps will interpret it as curb in the sidewalk. (Unless, of course, there really is a curb in the middle of the sidewalk e.g. the visually impaired need to know to navigate around.)

Please don't tag things as cycleways simply because bicycles can use it. E.g., a driveway is not a cycleway, even if using it is required to access cycle routes.

Resolves note/4532597

I've already changed it in the couple places it happened, but just for future reference: it's rarely right for there to be a curb where two sidewalks intersect, since it shows on navigation systems for the visually impaired or wheelchair users that they have to go down and up the curb/ramp just to get between the two adjacent sidewalks. That's why you'll see little sidewalk nubs sticking out on the corners of intersections, so that the curb/ramp only applies to where the sidewalk meets the crossing.

Resolves the following notes:

note/4475980
note/4476004
note/4490785
note/4490787
note/4490788

resolves note/4513656

hopefully resolves note/4498173

resolves note/4491733

resolves note/4406071

resolves note/4378861

resolves note/4363564

resolves note/4332211