| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 67379973 by swanilli @ 2019-02-20 06:57 | 1 | 2024-09-10 01:15 | aharvey ♦1,709 | Given these roads just service small block residential houses, and don't connect to anywhere else I feel they should be classified as highway=residential. Do you think this is okay? |
| 68945081 by swanilli @ 2019-04-06 07:21 | 1 | 2020-06-19 11:52 | Warin61 ♦2,663 | Way 682056525 'named' swamp? I think that is, at best, a description not a name. Better tagged as wetland=swamp. |
| 15450694 by swanilli @ 2013-03-22 06:47 | 1 | 2019-04-22 13:07 | aharvey ♦1,709 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/211410472 looks like a duplicate of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/437244348/history. So I kept the original one and deleted the one you added. |
| 40410785 by swanilli @ 2016-07-01 08:22 | 1 | 2019-01-29 05:04 | Warin61 ♦2,663 | Hi,It is much much better to have a separate relation for the tree area!So I have;Deleted tag natural=wood from the National Park relation.Added new relation for the tree area - so it does not follow the NP boundary, has holes for non tree areas. It is fairly coarse, but better than ... |
| 52665809 by swanilli @ 2017-10-05 20:23 | 1 | 2017-10-05 22:05 | aharvey ♦1,709 | I can see where you're coming from, and honestly I'm not sure what we should have in OSM here, but the path from Burning Palms to Figure of Eight Pool was marked as trail_visibility=no which means pathless so no evident trail on the ground. This passage is very well used by people so I... |
| 2 | 2017-10-05 22:07 | aharvey ♦1,709 | On the otherhand there are no markings on the ground, and it might be better to add tags to the rock to indicate it's passable so routers can choose to go over the rock. | |
| 3 | 2018-08-29 13:29 | aharvey ♦1,709 | I've opened a discussion about https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/157934548 at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2018-August/012045.html | |
| 50742881 by swanilli @ 2017-08-01 08:28 | 1 | 2017-08-02 05:45 | aharvey ♦1,709 | Thanks for fixing up the geometry.I'm not sure about https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/384742094. The name tag isn't meant to contain access descriptions like "(closed)". What is there on the ground that actually indicates that this track is closed? What does cl... |
| 2 | 2017-08-29 11:36 | aharvey ♦1,709 | Hi @swanilli, I'd like to remove the description (closed) from the name. I'd even be okay with no name on this way since I've never seen a sign pointing out this path with a name. | |
| 43937704 by swanilli @ 2016-11-25 07:06 | 1 | 2017-03-23 10:59 | aharvey ♦1,709 | For https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/455660812 is it really named "Unmarked track"? There is a tag for unmarked tracks, trail_visibility=no. |
| 30207586 by swanilli @ 2015-04-14 09:56 | 1 | 2017-03-19 23:46 | aharvey ♦1,709 | When you named Pindar Pool, you cited a copyrighted source, I think it's best to use survey or local_knowledge souces. |
| 40449514 by swanilli @ 2016-07-02 23:29 | 1 | 2016-07-06 09:21 | Warin61 ♦2,663 | Way: 402805211 Appears to be property boundary for Dangar Island. Way: Dangar Island (172544584) -part of multipolygon Hawesbury river. Relation: Dangar Island (6039000) uses way 402805211 ... this duplicates the above way feature. ------------------To remove the duplicate (chose which... |
| 40409860 by swanilli @ 2016-07-01 07:25 | 1 | 2016-07-02 05:05 | Warin61 ♦2,663 | Hi,Found you ... :) .. could not find you before I made the change on the wiki. I think the original access tag is for motor vehicles... and those may well be restricted here. Most mappers only consider motor vehicles... |
| 2 | 2016-07-02 07:52 | swanilli | Yes. There is a sign on a gate that says "Rail Corridor" and "Authorised vehicles only" but the tracks are in Garrawarra State Conservation area not on the Rail Corridor which is only 30 m wide. | |
| 3 | 2016-07-02 08:41 | swanilli | On checking 30 m is not accurate. I have read rail corridor is "15m from the outermost rail on either side" but it is clearly more than this in most places, 60 m or more. It does not alter conclusion for these tracks which are well outside rail corridor. | |
| 4 | 2016-07-02 21:42 | Warin61 ♦2,663 | The sign says "Authorized Vehicles Only" ... not just "Rail Corridor". See http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/things-to-do/Walking-tracks/Cawleys-Road-trail for who can use it... looks to me to EXCLUDE MOTOR VEHICLES! If necessary I will ring them and confirm that this tra... | |
| 40086323 by swanilli @ 2016-06-17 08:37 | 1 | 2016-07-02 05:21 | Warin61 ♦2,663 | Hi, example Way: Saltpan Creek Track (174143548) tagged access=yes means all things can access it .. vehicles bicycles and horses etc. But access=no and foot=yes means only people who are walking can access it ... and that is the way it was tagged before you changed it? |
| 35318169 by swanilli @ 2015-11-14 22:28 | 1 | 2016-02-25 02:10 | Warin61 ♦2,663 | Removed name from Way: Garigal National Park (218612893) Relation: Garigal National Park (5989695) now carries the name and correct boundaries for this. |
| 20027549 by swanilli @ 2014-01-16 05:09 | 1 | 2016-01-27 21:10 | Warin61 ♦2,663 | Presently way 169174227 is tagged;name=Blue Mountains National Parkboundary=national_parkThis covers a very large area ... that is;part of the Blue Mountains National Park (not the northern section)all of;Yerrandrie State Conservation AreaYerrandrie Regional ParkNattai Nati... |
| 19839073 by swanilli @ 2014-01-06 07:40 | 1 | 2015-08-06 08:10 | aharvey ♦1,709 | I would like to revert this (ie. remove name=cliff) because they aren't named "cliff", and it's causing issues for downstream data users expecting the name in the name tag. |
| 2 | 2015-08-17 09:05 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | There's a discussion of what should go in the name tag at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only . I don't believe that "cliff" makes sense here. | |
| 3 | 2015-08-17 09:36 | aharvey ♦1,709 | I've gone ahead and reverted this changeset (which only added the name=cliff tags) in changeset 33385884 | |
| 4 | 2015-08-17 09:41 | swanilli | Two points:1. I have stood there. It is definitely a cliff. It definitely makes sense to me.2. There seems to be a lamentable tendency of some people to mistake Wiki guidelines as Gospel or some other divine authority. They are not. They are just what the name says, guidelines. The issue is what... | |
| 5 | 2015-08-17 09:59 | aharvey ♦1,709 | Hi Swanilli,1. I'm not disagreeing about there being cliffs here, hence the natural=cliff tags still remain.2. Regarding my comment about downstream data users, I can only quote my personal example which is [1]. I'm extracting names of features and using these in the walk descripti... | |
| 28970592 by swanilli @ 2015-02-20 04:32 | 1 | 2015-03-23 23:04 | aharvey ♦1,709 | Regarding way 302242009 [http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/302242009] the name tag is used to tag the names of things [http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Name] not provide a description or access restrictions, please use that tag instead [http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:description] |
| 2 | 2015-03-23 23:21 | nildes14 ♦1 | In my view this is a safety issue and safety must come before all other concerns. Please read the name and consider what it means! Tagging it description= relegates it to invisibility in all normal OSM rendering. Removing the caution is a moral not stylistic decision. Until OSM has a visible tag... | |
| 3 | 2015-03-23 23:30 | aharvey ♦1,709 | According to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_use_name_tag_to_describe_things it is good practice not to abuse the name tag in this way, and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_renderer The default OSM rendering is not the only user of OSM dat... | |
| 11057695 by swanilli @ 2012-03-21 21:55 | 1 | 2015-03-23 23:13 | aharvey ♦1,709 | Why is this named footbridge? Is there actually a sign labelling it? It seems to me like foot=yes + bridge=yes + highway=path is enough to indicated it is a footbridge. |
| 27079948 by swanilli @ 2014-11-27 23:45 | 1 | 2015-01-19 09:41 | aharvey ♦1,709 | Why is http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/314796230 named Pond? I couldn't find any sign or otherwise on the ground to support this. Shouldn't it just be water=pond without a name tag? |
| 2 | 2015-01-19 20:58 | swanilli | It was definitely there on 17 Nov 14. It is mentioned in Wildwalks track notes and visible in Google maps (zoom in here: -33.491738, 151.225933). Maybe it had dried up when you visited.Let's face it, it's a small pond. I gave it the generic name "Pond" so it would be more visib... | |
| 3 | 2015-01-20 08:53 | aharvey ♦1,709 | I meant I couldn't find a sign that named the it "Pond", I agree that the water does exist, it's just the name is wrong. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Name specifically the example of "closed pub (due for demolition): do not describe the object in lieu of a name.&qu... | |
| 4 | 2015-01-27 09:55 | aharvey ♦1,709 | I've updated this based on the name tag being just a description already provided by water=pond. |