piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
voschix (2024-08-11 10:54:45+00:00): Buongiorno. Mi dispiace per non aver risposto tempestivamente. Avevo inserito io la stradina, basandomi su informazioni (Strava Global Heatmap) che non ho verificato sul posto. Secondo questa informazione la stradina viene frequentata a piedi. Se lei è il proprietario della stradina e non esiste un diritto di passaggio per il pubblico, neanche a piedi, questa informazione sarebbe da inserire correttamente in OpenStreetMap, cioè come strada bianca con access=private. In questo modo prodotti come komoot o altri navigatori non guideranno più gli utenti via la sua proprietà. Invece se la stradina è completamente eliminata dai dati, e visto che ci sono delle persone che passano lo stesso, il rischio è che la strada viene reinserita, basandosi sulla stessa fonte che ho utilizzato io.
Stn200220022002 (2024-08-11 12:22:47+00:00): Buongiorno, grazie mille delle informazioni. Purtroppo non posso lasciarla come strada perché non esiste una strada, nè è una strada privata è il bordo del mio giardino. Letteralmente la parte di bordo verde d'erba laterale del mio giardino nel quale le persone accedevano vedendola come strada dalla mappa digitale. Tanto che abbiamo messo catena e pilastri di metallo. Ho provato a inserire questa barriera anche nella mappa digitale ma altri utenti continuano a intervenire e rimuoverla senza avere idea della situazione in loco.
Stn200220022002 (2024-08-11 12:26:09+00:00): Comunque, la ringrazio molto dell'aiuto. Spero di venire a capo di questa situazione spiacevole.
Stn200220022002 (2024-08-11 12:38:09+00:00): Una buona giornata a Lei :-)
logus2 (2024-07-31 01:59:35+00:00): thank you so much! I'm very grateful that you've mapped this.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-10-13 05:23:28+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1304654266/history - czy są jakiekolwiek pozostałości w terenie tego obiektu?
logus2 (2024-07-31 01:59:49+00:00): thank you so much! I'm very grateful that you've mapped this.
mcliquid (2024-07-31 17:34:50+00:00): You're welcome!
cuzi (2024-07-31 07:12:09+00:00): Vielleicht kann man noch emergency=ambulance_station hinzufügen, falls das passt (ich kenne die Situation vor Ort nicht) siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:emergency%3Dambulance_station
Stomson (2024-07-31 07:41:01+00:00): Hierbei handelt es sich lediglich um die Halle der Ehrenamtlichen Gliederung des Ortsvereins Dossenheim und nicht um eine Rettungswache. Daher passt das wie ich das sehe nicht.
Danke für deinen Hinweis.
eggie (2024-08-01 22:02:37+00:00): Wanneer je wegen splits zoals op de Swanendrift zul je rekening moeten houden met de busrouterelaties . Die zijn nu stuk.
Met editor iD kun je overigens geen routeralties bewerken dus svp geen wegen meer splitsen. Vraag dan even om hulp op het forum.
MVG
eggie
MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-08-01 22:25:20+00:00): fixed duplicated ways..
fixed 3 busroutes
fixed bicyclerouting.
eggie (2024-08-01 22:32:30+00:00): Verder zie ik talloze foutmeldingen van wegen die niet aan elkaar zitten. 
Ik kijk morgen wel even. 
Svp stoppen met die losliggende voetpaden.
Svp geen wegen meer verdubblen als je de kennis nog niet hebt om dat te doen en routerelaties kunt bewerken.
MVG
eggie
geogidon (2024-08-01 22:35:34+00:00): Zal ik doen! Dank voor de tip!
eggie (2024-08-01 22:41:40+00:00): 👍
cuzi (2024-07-31 07:19:17+00:00): In Deutschland wird bei Spielstraßen (highway=living_street) normalerweise kein maxspeed eingetragen, siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3Dliving_street#Verwendung_in_Deutschland
Stomson (2024-07-31 07:42:16+00:00): Vielen dank für den Hinweis. Werde ich zukünftig berücksichtigen.
eggie (2024-07-30 16:24:11+00:00): Dag JT,

Goed om zoiets weer te repareren.
Het verzoek is wel om concreet commentaar op je changesets te zetten.
Dat is al tijden 'Uitlijnen van wegen en het bewerken van landuses en natural' 
, maar dat is niet wat je hier hebt gedaan.
Kijk svp even naar de richtlijnen betreffende  commentaar bij uploads. 

Good practice    

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:Good_practice 

Mvg
eggie
luptakdavid (2024-07-30 14:41:02+00:00): Barborská cesta cycling aj hiking route
ivanbranco (2024-07-31 19:23:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154623228
NorthCrab_upload (2024-07-30 14:50:27+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.

"Rychnowy":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1067174555
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1194910604
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1194910605

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
rohieb (2025-08-26 15:54:40+00:00): Hi, could you add to the discussion in https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4424691 ?
emersonveenstra (2024-08-02 19:04:54+00:00): Hi,

You added https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1304664387 without any tags, could you please go back and tag it? Thanks
Oreg2 (2024-08-04 22:02:32+00:00): Salut MFlamm, your changeset improved some recent edits of mine—thank you, much appreciated.

One thing, however, I'm not quite following. On the Route Suisse you converted the cycleway:left=lane to =shared_lane when it is clearly a regular bike lane, separate from other vehicles. (Luckily, shared lanes are not very common in Switzerland, as far as I can tell.) Can you explain?
MFlamm (2024-08-05 06:53:01+00:00): Hello and thanks for your own edits.
In the Canton of Vaud, some bike lanes are a bit tricky because they were painted out of the Swiss norm during covid-pandemic (https://www.vd.ch/mobilite/loffre-de-mobilite-a-votre-disposition/velo-et-marche/velos/amenagements-cyclables#:~:text=Au%20sortir%20du%20premier%20confinement,avec%20des%20bandes%20cyclables%20provisoires.). As a consequence, the car lanes are very narrow on those roads and cars  often have to drive on the bike lanes when passing vehicles coming the other way. While still useful, those bike lanes do not have the usual cycling value of a standard bike lane...
Oreg2 (2024-08-05 10:29:22+00:00): Thank you for your response—interesting. That would be something like a 2-minus-1 road ("Kernfahrbahn" in German) which in my understanding, too, would indeed be marked as a shared lane.

These roads usually don't have a center line, though, whereas this one even has a solid one. That prevents vehicles from overtaking with a sufficient passing distance which defeats the basic idea, really.

So the marking here looks like a regular cycle lane but narrower than the law requires. So the idea is to mark them as shared lanes to differentiate them from proper bike lanes, emphasizing that they are not safe? Maybe you have a point.

Thanks again!
MFlamm (2024-08-05 13:09:53+00:00): Those "covid"-lanes have been painted mainly on main roads outside of towns, where the speed limit is 60 or even 80 km/h. They are not narrower than required by the Swiss technical norms (i.e. they are at least 1.50 m wide). It is really the remaining width for the car lanes that is impacted! 
Their main benefit is indeed that car drivers get more aware of the necessary lateral passing distance. For example, look at this road section where this innovative way of lane painting is even more impressive: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/682712590 

PS. On that portion of the Rte de Suisse, the lane tagging is debatable and I will check the results of bicycle routers. Maybe I will revert the tagging to cycleway:left=lane...
Oreg2 (2024-08-05 15:25:57+00:00): Hehe, I'm afraid I don't share the optimism that cycle lanes improve motor vehicles' passing distance. 😇 My personal experience suggests the opposite: Drivers think as long as they stay just left of the cycle lane they're good, leading to very close overtaking. Also, 2-minus-1 roads suggest that driving on cycle lanes is okay, which is counterproductive.

Luckily, we don't have to agree on road-marking policy here. 😉 Please forgive me for having taken the discussion a little off topic.

Back on topic, I'm curious: What difference would we expect from bicycle routers for the two lane tags?
MFlamm (2024-08-05 16:07:57+00:00): On the Rte de Suisse, which is mapped as a primary road, I imagine that a lane will generally be considered as more secure than a shared_lane. I tried it with geovelo.ch (the system which is supported by regional authorities), however that system has not yet updated its routing base data and it currently proposes itineraries on the right side track (i.e. in a wrong direction, because that was not tagged as oneway before my last edits). 

Regarding the benefit of the lanes that I mentioned regarding the lateral passing distance: that is not solely my own perception, this benefit has been confirmed by an evaluation study ;-)
Oreg2 (2024-08-05 18:18:29+00:00): Thanks again, MFlamm, for your kind and informative responses. Happy onward mapping. 😊
simer_lkpg (2024-07-30 19:16:59+00:00): "Bonnorpsgatan" är gatunamnet naturligtvis.
masusta (2024-07-30 20:49:58+00:00): Undiscussed addition
SantsPavan (2025-06-13 13:38:16+00:00): Address Not Verified
jmaspons (2025-06-13 15:55:45+00:00): I don't understand. What's the comment about?  The changeset just adds name:ca for existing geometries as you can see https://osmcha.org/changesets/154610665
MCalaOSM (2024-08-01 16:29:10+00:00): Grazie e stata una svista, un caro saluto
BCNorwich (2024-08-01 07:42:39+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've removed several duplicated sections of highway which would have disrupted routing.

If a service road is also a public footpath please do not map the path on top of the road. Rather amend the tagging to the road to show it's dual use, designation=public_footpath
foot=designated
highway=service.

Regards Bernard.
BCNorwich (2024-08-01 07:49:38+00:00): Hi, A different problem, footpath Way: 1304673213, you've mapped as crossing 2 waterways, the waterways are restrictions to the highway. Are there bridges or fords crossing the waterways? 

Regards Bernard.
nave88 (2024-07-30 15:47:34+00:00): Correction: updated according to name in Post Office (Excel file), not according to sign post.
Hungerburg (2024-07-31 19:49:38+00:00): I do not understand why. Most are not climbing routes but mountain hiking paths. I guess uiaa was I or II there, rarely III?
waldyrious (2024-08-01 22:11:32+00:00): Hi Hungerburg. I'm not sure I get what you're asking me. As far as I understand, the `climbing:grade:uiaa` and `uiaa_scale` keys represent the same information (a UIAA grade as described in https://www.theuiaa.org/grades-standards/rock-climbing/), just with two different names. Are you proposing that we use `uiaa_scale` for grades 1 and 2, and `climbing:grade:uiaa` for the higher grades? I think that may be rather confusing for mappers and map consumers alike.

The `climbing:grade:uiaa` naming is described in detail in the [Climbing#Grading](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Climbing#Grading) wiki page, as well as in [Key:sac_scale#See also](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale#See_also), follows a consistent nomenclature regarding other difficulty scales mentioned in the [[Climbing]] page, and is used extensively (over 11 thousand uses at the time of writing) all over the world: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/climbing%3Agrade%3Auiaa — many of which with values under 3.

In contrast, `uiaa_scale` had an order of magnitude fewer uses, and it was not described in the wiki except in the [highway=scramble proposal](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Highway%3Dscramble#Tagging), and with the hard-to-enforce restriction for use in grades 1 and 2 only.

Is your objection only because of the `climbing:` prefix? I'm sympathetic to the desire for clear nomenclature, but then we'd lose consistency with the other hiking/climbing/mountaineering difficulty tags, and I doubt it would make a dent in the sensibleness of OSM keys anyway (I mean, don't we use the `highway` key for all sorts of roads, paths, etc.?)
Hungerburg (2024-08-01 22:42:40+00:00): Perhaps you are spot on. If anything that merits UIAA is considered climbing, it should not be filed under highway=path then -- perhaps not under a highway=* at all? So - should'n't you have changed the hw=paths to climbing:route too?
waldyrious (2024-08-01 23:01:23+00:00): I didn't mean to say that anything that merits UIAA should be considered climbing. I can certainly agree that levels 1 and 2 may not match the definition of climbing, strictly speaking. All I'm saying is that if the tag name is inadequate, we could consider changing it, but having two tags for different values of the same scale doesn't seem like a sustainable system.

I performed this edit because it seemed like, with an order of magnitude of difference in adoption, there was de facto consensus that `climbing:grade:uiaa` is a good enough key name, even if it's not ideal. But I'm definitely open to stand corrected if you disagree with this interpretation of the status quo.
nave88 (2024-07-30 15:47:22+00:00): Correction: updated according to name in Post Office (Excel file), not according to sign post.
Marek-M (2024-07-31 09:38:10+00:00): Reverting changeset because:
Official road classification may be auxiliary, but not decisive when determining the value of the 'highway=*' tag The roads you changed had correct categories before.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154639805
Marek-M (2024-07-30 20:20:15+00:00): Hi, before changing the road category, did you familiarize yourself with the rules for mapping roads in Poland? The wiki is in Polish, so you may have difficulty understanding the full content of the descriptions. One of them says that: the official road classification may be auxiliary, but not decisive when determining the value of the 'highway=*' tag

The roads you changed should definitely not have the highway=tertiary category. The edit will be reverted unless you have arguments to raise the category of these roads.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Drogi#Klasyfikacja_urzędowa_a_oznaczenia_na_OpenStreetMap
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Znakowanie_dróg_w_Polsce
vojtechzaboril (2024-07-31 06:57:57+00:00): Hi, in that case make a revert of those changes. Thanks
Marek-M (2024-07-31 09:38:11+00:00): Reverting changeset because:
Official road classification may be auxiliary, but not decisive when determining the value of the 'highway=*' tag The roads you changed had correct categories before.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154639805
vojtechzaboril (2024-07-30 15:46:00+00:00): It is still tertiary road (according to ref), surface tags added
Marek-M (2024-07-30 20:17:43+00:00): Hi, before changing the road category, did you familiarize yourself with the rules for mapping roads in Poland? The wiki is in Polish, so you may have difficulty understanding the full content of the descriptions. One of them says that: the official road classification may be auxiliary, but not decisive when determining the value of the 'highway=*' tag

The roads you changed should definitely not have the highway=tertiary category. The edit will be reverted unless you have arguments to raise the category of these roads.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Drogi#Klasyfikacja_urzędowa_a_oznaczenia_na_OpenStreetMap
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Znakowanie_dróg_w_Polsce
eserte (2024-08-02 05:51:29+00:00): Hallo tordans,

der Rubinweg ist derzeitig noch Baustraße, und es ist fraglich, ob es eine Verbindung zur Straße 199 geben wird:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=525804886456670
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1187403799264564

Laut https://www.berlin.de/ba-pankow/politik-und-verwaltung/bezirksverordnetenversammlung/online/vo020.asp?VOLFDNR=6885 ziehen die ersten Mieter erst im September 2024 ein.
tordans (2024-08-04 13:23:37+00:00): Danke für die Fotos!
Ich glaube, ich würde es erstmal so eingetragen lassen. Da die Häuser noch alle als "in Bau" getaggt sind, wird da früher oder später eh nochmal jemand dran arbeiten und dann hoffentlich ein Update von allem machen.
eserte (2024-08-04 19:42:27+00:00): Problem ist, dass die Routing-Engines die Straße schon berücksichtigen, z.B.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_bicycle&route=52.5862%2C13.4246%3B52.5922%2C13.4210
Man sollte das schon auf access=no oder (wegen StreetComplete) auf highway=construction setzen.
NorthCrab_upload (2024-07-30 16:10:17+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2560871168
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/249920683

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
emersonveenstra (2024-08-02 19:05:08+00:00): Hi,

You added https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1304679979 with no tags, please go back and tag it
Mathias_ADAV (2024-08-05 09:49:06+00:00): Bonjour, cette rue est à priori bien en double cyclable avec une piste cycalble séparé de la chaussée. Il faut donc la cartographier à part. Je vais dans un premier temps passer le opposite_lane en opposite_track
NorthCrab_upload (2024-07-30 16:30:46+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.

"Koralowa":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/581593693
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1110471148
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1110471166

"Lazurowa":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/582066049
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1110471167
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1110471168

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
phoenixsaigon1698 (2024-08-12 06:40:04+00:00): Đừng có đi phá hoại, nếu tiếp tục sẽ report và ban IP, ban địa chỉ mac.
vojtechzaboril (2024-07-30 17:01:07+00:00): Edit:
Changed to landuse=residential as boundary of administrative area are already mapped in https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/270090
phodgkin (2025-03-23 18:13:13+00:00): What was the basis for changing the access tagging on Centrelink. Isn't this a bus only route?
JonnyFaceplant (2025-03-23 18:32:58+00:00): Someone changed the type so it no longer appeared as a roadway but as a path, so made changes to revert it. Not sure on the current access tag status.
phodgkin (2025-03-23 18:52:35+00:00): Yes, it looks like another editor changed from `highway=service` (plus the correct tagging for bus only) to `highway=busway`. This is perfectly fine tagging, but busways don't show up the standard map. The access tagging is now incorrect (will allow cars). I'll fix this.
Taksine (2024-08-10 12:43:04+00:00): Hello, English isn't spoken in China, please don't write English on name. Are you an employee of Mapy.cz? What you're doing is too unprofessional.
vojtechzaboril (2024-08-10 14:42:17+00:00): Hello, i just copied the name from area of that junction to those nodes. If you know its name in chinese add it to name and move this name to name:en
vojtechzaboril (2024-08-10 14:43:23+00:00): I simply cant add name in chinese without knowing it.
Regards
impiaaa (2024-07-31 22:58:50+00:00): Thanks for contributing to OSM! Please do not reference Google Street View or Google Maps when editing OSM. It's illegal/against copyright, and violates Google's terms of use.
CurlingMan13 (2024-07-30 18:39:12+00:00): What exactly are you adjusting?
Peter Towers (2024-07-30 18:52:55+00:00): The motorway lines of I 278 since it did not look smooth so I added more nodes to make it smoother and made the spacing between each motorway line equal.
ZeLonewolf (2024-07-31 13:28:23+00:00): This changeset was reverted in whole or in part to restore place classifications to the status quo ante.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154650004
ZeLonewolf (2024-07-31 13:09:12+00:00): Discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/broad-undiscussed-new-england-place-name-reclassification/111201/44
Antonio  djdjdjkdldldlkddbdbsbsnakamsmskskw (2024-08-08 14:08:13+00:00): Hi
Khidistavi (2024-08-03 07:04:10+00:00): Reverted.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154668915
ZeLonewolf (2024-07-31 13:10:08+00:00): Please do not make any further place classification changes in New England before discussing it at:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/broad-undiscussed-new-england-place-name-reclassification/111201
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2025-09-12 14:13:16+00:00): Hastighedsgrænsen er ikke 50 i Birkende.

De firkantede blå tavler angiver en ANBEFALET hastighed, byzonen angiver en påbudt  50 kmh hastighedsgrænse.

Den anbefalede hastighedsgrænse var i forvejen korrekt tagget som maxspeed:advisory.

Jeg har rettet det i Birkede, men måske er det også galt andre steder.
MicDK (2025-09-12 18:30:41+00:00): Hej Niels,

Du har helt ret. Jeg kan i dag ikke huske eksakt, hvorfor jeg taggede hastigheden forkert. Bare at jeg kørte gennem Birkende og opdagede en eller anden fejl i forbindelse med ensretningerne omkring kirken.

Tak for rettelsen. Jeg kan have lavet lignende fejl, og skal holde nok holde øje med det.

Med venlig hilsen
Michael
Allison P (2024-07-31 05:02:39+00:00): abandoned=village is not recognized by most data consumers. place=locality would be a better choice.
toolmanzwief (2024-07-31 17:10:19+00:00): Thanks for the clarification.  I've added the place=locality tag as you recommended.
Khidistavi (2024-08-03 07:03:41+00:00): Reverted.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154668915
OSM_RogerWilco (2024-08-02 06:43:25+00:00): Hallo groxxog,

ich halte es nicht für sinnvoll, dass man an allen Eingängen die Adresse erfasst. Entweder die Adresse an den Haupteingang oder an die Gebäude-Linie, dann kann die Adresse auch automatisch an alle Eingänge auf der Linie übertragen/vererbt werden.

Viele Grüße
Roger Wilco
groxxorg (2024-08-02 11:21:42+00:00): Hallo Roger,

da hast du natürlich Recht. Habe ich korrigiert.

Liebe Grüße
groxxorg
Szymson (2024-07-30 18:45:53+00:00): Od kiedy tory SKM to jest light rail?
Szymson (2024-07-30 18:47:12+00:00): Nijak ma się to do definicji z Wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:railway%3Dlight_rail
user_21404834 (2024-07-30 19:14:39+00:00): https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Bahn_w_Berlinie
Szymson (2024-07-30 20:22:13+00:00): Skonsultuj taką propozycję na forum, a nie od razu samodzielnie, arbitralnie wprowadzasz zmiany, co do których są poważne wątpliwości.
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2024-07-31 10:56:03+00:00): Unsafe but legal. Unfortunately, we need to keep them. Thanks!
mashdash (2024-07-31 13:45:39+00:00): I work for a company that uses OSM as a base map, and users have complained about this crossing being unsafe and should route you to another one. 

Is there a better way to mark this? Quebec Highway code also says pedestrians must use a crosswalk if there is one nearby, which in this case there is on the other Berri.
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2024-07-31 13:52:59+00:00): I understand very well. You could change foot=permissive isntead, but there is no way right now to specify the danger level of a footpath. I wish there was, but it does not exist yet. Usually, we should use other data on top of osm for this kind of usage, but I know it is difficult to implement. However, you can add any tag you like and use them for your specific routing. Example: routing:danger=1-10 and then in your routing engine you could route only if danger <= 5 or so. But keep in mind this is non-standard and people could remove those unstandard tags. The problem here is that on a Sunday at 7AM, this crossing is almost always emty and thus very safe, but at rush hour on a weekday, this is dangerous, but still legal. Highway code explains that you must use a crosswalk if between two intersections, but at an intersection, you can cross, even if there is no paint or crosswalk as such, expcet if there is a specific sign for pedestrian saying it is illegal to cross the street there.