CloCkWeRX participated in the following changeset discussions
Changeset # Tmstmp UTC Contributor Comment
155406751
by Supt_of_Printing
@ 2024-08-18 10:20
12025-06-15 07:47CloCkWeRX You have downgraded residential roads that other mappers have added; and named from authoritative sources as "alley".

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Dalley

These are clearly residential roads.

Needs reverting.
158035446
by Supt_of_Printing
@ 2024-10-18 06:09
12024-10-18 06:18fortera_au
♦1,067
Hi, this area has recently had changes that likely aren't reflected on Bing, especially around the rails themselves, if you're not using up to date imagery (as in the last couple of months) this has likely undone some recent changes to map that new work.
---

...
22024-10-18 06:29Supt_of_Printing
♦40
I was cross-checking Bing with Esri (which is usually more recent), and Mapbox, along with Google and street view. If it has changed since all of these I couldn't find it. Apologies if I'm wrong.
32024-10-18 06:39fortera_au
♦1,067
I'm hoping Esri has most of the new bits.

However, Google/Street View isn't an allowed source due to copyright so I wouldn't use it while mapping.
42024-10-18 06:43Supt_of_Printing
♦40
I wasn't using Google/Street view to do the mapping, just to cross-check.
52024-10-18 06:48fortera_au
♦1,067
Generally best to avoid using it at all, just to be safe.
62024-10-20 20:16ne17sg
♦4
The changes to Port Dock line at the station do not agree with the photographs I took there about 2 weeks ago - and editted as best I could to reflect the new station layout and the changes to National Railway museum layout. If possible you should visit there rather than use out of date sat images
72025-06-15 06:36CloCkWeRX This needs reverting, 155687361 is more correct from repeated local survey
82025-06-15 06:55CloCkWeRX Ugh, this is a total mess to revert.

- The rail is absolutely incorrect
- The cycleways are incorrect
- This broke multiple relations for key cycleways

92025-06-15 08:09ne17sg
♦4
Thanks the tracks look closer to my visit from last year, but the Port Dock platform is longer and much more to the south east.
Shame there aren't any sat images from the last year!
See my note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4461097
138042726
by Kug Lee
@ 2023-07-03 00:27
12025-05-04 03:42CloCkWeRX For overland line road, not sure its quite right marked as driveway as far as it is. Can you double check?
165073846
by CloCkWeRX
@ 2025-04-17 14:05
12025-04-23 08:27fortera_au
♦1,067
Not sure whether the road way is wrong or the Liberty is wrong, but the street names don't match up, Claire vs Clare. Do you know which one is correct?
22025-04-27 08:10CloCkWeRX Clare is correct
156561900
by CloCkWeRX
@ 2024-09-13 08:59
12025-04-16 07:56Mateusz Konieczny
♦7,627
Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12174478020/history has fixme:type = shop that was added in this edit
What kind of shop is here?

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop for common values - is any of them fitting?
22025-04-17 01:45CloCkWeRX It was a weird gift shop, I've removed it for now though.
157363869
by ne17sg
@ 2024-10-02 05:27
12024-10-06 03:56CloCkWeRX This changeset is wrong near the railway museum. I surveyed on opening day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Dock_railway_station#/media/File:Port_Dock_railway_station,_24_August_2024_(day_before_opening).jpg

Only one crossing.
The old line does not come up past the public toilets
The pla...
22024-10-06 03:58CloCkWeRX Its also wrong past the aviation museum. The fence depicts where the cyclepath is separated from the railway line. You've added duplicate rail in.
I think this changeset should be reverted.
32024-10-06 10:36ne17sg
♦4
fixed NRM track end from my photo
42024-10-06 10:40ne17sg
♦4
Did you not see the NRM track (which ends where I've shown it? As I noted it is actually 4 rails but I couldn't tell the gauge of the inner rails?

Happy for you to correct the cycle path & fence line but the previous state was totally wrong to currewnt (ie last Tuesday's layout...
156372040
by splosh123
@ 2024-09-08 23:36
12024-09-09 00:46GeeMaps!
♦29
Sorry, but why add the tag about outdoor seating?
22024-09-09 01:25splosh123
♦1
I didnt think I had added a tag about outdoor seating? Unless it was in error.
32024-09-14 15:22CloCkWeRX https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps/issues/9049
42024-09-15 00:02GeeMaps!
♦29
Thanks. Yes, have only found out about that in the last few days.
141514454
by slice0
@ 2023-09-20 13:32
Active block
12024-09-14 15:02CloCkWeRX Marco Polo was clearly named as Marco Polo foods; you have arbitrarly merged it with the clothing company.
143465029
by ChonkerStonker
@ 2023-11-01 09:54
12024-09-11 13:17CloCkWeRX Oh, nice work with the farmland!
141578158
by slice0
@ 2023-09-21 21:10
Active block
12023-12-11 08:13CloCkWeRX This isn't right.

See
https://sappa.plan.sa.gov.au/

And survey on the ground.
Top half is a track. It may technically be Churchett Road.
Bottom half is an unmade road reserve which last time I surveyed was marked as "private".
The last time I emailed the councils who control...
22023-12-11 08:37slice0
Active block
Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option.
32023-12-11 09:16slice0
Active block
Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option.
42023-12-12 09:47Mateusz Konieczny
♦7,627
CloCkWeRX: if you known this area from survey and this edit has mistakes based on your local knowledge - I would strongly encourage to revert it as slice0 response does not indicate that they have a better source

see also https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144928924
52023-12-31 08:50CloCkWeRX I think disconnecting it has (mildly) improved it, but we've gone from a more accurate driveway + connection to track to this.
Will think about reverting, but haven't been by that area in a while + mapillary is dated, so would be better served by resurvey
144082977
by fortera_au
@ 2023-11-16 08:06
12023-12-05 08:12CloCkWeRX With https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1224030782 the road base is a bit more visible on esri
22023-12-05 08:14fortera_au
♦1,067
I did notice that today funnily enough, looks fairly accurate at least.
143044689
by Turbotraveller115
@ 2023-10-24 03:05
12023-10-24 07:19CloCkWeRX Nice work :)

As a tip, consider selecting the address node and the house you draw while holding shift, then using the "C" button to combine them.

Works well for single dwellings with one address, though apartment blocks or duplexes might be worth skipping
121744277
by Aalbers69
@ 2022-05-31 03:37
12023-08-27 07:37CloCkWeRX Is it safe to assume the "Subway" here is the fast food chain, not a building of a particular type?
22023-08-30 01:52Aalbers69
♦7
CloCkWeRX - According to the council rate system, 'Subway' is the name of the building.
116006341
by AustinMaps
@ 2022-01-11 04:33
12023-08-14 10:51CloCkWeRX What's the source of this name?
136611854
by TheSwavu
@ 2023-05-27 06:14
12023-05-30 09:01CloCkWeRX This one is a bit tricky, I think. Bing shows significantly more flooding than is mapped/ESRI does, but I can't tell if that's just updated imagery at the same time the big glut of water flowed through. Haven't been through the area in > 12 months though :S
22023-05-30 09:19TheSwavu
♦544
I used Sentinel to check to see what was water at a more normal river level. It lines up with what ESRI shows.
124324306
by Warin61
@ 2022-08-01 04:14
12022-08-16 11:21CloCkWeRX https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1082798744 - completely circular cricket pitch does not agree with imagery or on the ground survey.

Similar issues have been introduced with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1082798746

22022-08-17 08:24Warin61
♦2,663
Using a circle is a simplification, the AFL pitch should be much larger. Using the AFL boundaries as the cricket boundary is incorrect.

Rules? - thus for cricket
A circular cricket field is considered as the perfect field but generally a cricket pitch is slightly oval. Its diameter varies betwe...
32022-08-18 14:10CloCkWeRX What you have put as source: bing *does not show this at all*.

The only sources I can find that show anything like this are:
* ERSI - different geometry
* Google maps, which also shows different geometry.

What's on the ground?
It's literally a giant mud puddle as several hundred c...
42022-08-19 08:00Warin61
♦2,663
Looking on bing I can see the cricket wear from wicket to wicket .. thus there is evidence of a cricket pitch.

AFL is a winter game - so it is 'on the ground' now. AFL is a very large pitch usually taking all of the space available.
Cricket is a summer game so it is not 'on the ...
52022-09-06 10:05CloCkWeRX > Looking on bing I can see the cricket wear

Bollocks. You can see a pitch. Making up a boundry based on rules which is *not* visible does not pass muster.

> Cricket is a summer game so it is not 'on the ground now'.

Again, if its not on the ground AND its not visible in im...
62022-09-09 11:20Warin61
♦2,663
If you care to look back at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/246072179/history you will see the cricket pitch was mapped to the Australian rules football area... The Australian Rules Football were not mapped .. so the past mapper ignored the football ... but tagged cricket.

Then look at the &#...
72022-09-11 06:20CloCkWeRX > Perhaps not the the precision you desire

Uh. There's "someone did an approximation" but there's also "despite imagery, mapped geometry that has not existed".
Your edits are well into the latter territory.

> I think that this is an improvement

How can y...
82022-09-11 07:45Warin61
♦2,663
Observable from imagery:
Cricket is played here, the wear between the wickets is clear.

I and others in the past have mapped the rectangular wear into OSM. Most of us now recognise that this in not a good representation and it is a better representation to place a circle centred on the wear.
...
92022-10-03 12:55CloCkWeRX https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map

"When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world as it can be observed by someone physically there."

"Do not delete data unless you know (or have very strong reason to believe) that it is incorrect.&qu...
102023-03-29 14:36CloCkWeRX It's been all of summer.
Not once did anything like what you mapped get marked out on the ground.

I'm removing this fantasy edit. I suggest you refrain from similar mapping - either survey it, use imagery, or put it in as a single point.
112023-03-30 02:58Warin61
♦2,663
The cricket is evident in present OSM accessible imagery. Previous mappers have entered it into OSM.

It maybe better to tag is as "was:leisure=pitch was:sport=cricket" to stop others from re-entering the data.
118801948
by philam48
@ 2022-03-23 04:47
12022-07-03 04:27CloCkWeRX https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1042811149 isn't abandoned railway, it's completely removed. The only trace remaining is a path, which is mapped separately.
22023-02-07 12:33CloCkWeRX I'm removing https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1042811149
130764820
by Didz
@ 2023-01-01 21:48
12023-01-03 05:05CloCkWeRX Typo in a few of these - cycleway:left=lane`

Visible via https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?schema=50&error=165672238

Might be a street complete bug?
130772267
by watrails
@ 2023-01-02 05:22
12023-01-03 05:01CloCkWeRX https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/135871916 intersects with a building - this doesn't seem to reflect bing imagery.
126872068
by Jivesas
@ 2022-10-01 19:43
12022-12-10 08:42CloCkWeRX With areas like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/109524629 I feel it's too large of an area to tag as an individual meadow. As there are multiple farmyard areas for example; it seems like this should be more closely aligned to obvious land parcels.
129779398
by TheSandMan6
@ 2022-12-06 11:33
12022-12-07 23:31Warin61
♦2,663
Hi,
These new 'roads' don't make sense! They appear to be boundaries between properties.

You are attracting attention. Please explain these new 'roads'.
22022-12-10 07:31CloCkWeRX Tone it down a bit - new mapper trying to add driveways doesn't warrant this kind of hostility.

@TheSandMan6 You might want to model these as a 'driveway' or 'service' road. Alternatively, if it's more of a walking path; you can model these differently.

Please dou...
32022-12-10 07:59Warin61
♦2,663
The Maxar imagery looks to be the most upto date. The DCS Base Map shows the legal boundaries.

Tracks made by construction work should not be mapped - they will go away with occupancy and landscaping, so they are not 'permanent'.

Unfortunately the past edits have not been good. Bet...
42022-12-10 13:18nevw
♦1,975
Esri seems to be the most recent imagery.
I agree with Warin61 that it would be best to just map the buildings here and maybe leave the roads unmapped until a local survey or later satellite data becomes available.
127179647
by IronZulu
@ 2022-10-08 02:44
12022-12-03 02:03CloCkWeRX This seems in the wrong place, vs the address listed.
22022-12-03 12:37nevw
♦1,975
Yes, the website has a map link that places it in a different location too.
32022-12-04 04:25CloCkWeRX https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=286761939711210&focus=photo&lat=-33.8698448&lng=151.19342919997&z=17&x=0.783317455881694&y=0.5060849986193738&zoom=2.178419442331599 suggests this is ... "Harris Miller Cafe"?
42022-12-04 05:47nevw
♦1,975
Agreed…also on the cnr of Harris and Miller Sts.
98447788
by Rob-au
@ 2021-01-31 13:17
12022-12-04 03:51CloCkWeRX Hi, could you spot check the changes around: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/126483820

... to make sure the bus routes in that area are still accurate
126483820
by Belltravelled
@ 2022-09-22 00:17
12022-12-04 03:01CloCkWeRX https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/311692475 seems malformed/not matching to imagery. Is there still a roundabout?
22022-12-04 03:21Belltravelled
♦1
The road network is not complete within the Midtown development (a rectangular shape being developed). The roundabout at Ivanhoe and Herring Rd is now traffic lights
32022-12-04 03:50CloCkWeRX Alright, I've tweaked the former roundabout not to have tags; and reconnected the bus route.
Since you've got a bit of local knowledge, might be worth double checking my edits.
122598123
by RichieRRR
@ 2022-06-20 02:39
12022-12-04 03:10CloCkWeRX Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4375100473 a mini roundabout, or a turning circle?
129633066
by rkurzawa
@ 2022-12-02 08:04
12022-12-04 03:08CloCkWeRX Made some minor adjustments to flag some of the residential developments a a wide construction area - can you check I've got it right?
126068689
by jodi0055
@ 2022-09-12 01:51
12022-12-04 02:36CloCkWeRX Hi,
With a lot of these addresses, they should be "Samford Road" (full/not abbreviated)

https://maproulette.org/challenge/36453/task/142494552

126034896
by sprinkmeier
@ 2022-09-11 03:21
12022-09-11 06:02CloCkWeRX Keep up the good work :)
If you'd like any buildings remotely mapped in the area, sing out. Another mapper and I did a big push along the coast, fleshing out a bit more seems doable
22022-09-12 09:49sprinkmeier
♦1
Thanks for the offer, but I'll be a while before I run out of stuff to map :-)
Let me know if there's something/somewhere you want me to focus on.
126001132
by BoomerLain
@ 2022-09-10 03:24
12022-09-11 05:59CloCkWeRX Oh, nice work :)
I don't get over that side of town too much, but if you'd like any remote mapping of buildings in the area or similar done, sing out.
124907510
by Warin61
@ 2022-08-15 00:54
12022-08-16 11:12CloCkWeRX https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/230955659 - This is clearly a building in bing; but as of this changeset, no longer.

Again, if you aren't in the area, perhaps don't make modifications that disagree with imagery.
22022-08-17 08:34Warin61
♦2,663
Bugger ... not certain why I deleted the building tag! My error.

Fixed.
124294205
by CloCkWeRX
@ 2022-07-31 09:30
12022-08-01 04:03Warin61
♦2,663
Multipolygon outer ways cannot share segments.
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=138.62079&lat=-34.92119&zoom=19&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecti...
22022-08-15 00:37Warin61
♦2,663
From https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon

"multipolygon are used to represent areas (polygons), typically complex areas with holes inside, or consisting of multiple disjoint areas"
32022-08-16 11:07CloCkWeRX If you aren't actively surveying on the ground; in this area, don't delete buildings that you can *see in imagery*.

Revert your changeset and correct rather than delete.
Its not that hard to avoid being abrasive.
42022-08-17 08:36Warin61
♦2,663
You have made no attempt to fix the error .. and I have in the past done as you suggest by fixing your error .. getting tired of it .. with little to no response for you ... suggest you fix it rather than leave it for others to fix. Thank you.
You will observe my normal response time ... it can be...
52022-09-09 12:03Warin61
♦2,663
The mapper has expressed views regarding this on an unrelated changeset of mine - Changeset: 124324306.
I quote
"Combine this with your pattern of remote mapping in an area - again, based on what a validator says are the "rules";"

Not only a validator but also the OSM wiki ...
123591540
by jhon123w
@ 2022-07-14 06:20
12022-07-15 02:43tastrax
♦1,145
Thanks for editing those buildings to a better outline. You can also 'square' the corners of buildings using the Q key on your keyboard
22022-07-15 12:10CloCkWeRX Be aware as well of the offset. In ID, hit B (Background), and drag the control for offset until the roads and buildings all align.
Chances are; what might look like it has a bad offset right now aligns fairly well.
108927279
by KersbrookMTBRider
@ 2021-07-31 10:12
12022-06-05 03:30CloCkWeRX With a number of these, it looked like private land from the roadside. Is that the case? (not on trailforks, etc)
22022-06-06 06:49KersbrookMTBRider
♦2
I built these trails (private family land) but have recently moved interstate for Uni but Its my parents place. It was mapped for use by GESA in planning future events at Bennets as I offered these trails to them last year. I am pretty sure I have tagged the trails with the appropriate use tags (Pri...
32022-06-08 13:01CloCkWeRX Ah! Might need to pop a few access=permissive tags then, at the moment many show up as just public.

120706911
by ServietteRussian
@ 2022-05-08 15:12
12022-05-09 12:07CloCkWeRX Nice work - very accurate :)
115275268
by Jason Haines
@ 2021-12-22 23:10
12022-04-29 06:24bob3bob3
♦52
Hi Jason. Is Beach Rd now sealed all the way from Cowell to Port Gibbon? (like were you onsite?) If unknown I'll get out there in the next few days. I just set unpaved>asphalt from Maxar for most of it
22022-05-02 07:31Jason Haines
♦1
Hey bob3bob3, thanks for following up. Yes, I was onsite and recall it recently sealed
32022-05-04 14:31CloCkWeRX Shows up on Maxar
42022-05-04 20:16bob3bob3
♦52
Yeah Maxar more often has the most recent imagery but I had also seen some political comments re sealing the whole length. I went out and looked anyway.
117866097
by Norwood International High School
@ 2022-02-25 23:51
12022-02-27 05:58CloCkWeRX Hi, thanks for fleshing out some detail :)

I've also linked in your wikipedia page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwood_International_High_School

117867621
by Fizzie-DWG
@ 2022-02-26 02:09
12022-02-27 05:33CloCkWeRX Ah, thanks!
106506444
by mmekala
@ 2021-06-17 06:30
12021-08-29 12:53CloCkWeRX An example of something which isn't fixed still: this is not a residential road (955212127, v1)
108429817
by sdsg
@ 2021-07-22 12:46
12021-07-22 14:23CloCkWeRX Oh, nice work :)

If your focus is on buildings, you might be interested in mapwith.ai; where it will give you some suggested building outlines based on Bing imagery. Still have to check things carefully; and compare to other imagery just incase something has been knocked down since; but it can be...
22021-07-23 03:23sdsg
♦1
Thanks for the tip - plan on doing plenty of fieldwork for paths, features, addresses etc post-lockdown.
106531038
by mmekala
@ 2021-06-17 12:44
12021-06-21 04:59CloCkWeRX This appears to be a driveway, and isn't publicly accessible. Please check your mapping instructions and discuss with your team mates.
106589567
by rocky2109
@ 2021-06-18 12:57
12021-06-21 00:26CloCkWeRX https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/955772782 Also a driveway, not an unclassified road
106582218
by rocky2109
@ 2021-06-18 10:27
12021-06-21 00:25CloCkWeRX https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/955680242 is a driveway; not a public road.
104842154
by eneerhut
@ 2021-05-17 17:57
12021-05-21 01:26CloCkWeRX Nice work on the buildings!
22021-05-21 01:28eneerhut
♦14
Thanks mate!
104786763
by Native Tree Hugger
@ 2021-05-16 22:01
12021-05-17 01:11CloCkWeRX You need to stop removing this trail.

It does exist, you can see multiple people have ridden it via the presence of strava GPS traces:
https://www.trailforks.com/trails/byrning-man/

If forestry SA have explicitly closed it or removed access; there are better ways to model that. However, since...
22021-05-19 09:05marczoutendijk
♦2,755
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5042

Marc Zoutendijk
OpenStreetMap Foundation
Data Working Group
102595059
by Softgrow
@ 2021-04-09 00:51
12021-05-11 03:11CloCkWeRX Hey @Softgrow - https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2663249 might be a good discussion to join if you've been in the area since the redevelopment, re south rd
93473439
by Frans S
@ 2020-11-03 10:10
12020-11-04 08:12CloCkWeRX https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/105577808#map=19/38.46400/27.21749 seems a bit off - accidental reshaping of the building or intentional/different imagery?
22020-11-04 08:21Frans S
♦9,804
Hello
Missed this one after squaring more buildings.
I corrected it. Thanks for pointing to this.
Best regards
67307489
by Nait Young
@ 2019-02-18 09:19
12020-10-16 14:09aharvey
♦1,707
Hi, I see you've added this as a mountain bike route, is there signage indicating it's either open or closed to mountain bikes or bicycles?

We've had a report from Horbart City Council that this is a walking track only, so trying to understand what is there on the ground.

-- on ...
22020-10-23 05:53CloCkWeRX https://www.trailforks.com/trails/breakneck/ suggests that it's used as a downhill track; with a black classification.
There's as you can see from that non free source; there's debate - various authorities discouraging bicycle access; frequent ride logs of people descending it.
32020-10-23 07:14aharvey
♦1,707
Ultimately we can only map so far as the signage on the ground indicates. "discouraging" access is quite vague, does that mean legally you're allowed to ride but the park authority prefers if you don't?
26084019
by goldfishxyz
@ 2014-10-14 22:22
12020-10-20 05:28CloCkWeRX This this really "moorook south", as all of the other sources I can find suggest it's just Moorook.
92103479
by Lyndz
@ 2020-10-07 10:18
12020-10-07 13:28CloCkWeRX HI! That's a really great amount of detail :)

You might want to use tags like landuse=farmland though for paddocks and similar - unfortunately, next year, these fields are going to be ploughed again, probably slightly differently!

The tracks you've added imply it's a public road...
22020-10-07 22:16Lyndz
♦1
Hey thanks! No isn't quite the case re the public roads. I'm using OSM online to do some stuff before I move it to JOSM - and we are doing some work on the paths but have found that the land access needs to be public. I can try no and foot, I'll get the balance right.

These are vi...
92106361
by openmap38
@ 2020-10-07 10:57
12020-10-07 13:23CloCkWeRX Oh hi! Nice work on the houses in the area :) I was planning on slowly working all the way up Magill Rd and the blocks either side; nice to see other mappers around working to similar goals!
89121118
by _c_
@ 2020-08-08 09:14
12020-09-09 05:14CloCkWeRX A lot of these aren't bicycle=no; in Wadmore Park. In fact, there are specifically BMX jumps through it.
From survey, there were no restrictions I could recall.
22020-09-09 12:59_c_
♦2
intent was to set the trails in black hill conservation park as closed to bikes. I was likely been a bit overzealous in applying to same to Wadmore park
89670210
by Bhatarsaigh
@ 2020-08-20 06:42
12020-08-23 13:28CloCkWeRX This isn't private. It is gated, but it's a gazetted, public road with gates from survey
86112125
by KersbrookMTBRider
@ 2020-06-03 05:45
12020-06-04 06:45CloCkWeRX Ah nice work!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86112125
86117301
by meelschaplin
@ 2020-06-03 07:12
12020-06-04 01:38nevw
♦1,975
Hi
you need to map these to individual buildings or points instead of grouping a set of disparate items in to a multipolygon.
22020-06-04 06:40CloCkWeRX Probably best to revert this one, its a bit tricky to fix manually.
32020-06-04 08:00nevw
♦1,975
I reverted this as it was difficult to untangle and recover useful data.
Please remap in a similar manner to all the other items.
84189109
by CloCkWeRX
@ 2020-04-27 09:52
12020-05-05 01:29Warin61
♦2,663
The relation outer is self crossing...

See
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=138.64158&lat=-34.94093&zoom=17

Tag area=yes is not required on the inner way of the relation.
22020-05-12 06:23Warin61
♦2,663
I have no interest in continuing to fix your errors.

Shall I simply delete than from now on?
32020-05-12 08:16CloCkWeRX Sure, delete away, if you are willing to resurvey from the ground.

Otherwise, maybe don't threaten contributors making good faith mapping efforts because you aren't happy?
42020-05-14 23:53Warin61
♦2,663
Thank you for confirming that you are getting notifications of changeset comments. Saves me from contacting the DWG. I note this also confirms you are ignoring my comments on errors.

You will note that the relation is not rendering so deleting it will have no effect on the rendered map, it simpl...
82137751
by Fizzie-DWG
@ 2020-03-13 03:12
12020-03-13 05:32CloCkWeRX Nice work! I might do a pass over the buildings you've done for solar
22020-03-13 05:49Fizzie-DWG
♦32,117
Thanks! There were quite a few with solar, but I wasn't worrying about that, just the buildings themselves, water tanks, reservoirs & other things that caught my eye at the time!
77949246
by Martin Politick
@ 2019-12-04 15:37
12019-12-07 16:17mueschel
♦6,565
Could you please explain what this is about? You added several overlapping roads here, most of them are not visible on existing aerial images. There are also several new tags here like "autonomy:access".
22019-12-07 17:03Martin Politick
♦2
Yes, I've tried to follow the Taginfo/Projects and added "Autonomy" to the project repository https://github.com/taginfo/taginfo-projects/blob/master/project_list.txt

Please let me know if I should document this anywhere else. The description and purpose of the tags are docuemnted...
32019-12-07 17:13Martin Politick
♦2
Imagery that matches the roads:
https://wiki.politick.ca/display/OOSMFA/Example
42019-12-07 17:46mueschel
♦6,565
If you want to introduce new tags, please follow the proposal process: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process

The place to document tags is the wiki, not some xml file used by one side project using OSM.

There were plenty of dicussions if and how individual lanes should be mappe...
52019-12-07 17:59Martin Politick
♦2
>>this is a bad idea.
Our use case might be different. We want to use OSM as an exchange format, not necessarily OSM as a public repository. Similar to what DXF is to 3D CAD.

But I think in the future autonomous vehicles would benefit from understanding the expected behaviour inside and ...
62019-12-07 18:02Martin Politick
♦2
The OSM map file is loaded in a Fleet management system and used to dispatch driverless trucks. An other peculiarity is the open pit area (no roads) that we have in mining that is different from a public / civil road network.
72019-12-07 18:09mueschel
♦6,565
The OSM database is not a place to dump any data you like. What is in there and how it is tagged is always a decision by the community.
82019-12-10 07:01CloCkWeRX Ah, right so a better way for you to approach this might be:
Use JOSM or similar to describe routes and save as OSM/another spatial format - locally, rather than published here.

Publish your private data into postgis. You can easily set it up locally or use a paid solution; ie https://www.a2host...
92019-12-10 22:35Martin Politick
♦2
Yes, essentially the intent is not to publish all the live roads in production into the OSM.org map, we have GIS servers already. Further, all miners would be too afraid that someone creates a design mistake and then it's visible to the whole world so they will never publish it to the public i...
102019-12-13 11:11aharvey
♦1,707
Hi Martin,
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:connectivity a proposal to describe how lanes connect with each other.

Agree with the other comments made here about OSM process etc.

"Anyway, no one will ever document this area because it's private property and not access...
76419219
by Rupert R
@ 2019-10-31 00:29
12019-11-05 04:56CloCkWeRX Hi, welcome back to OSM :) Sing out if you have any particular areas of interest that could use more detailed mapping, or pop onto the mailing list to say hi!
76317907
by City of West Torrens
@ 2019-10-28 22:42
12019-10-29 03:51CloCkWeRX Welcome (back) to OSM!

If there's any data you have published on data.sa.gov.au (bike parking? bike repair stands? bbq's? public toilets? libraries? etc) or data that the community could collect (businesses, building geometry, streetview imagery/stop signs via mapillary), don't he...
72250753
by nickbarker
@ 2019-07-15 06:56
12019-10-26 14:58CloCkWeRX When did that one get added! I haven't been down for a while, but couldn't see that from the weird semi private road nearby
69326631
by BrandonSmith
@ 2019-04-18 00:05
12019-09-27 00:22CloCkWeRX This doesn't match with imagery, and while it is being demolished a lot; breaks the existing geometry
61962438
by rprescott
@ 2018-08-24 15:23
12019-09-24 06:34CloCkWeRX A fair few of these are now visible in maxar imagery with further completion.
72888264
by Softgrow
@ 2019-08-01 09:00
12019-08-07 03:50CloCkWeRX That... is possibly the one building I least would like to have surveyed in person :P
72519070
by LakatosVL
@ 2019-07-22 14:34
12019-08-01 03:02CloCkWeRX With a number of these changes, the roads aren't fully connected correctly:
https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?schema=50&error=128414581

22019-08-01 15:14LakatosVL
♦17
Hello CloCkWeRX,
I fixed this issue.
Thank you for checking and
for letting me know.

Regards,
LakatosVL
72450376
by xrisnik
@ 2019-07-20 02:04
12019-07-22 05:36CloCkWeRX Welcome to OSM :)

Great to see more housing detail being added - I've mainly focused on cafes, shops, etc in the area so far - if there's anything you'd like to see mapped, sing out.

You might also be interested in apps like StreetComplete for when you are out and about.
71161252
by PGrosser
@ 2019-06-12 00:56
12019-06-14 03:10CloCkWeRX Nice work :)

You might also be interested in android apps like StreetComplete, which allow you to capture speed limits as you walk around your local neighbourhood.

Welcome to Openstreetmap
28131228
by mycae-gmx
@ 2015-01-14 10:20
12015-01-20 14:06SK53
♦864
Hi, have just been looking at all retail establishments in Australia from OSM and noticed "iloveistanbul". This looks like the sort of place I'd map as amenity=fast_food, cuisine=kebab, even if it has some seating. If its a proper restaurant doing kebabs, then amenity=restaurant, take...
22016-11-22 10:34Warin61
♦2,663
Hartley Public School (node 3287366361) is not on the LPI Base Map nor is it listed on the NSW Dept of Education website. On the LPI Base Map in that location is a park, Bush Fire brigade and a residence. Made into a note, while adding the other features.
32016-11-22 10:46mycae-gmx
♦2
OK, my error. It looks like this is actually a historic building, which has been turned into a private rental property.

https://www.airbnb.co.uk/rooms/13035070
42016-11-22 20:18Warin61
♦2,663
OK, I'll go ahead and delete it then.
52019-06-07 08:25CloCkWeRX Bunnings seems to be duplicated here, can you check?
62019-06-07 10:07mycae-gmx
♦2
It currently looks OK in JOSM.

I assume this is due to your changeset? My changeset was quite some time ago, but I definitely recall there only being one bunnings!
72019-06-07 11:29SK53
♦864
Can we close this note, and start new ones for other things? It bears little resemblance to my original comment. Thanks, Jerry
82019-06-07 22:59Warin61
♦2,663
Err .. these are comments on a changeset. Don't see how to start a new changeset comment other than making it part of the previous comments.
65462156
by jakecopp
@ 2018-12-14 05:35
12019-06-07 08:21CloCkWeRX The bunnings here already seems mapped, but in a different location - which is right?
22019-06-25 07:10jakecopp
♦43
Oops, thanks so much for letting me know. I must have missed it or OsmAnd hadn't updated with it.
I just removed the Bunnings I added in changeset 71587623.
34964946
by Leon K
@ 2015-10-30 06:17
12019-06-07 05:51CloCkWeRX With the woolworths, do you happen to know which one is the right one? See also https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1804159
70902797
by jboltnz
@ 2019-06-03 22:52
12019-06-04 05:04CloCkWeRX Congrats! Down to the last little block with Marion Street :) You've mapped so much!
70260040
by Alb1478
@ 2019-05-15 05:08
12019-05-16 07:14CloCkWeRX This one probably shouldn't be in the middle of the road, are you able to adjust where it is?

Given an airbnb is a private house usually, it's probably better to simply add this as an address
69974271
by Emessar
@ 2019-05-07 12:23
12019-05-09 07:18CloCkWeRX Hey, welcome to OSM :)

Just a quick one, do you happen to know for certain Muloorina Bush Camp (Muloorina Station) is gone; from survey or similar? If so, it can be helpful to add changeset comments explaining a bit more context (I surveyed this, or similar)
64658100
by miroslavuzice87
@ 2018-11-19 13:53
12019-05-08 05:55CloCkWeRX Imagery now has a lot of these roads, worth double checking
22019-05-16 06:56miroslavuzice87
♦35
Hi CloCkWeRX, thanks a lot for a sugestion!
65904906
by CloCkWeRX
@ 2018-12-31 06:45
12019-01-31 00:14Warin61
♦2,663
Tower Hotel is the name. Fine Wines is an advertising description.

Relation outer ways should not touch.

Fixes -
Buildings as separate ways- one as a roof the other as retail.
shop as a simple node.
22019-01-31 05:29CloCkWeRX Ah, it's a trading name of the Celebrations bottle shop physically attached to the pub complex: "Tower Hotel Fine Wines"

Bold claim, but it's what they have stuck on the side of their business!

Annoyingly, the buildings physically touch in real life to make it this weird lu...
32019-02-03 06:51Warin61
♦2,663
Duplicate segment in relation 9170174
42019-02-09 06:45Warin61
♦2,663
A multiploygon relation can not share outer ways..

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=138.65113&lat=-34.92011&zoom=12

Show 4 otehr relations with the same problem. And this one will pop up again too...

Fix them.

----------------------------------------------
66414781
by jboltnz
@ 2019-01-18 04:23
12019-01-18 06:06CloCkWeRX Ah, there might be a few more buildings available under Esri World Imagery (Clarity) Beta, re the new developments
65973462
by Moult
@ 2019-01-02 22:51
12019-01-12 04:39CloCkWeRX Oh, nicely timed - was doing some survey on the ground, couldn't work out why Street Complete wasn't prompting me about addresses
56286679
by Lance Gorgan
@ 2018-02-12 09:10
12019-01-12 02:59CloCkWeRX Hey, great work with the buildings in this area :)

Two handy tips, you can make the buildings more "square" by using the shortcut "S" in ID; and you can also indicate a house from the preset options on the left.

Keep up the good work!
65769205
by TheSwavu
@ 2018-12-25 21:51
12018-12-26 04:17CloCkWeRX Might want to turn this one into a relation, it's 4x parks spread out over a large area.

http://www.friendsofparkssa.org.au/members-directory/friends-of-kenneth-stirling has context.

Burdett's Scrub is one part (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/92029854); I think this one is "F...
22018-12-26 04:35TheSwavu
♦544
Don't understand the point you are making. It already is a relation with six separate areas. This is based on https://data.sa.gov.au/data/dataset/conservation-reserve-boundaries from about a week ago. Are you saying that they have changed it since then?
32018-12-26 05:25TheSwavu
♦544
OK. Think I've worked out how the problem happened. These are tagged landuse=conservation which is pretty uncommon. I'm going to have to go back and review all of the parks I've put in and check to make sure that they are not duplicates.

I don't know what the best way of taggi...
42018-12-26 22:11CloCkWeRX Yeah, its really inconsistently signed - on the ground, some are dual signed; others only have the "XYZ Scrub" component, though I haven't been to all.

I went for "Kenneth Stirling Conservation Park - (subcomponent)" in other cases, seemed like the least worst and reflect...
59383031
by nickbarker
@ 2018-05-30 01:12
12018-12-26 04:00CloCkWeRX Hey, do you have any other detail on this recreation park, I can't find anything online and don't recall signage for it; at least from the road.
22018-12-27 04:53nickbarker
♦1
https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3046059

originally i saw it whilst looking at old maps and did a bit more looking. There is an old management plan for the area but its not signed on the ground. I doubt anyone uses it but AFAIK its still public land.
32018-12-27 04:54nickbarker
♦1
Tried looking for the mgt plan but cant seem to find it. Will keep looking as i definitely saw it
64137201
by Glenhope1
@ 2018-11-03 10:58
12018-12-15 05:46CloCkWeRX Ah, nice work fleshing out some of this farmland :)
63337169
by atschulz7
@ 2018-10-09 08:48
12018-12-10 10:34CloCkWeRX https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1601407 suggests there is no path, whats your source for these?
22018-12-10 10:37CloCkWeRX https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1601408 also indicates there is no road
62570594
by John Sinclair
@ 2018-09-14 03:56
12018-11-28 05:57CloCkWeRX Hi John, do you know if there is more development happening here?

See https://editor.improveosm.org/#background=Bing&id=w625481821&map=17.00/-27.68367/152.89627
22018-11-28 11:25John Sinclair
♦10
Hi ClockWerx. Are you a robot? What do the dots on the improveosm page you linked to mean? Where exactly do you mean by "here"? Last time I looked, Vancouver Way was an under-construction extension to the display village across the park.
64806558
by pattym
@ 2018-11-23 07:07
12018-11-27 01:21CloCkWeRX Nice work with the street numbers and houses :)

You might be interested in the "square building" tool built into ID - highlight a building, hit "S" and it makes the corners/angles more 90 degrees etc.

Keep up the good work!
22018-12-05 10:13pattym
♦1
Thanks CloCkWeRX. I do use the square tool which makes the individual houses square. However, is there a way I can make a building parallel to its neighbour?
59633257
by TheSwavu
@ 2018-06-07 10:55
12018-06-19 13:44CloCkWeRX I think this broke https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/132414009 a bit (part of Glynburn Road)
50128679
by TheSwavu
@ 2017-07-08 10:07
12018-05-28 16:06CloCkWeRX Which is the correct peak? https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4891107085
22018-05-28 22:12TheSwavu
♦544
Don't know. Merged and moved the peak to the high point on SRTM.
49184664
by cleary
@ 2017-06-02 06:03
12018-05-28 16:05CloCkWeRX Which is the correct peak? https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4958235368
22018-05-28 23:37cleary
♦56
Sorry but I don't recall the circumstances of that edit and I don't know where the second node for Philcox Hill originated. However another mapper appears already to have deleted the duplicate node. I think it is now OK.
58893509
by jboltnz
@ 2018-05-12 02:59
12018-05-14 09:00CloCkWeRX Ah fantastic work! I'd been chipping away, as had @didz (grange). Hopefully I'll have the time to join up the mapping from Glenelg to Henley over the next few months, which will give us a pretty well mapped coastline!
22018-05-19 02:20jboltnz
♦3
Cheers Clockwerx.
58104373
by DavidMcAfee
@ 2018-04-15 07:48
12018-04-16 11:50CloCkWeRX Nice work; keep it up. Opening hours has a slightly funny syntax in OSM to be machine readable; so I've adjusted that for you.


58126313
by jfmcculloch93
@ 2018-04-16 05:09
12018-04-16 11:46CloCkWeRX Nice work; keep it up!

You might also be interested in StreetComplete, an android app which will prompt you (among other things) to capture attributes relating to bicycle infrastructure; publish it to OSM.
57049570
by muzzamo
@ 2018-03-10 03:19
12018-03-11 13:44CloCkWeRX Are you sure it's Rocky Hill Track, not Wandilla Track?
56629496
by reeeeeee69
@ 2018-02-24 06:56
12018-03-01 10:26CloCkWeRX Please don't vandalise openstreetmap, useful contributions are welcome; this is not.
46067908
by KNAPPO
@ 2017-02-14 04:09
12018-02-25 12:43CloCkWeRX Collarbone Creek Downhill, this seemed to be called "Grand Canyon Downhill" from looking at it today - is this an older name?
56059054
by WebSouth
@ 2018-02-04 15:50
12018-02-06 00:54CloCkWeRX Ah nice work. I rode from Morgan to Eudunda back in November, keep meaning to map out most of the buildings/businesses/drinking water/etc.
22018-02-06 04:30WebSouth
♦1
Thanks CloCkWeRX, Good to see the sort of things you are looking to mark. i'll add more when I can. Great to know you come visit this way.
55822234
by Johnanime
@ 2018-01-28 07:19
12018-01-28 14:39CloCkWeRX Hello!
Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!
I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and found some errors or elements
that could be mapped in a better way. Feel free to message me
to know more about it or visit http://learnosm.o...
22018-01-28 14:40CloCkWeRX This removes a well established park and removes tagging as a recreation ground on many of the others - that's not right.
55761757
by jboltnz
@ 2018-01-26 06:23
12018-01-27 10:42CloCkWeRX With the footpaths, it might be best to tag them as 'pavement'. Its a bit of a funny bit of modelling with OSM, trying to decide when a footpath is 'part of' a road or seperate from it.

https://blog.mapbox.com/improving-sidewalks-globally-in-openstreetmap-216bf34cca22 discusse...
22018-01-27 12:02jboltnz
♦3
Thanks for the link. Will do.
55594751
by jboltnz
@ 2018-01-20 04:47
12018-01-21 04:02CloCkWeRX Ah, nice work with the buildings in Semaphore. I've been chipping away at between West Lakes and Outer Harbour for a while, keep up the good work
22018-01-21 05:25jboltnz
♦3
Cheers, Ive been doing a openhistoricalmap.org of all the original Port Alberton LeFevre pubs. So I hope to help fill in these areas
55455974
by triducsuz
@ 2018-01-15 09:36
12018-01-21 03:15CloCkWeRX https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=Um7MxzGi67dQJrxUphLdBg&focus=photo&lat=-37.8636418&lng=145.0098776&z=17&x=0.5154720076077769&y=0.6516418672121888&zoom=0 - have the sharrows there been removed?
55456105
by triducsuz
@ 2018-01-15 09:40
12018-01-19 02:50Qwertii
♦18
Did you verify this data? Some of it seems to be incorrect.
22018-01-21 03:02CloCkWeRX That... should probably be reverted. Orrong Road as 60? Maybe, but the rest?
32018-01-21 04:14Qwertii
♦18
This user seems to enter a lot of incorrect data using streetcomplete and doesn't reply to comments.
42018-01-25 22:46triducsuz
♦1
Hello to all,
I will only respond to this matter out of all the alleged "issues" being flagged. I am new to this and only an occasional user. Not good at this and I was trying to learn it and add valued input.
If you are flagging my inputs as issues, then I suppose you must have better ...
52018-01-30 10:18SomeoneElse
♦13,362
Hi triducsuz - thanks for your reply. If you're using StreetComplete presumably you can say "yes, I've been to Lansdowne Road (just to pick an example), and the speed limit really is 60 all the way along it"? Or did you perhaps make a mistake? It's useful to fill in tags ...
55368103
by Jonas Sonne
@ 2018-01-12 01:56
12018-01-12 02:28tonyf1
♦471
Hi. You have mapped a shop=alcohol named Ron Gol Station. There's nothing there and an unlikely place for a shop to have been built since the last satellite photo. There is a farm nearby. What were you intending to map and what is your data source? Thanks.
22018-01-14 06:57CloCkWeRX I think its meant to map the vineyard, see the "Ron Gol" farm POI further south.
32018-01-14 22:49tonyf1
♦471
Thanks CloCkWeRX. The Ron Gol Station node was moved south by user TheSwavu, renamed Ron Gol and retagged as a farm in Changeset #55374816
54448421
by Robzilla666
@ 2017-12-08 03:50
12017-12-27 04:07CloCkWeRX Nice work on the housing! Another new user in your area has been doing a bit around Flaxmill Road/Southern Expressway. I reckon we could map out all of Christie Downs between flaxmill/gulfview and the river in the next few days with a bit of collaboration!
22017-12-31 03:30Robzilla666
♦1
yeah, sounds like a plan :)
25195852
by nickbarker
@ 2014-09-03 04:13
12017-12-23 09:19CloCkWeRX Mead street trail seemed quite different on the ground - is this from survey?
54422071
by corvus_coronoides
@ 2017-12-07 06:22
12017-12-07 17:48CloCkWeRX Nice work over the past few days :)

With building tracing, its a bit more tedious but you want to try and match the roofline shape as much as possible - take a bit of a look at say City of Geelong.

Luckily for new developments like this, a lot of the housing is actually built to the same desig...
22017-12-08 04:15corvus_coronoides
♦1
Understood :) I assumed for small buildings, like houses, a rectangular approximation would suffice. But I'll tidy them up before moving on. Thanks for the tip.
54307835
by Didz
@ 2017-12-03 19:58
12017-12-04 04:20CloCkWeRX With a lot of these, whacking '50' indicates its a maxspeed from a sign; but there's another option around "there is no sign" which applies the 'default maxspeed for the country' which is a bit more useful if it changes by legislation.
22017-12-13 16:15Didz
♦8
I realised this and it is a pain to set there is no sign in StreetComplete so I will just focus on known signed roads and "40 area" posted boundaries.
15713816
by BRAGGANSTREPRESENTIMWATCHINGKLAÜS
@ 2013-04-13 15:48
12017-11-29 08:18CloCkWeRX These seem to be residential housing
53493615
by MapAnalyser465
@ 2017-11-04 01:37
12017-11-27 03:58CloCkWeRX Aitken Boulevard is visible now on Esri imagery at zoom 19, appears to be dual direction road
54092668
by Leon K
@ 2017-11-26 11:26
12017-11-26 23:42CloCkWeRX Ugh, when I added it originally it would have been for the boat shop on the corner of Tapleys/Old Port Road, and I've assumed it the commercial area stopped at Hardy Street
22017-11-27 00:08Leon K
♦40
No worries, might be worth adding a node but i've no idea what you'd use, shop=chandler, shop=marine and even shop=boat all exist but no one seems to use them much,
53279485
by GK1
@ 2017-10-27 03:30
12017-11-23 15:24Didz
♦8
Construction is full on here now hey.
22017-11-24 10:46CloCkWeRX Worth marking landuse=construction?
32017-11-24 10:53Didz
♦8
Yes, I actually took a photo of the large project information sign on site that had a map on it a while ago I forgot about. It's now a residential area with new streets too.
42017-11-28 11:20Didz
♦8
I've added detail now.
53545550
by atschulz7
@ 2017-11-06 05:55
12017-11-06 06:26tonyf1
♦471
Hi. You are editing a public map that lots of people depend on. Please stop adding imaginary features.
22017-11-06 09:57CloCkWeRX At this point, I'm inclined to suggest reverting - this area had a whole lot of other fictional edits around ~2 years ago, its odd that it attracts them or its the same user with a new account vandalising.
32017-11-06 23:03tonyf1
♦471
Hi atschulz7, I'm sorry but I had to revert all your edits. OSM is for mapping real things only.
52997127
by Steve Rowe
@ 2017-10-16 22:26
12017-10-17 01:01CloCkWeRX With this one, we can maybe add two points (Yangoora, the Restaurant; and Anderson Hill, the Winery) - what do you think?
48456822
by TheHammer
@ 2017-05-06 16:49
12017-10-06 06:37CloCkWeRX You might be interested in improveosm.org, which has a lot of GPS traces for roads - you've managed to get to a few of them, but plenty more in the area :)
22017-10-06 07:30TheHammer
♦6
Actually, ehm, this changeset was made via improveosm.org
51989970
by Wild Willy
@ 2017-09-13 00:52
12017-09-29 01:02CloCkWeRX I'm going to revert this, as it has marked a whole town as an amenity=toilet
49382077
by Humberto_Yances
@ 2017-06-08 23:02
12017-09-28 02:29CloCkWeRX It's probably better to model a number of these as residential road or minor/unclassified road; with surface unpaved
52319831
by samuelrussell
@ 2017-09-24 04:54
12017-09-26 14:40Harald Hartmann
♦827
Hello samuelrussell. At http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5125789083 you have tagged `road_sign:backward` instead of `traffic_sign:backward`, right? #typo
22017-09-27 02:59CloCkWeRX I've tagged this as au:R2-20 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Australia)
32017-09-27 03:41samuelrussell
♦50
Great work! But how do we deal with W1-1 and W1-1 having the same code but being left and right turns respectively?
42017-09-27 23:57TheSwavu
♦544
1. W1-1(L) and W1-1(R). Sometimes written as W1-1L but more common to have parentheses.

2. alpha-2 codes are upper-case so AU not au.

3. Rather than "road_sign:backward" would be better as a note.
48837029
by cleary
@ 2017-05-20 06:55
12017-09-26 03:03CloCkWeRX https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4865716957 and many of the others on this way seem to be duplicated nodes now
https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?schema=50&error=103611445
22017-09-26 08:33cleary
♦56
The way is actually the administrative boundary and is not necessarily that of the river. Another user added the "river" tag to the administrative boundary (which is an approximation) instead of mapping the actual river. I will contact the mapper and ask about mapping the river separately,...
52135309
by pergolassydneyauthority
@ 2017-09-18 07:46
12017-09-19 00:06aharvey
♦1,707
Hi, welcome to OSM.
I think it's appropriate to add office=it, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:office.
Also the format for the phone number is described at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone#Usage it needs the +61 country code.
22017-09-19 02:42CloCkWeRX It's better to trace the individual building outline, not the entire block of land.

I'm going to wager that it would be very difficult to or even impossible to confirm this via survey as a web design office, I tend to prefer to leave this kind of detail off the map
51924861
by Chunkit Ng
@ 2017-09-11 02:23
12017-09-11 05:32nevw
♦1,975
Would you care to elaborate why you deleted the poi with comment "delete useless Poi"
I don't see any sign that you are improving the map with updated or improved mapping for the area.
22017-09-11 06:19CloCkWeRX It seems like this should definitely be reverted; some of those appear to be useful internal POI.
32017-09-13 10:17nevw
♦1,975
no response - reverted mass deletion of poi
51924320
by Arturo Carbajal
@ 2017-09-11 01:31
12017-09-11 04:39CloCkWeRX Landuse=residential is more appropriate, I've fixed this now
46798498
by erickdeoliveiraleal
@ 2017-03-12 23:47
12017-09-06 04:49CloCkWeRX Hi, Way 428124147 looks very different to the available imagery from all providers; are you sure its correct? If so, is it from survey or another source?
22017-09-06 13:39erickdeoliveiraleal
♦1,972
You can see it in DigitalGlobal/ESRI
32017-09-08 04:02CloCkWeRX No problems; I must have accidentally been looking at digitalglobe premium/mapbox/bing only; though thought I checked the other layers.
48933069
by CloCkWeRX
@ 2017-05-24 03:05
12017-09-02 11:37aharvey
♦1,707
I don't understand why https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/495578455 was added back in, did they temporarily reopen this northbound section, it seems very strange to me that they would.

I deleted the northbound road in https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/46239272 6 months ago but it's be...
22017-09-07 05:56CloCkWeRX No probs, it was just a quick survey on my part from a moving taxi; plus referring to LPI imagery after. If you've looked at it more recently happy to roll with that.
32017-09-07 07:00aharvey
♦1,707
Thanks for replying. I looked at it both just recently and about a year ago. Things change and imagery get's outdated. I know how easy it is to think it represents reality but it's not always the case.
42017-09-11 03:49aharvey
♦1,707
Compare current https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/apyjQMjz2YwFit5wxfJBJA (was like that at least for the last 6 months) to historic https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/t_JhcTNCOkLpAevDZnB2JQ
51735532
by mangrove group
@ 2017-09-05 03:05
12017-09-05 03:40CloCkWeRX Hi!
Thanks for contributing. With buildings, we tend to trace the roofline of the building - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Buildings talks a bit about how to do it.

You've done the land around the house, which isn't necessarily wrong - but you might want to tag these as 'resi...
51735204
by Geoglyph
@ 2017-09-05 02:28
12017-09-05 03:15CloCkWeRX Hi, welcome to openstreetmap.

Avoid adding information that can't be verified on the ground by survey, such as events ("X happened here", "Bought Y from here").

51735432
by Matt J Kamp
@ 2017-09-05 02:55
12017-09-05 03:04CloCkWeRX Hi!
Nice work on tracing the buildings. One thing to keep in mind is we don't tend to put people's names in or other personal data - I'll just edit those out now. Keep it up!
22017-09-05 03:05CloCkWeRX Oops, that might not have even been you adding the names on houses, my bad!
51326647
by Mjlotjc
@ 2017-08-22 06:43
12017-08-23 22:14Warin61
♦2,663
Hi
You have Way 479420783 tagged as industrial power plant yet the imagery shows a parking lot. You have that tagged on Way: 71190511. So what it is? If the parking lot is on top of the power plant then use the layer tag to indicate it?
22017-08-24 05:13CloCkWeRX Maybe its confused with Southbank Zone Substation; which is nearby?
51267379
by grimpring
@ 2017-08-20 00:07
12017-08-21 03:15CloCkWeRX Might be best to tag the overall relation as a cycleway/cycle route; so it shows up on https://www.opencyclemap.org/ better
50877988
by Katie_gray
@ 2017-08-06 08:49
12017-08-07 22:45Warin61
♦2,663
Hi,
I think you are mapping the buildings? This is done from the roof outline and they are tagged building= See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building

The name=* is not used to describe an object - that is a no no. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

...
22017-08-08 03:55CloCkWeRX I've cleaned up a few of these - thanks for the effort, and welcome to OSM!

You might be interested in using the 'square' tool in ID to make neater outsides, you can access it via right clicking or using 'S' as a shortcut key.

As others have said, if you type 'Ho...
50732936
by Farras
@ 2017-07-31 20:34
12017-08-06 13:15CloCkWeRX Hi! You might be interested in improve-osm.org or the JOSM plugins for it to find unmapped roads in this area
50799344
by ouchjars
@ 2017-08-03 08:04
12017-08-03 12:44CloCkWeRX Hard to decide if this is a Sidewalk, or a Pedestrian area - its all kind of paved and merged together with the benches ontop of it.
22017-08-05 12:07ouchjars
♦6
Makes sense. I made the Kintore Ave-Pulteney St consistent with the KWS-Kintore Ave section for the time being.
50768077
by Silvia_ed
@ 2017-08-02 02:08
12017-08-02 03:40CloCkWeRX You might be interested in tagging individual turbines (visible on digital globe imagery) - http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5008627113 is an example
50768213
by Rafaelparra
@ 2017-08-02 02:17
12017-08-02 03:38CloCkWeRX With this, I traced roughly where the whole business is and moved the address/business name tags to that, left the building attributes on the buildings.
37927047
by Original RMN not the fake - RMN
@ 2016-03-18 20:04
12017-07-24 06:51CloCkWeRX With a lot of these, I marked them as a delivery company office or similar
46153099
by MajorChuck
@ 2017-02-17 02:38
12017-04-17 06:18Warin61
♦2,663
Errr ...
Removed a node from relation 6987348 - parking .. node is on a street outside the parking area. This now looks reasonable.

Way: 475189238 - parking ... looks bad. Please take a look at it. I have removed some nodes from it .. one of them the same one as the above parking relation.

22017-07-24 04:12CloCkWeRX Fixed
50420114
by Braddles
@ 2017-07-20 00:38
12017-07-20 06:00CloCkWeRX Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap :)

I changed this from a 'path' to a driveway, and added the houses either side.

You might like to add addresses on the individual houses instead of the driveway itself - that will make it show up in navigation apps and similar that use OSM.

46570209
by griffonboi
@ 2017-03-04 11:43
12017-07-19 05:40CloCkWeRX The prision is available on digital globe, and appears substantially constructed now
44744415
by HCoz
@ 2016-12-29 00:47
12017-07-13 01:33CloCkWeRX Should probably be building=hospital if its still a hospital, or building = yes if its not anymore
50196723
by nevw
@ 2017-07-11 09:34
12017-07-12 12:46CloCkWeRX This is actually Beech Avenue according to http://maps.sa.gov.au/plb/ (that is powered by the same data as is on data.sa.gov.au; which we have explicit permission to use)
22017-07-12 13:05nevw
♦1,975
Well spotted.
50191475
by Ok DaRa
@ 2017-07-11 04:25
12017-07-11 06:51nevw
♦1,975
The OpenStreetMap is not suitable for adding personal details like "Home in AEU"
22017-07-12 09:00CloCkWeRX I've removed this for now as it seems very unlikely to be an actual confectionery store
32017-07-12 09:36nevw
♦1,975
Thanks
Ok DaRa uses that pretty icon for most edits :/
50164853
by DavidJH
@ 2017-07-10 03:14
12017-07-10 19:52yurasi
♦87
Hi DavidJH
Thanks for contributing to OSM. I noticed that you was added highways that not coincide with Bing imagery. Could you share the source you used?
22017-07-10 23:25DavidJH
♦1
Hi the source is satellite view of google maps.
32017-07-12 08:51CloCkWeRX Unfortunately that's copyrighted / not compatible with the OpenStreetMap licencing.
42017-07-12 08:58CloCkWeRX I've removed the service roads for now; we'll add a user note to recheck this when LPI imagery catches up to whats on the ground.
41867680
by Netto54
@ 2016-09-02 11:47
12017-07-11 09:39aharvey
♦1,707
I've changed https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4380628789/history to use club=sport rather than shop=sport
22017-07-11 09:39aharvey
♦1,707
What's https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4380573190 ?
32017-07-12 03:14CloCkWeRX I think its better tagged as https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dfitness_station
42017-07-12 03:14CloCkWeRX SOme detail on it - http://www.haveyoursaywilloughby.com.au/gore-hill-exercise-equipment
52017-07-12 03:44aharvey
♦1,707
I'll do a ground survey to confirm its a fitness station. I thought they might be adding some kind of fitness club which is run there.
44217086
by krl0z
@ 2016-12-06 18:58
12017-07-05 09:41CloCkWeRX You might be interested in https://improveosm.org/#background=Bing&id=w458133607&map=16.64/25.85501/-100.14083 - you can see a lot of roads in the new residential area
50021929
by _ThePieman_
@ 2017-07-04 01:13
12017-07-04 05:29CloCkWeRX With the Dick Smith shop, shop=vacant might be better tagging
38015404
by dmilanovski
@ 2016-03-23 08:47
12017-06-27 07:29CloCkWeRX I've fleshed out some of the newly visible roads in the development via digitalglobe imagery, but if you are in the area and can survey the names of some of them, that'd be handy!
40050017
by porjo
@ 2016-06-15 23:35
12017-06-27 07:13CloCkWeRX I added some of the roads being built visible in Digitalglobe imagery, but its far from well mapped. If you are familar with the area, did you want to have a look and possibly survey the current state?
49789774
by _ThePieman_
@ 2017-06-24 09:32
12017-06-25 11:26CloCkWeRX With the playground on the beach, is that actually a playground? Imagery doesn't show it; and I don't recall seeing anything like that last time I was in that area...
49786265
by _ThePieman_
@ 2017-06-24 04:44
12017-06-25 11:20CloCkWeRX With the buildings, try the 'S' shortcut to 'square' them (or right click, 'square') - can help get the edges.
You can also disconnect houses from each other if they "snap" together accidentally.
49761815
by Qwertii
@ 2017-06-23 05:38
12017-06-23 08:07CloCkWeRX Is it better to maybe leave the address tags in place? I tend to use shop=vacant
22017-06-23 13:57Qwertii
♦18
Wasn't any address tags on it so nothing really of value left, I'll update it with whatever pops up there later though
49760308
by astonvilla91
@ 2017-06-23 02:38
12017-06-23 08:00CloCkWeRX You can see the actual buildings on the digital globe imagery (map layers -> background -> digital globe standard).

I added the buildings as big 'blobs', you might like to add address points in if you know them
22017-11-23 15:07Didz
♦8
Bing also has updated imagery.

Keep up the good work.
41994686
by Omegaville
@ 2016-09-08 05:55
12017-06-21 05:37CloCkWeRX I've updated from newer imagery, if you know the road names/can survey around there that'd be helpful :)
48732514
by CloCkWeRX
@ 2017-05-16 13:55
12017-06-18 23:55Warin61
♦2,663
Humm looses a lot because there are no heights . so the tower gains nothing over the rest of the building.
The building:part ... that needs a building=* to sit in .. I have made the outline as a building=church way and then have the tower as a way with building:part=tower ... no multipoygon relati...
22017-06-19 02:56CloCkWeRX Yeah, happy with that, just don't ask me to ride out and survey it again!
49261124
by volpecurtains
@ 2017-06-05 07:56
12017-06-05 23:29aharvey
♦1,707
I wonder if this was entered by the business or by a 3rd party SEO business.

Either way please these on how to tag accepted payments and opening hours:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:payment
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours

as the way you've entered them i...
22017-06-06 05:36CloCkWeRX I tweaked the tagging
29445769
by captain_slow
@ 2015-03-13 11:15
12017-06-05 12:50CloCkWeRX A strava user says: "L'itinéraire ne passe pas par la route. Il coupe au travers la foret au lieu de suivre la route. Il n'y a pas de sentier de foret à cet endroit. Merci de corriger ce problème. "
22017-06-05 13:00captain_slow
♦66
can you provide a link to this problem on strava or put an osm note to the exact position of the problem? i think the osm note would be better because local mapper could see it (i am not a local mapper). unfortunately it is not very clear from your message where the problem exactly is.
cheers
32017-06-05 13:06CloCkWeRX http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/391524290 - this section of path between the two roads is where they indicated.
42017-06-05 13:15captain_slow
♦66
thank you for the clarification, i have put a note there because i am not familiar with the situation there.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1020031
49259727
by toxicantidote
@ 2017-06-05 07:04
12017-06-05 09:24nevw
♦1,975
These is no reason to delete these private roads which someone else has mapped. The information provided may serve the company staff and visitors quite well. You should instead add the tag access=no or access=private.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
22017-06-05 10:33toxicantidote
♦1
Noted. The location of these roads was incorrect anyway following a 2015 redevelopment.

I'll try and update these more appropriately.
32017-06-05 12:01CloCkWeRX Have tweaked this a little further, based on DigitalGlobe imagery
49255400
by nrs19
@ 2017-06-05 03:03
12017-06-05 03:53CloCkWeRX Interesting, I can see it on plb.sa.gov.au imageery but its not named yet.

Do you know if its stage 2 or stage 3 of the development (http://www.news.com.au/national/south-australia/developer-veritas-liberte-marketing-delbridge-court-beaumont-to-chinese-buyers/news-story/3934815c5eaca3d851763b6c2...
22017-06-06 11:29nrs19
♦2
Not sure of status of development. Just drove that road the other day. I agree it appears the road may not yet be officially named. My guess it will be continuation of Delbridge but will amend if necessary.
49121071
by KNAPPO
@ 2017-05-31 03:47
12017-05-31 03:59CloCkWeRX Does it need some kind of theme park tagging?
22017-05-31 04:05KNAPPO
♦2
Ive just added the name "Waterworld" to the building as it seemed the most appropriate place for a name marker.
49090054
by Malco!
@ 2017-05-30 02:57
12017-05-30 06:22CloCkWeRX Is there a retaining wall or similar we should tag with waterway=dam near the spillway?
47580891
by jorvime
@ 2017-04-08 22:52
12017-05-26 02:21CloCkWeRX Howdy, can you add to the note on http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/909844#map=18/-30.63522/152.97526&layers=N ? Its a bit hard to tell the current state when looking at LPI imagery
37623631
by Leon K
@ 2016-03-05 09:17
12017-05-24 05:04CloCkWeRX Thoughts on classification of Ringwood Bypass (http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/979260) ?
37452764
by rolandmwagner
@ 2016-02-26 05:47
12017-05-24 04:56CloCkWeRX Howdy, thoughts on http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/909840 ?
43110595
by Pizza1016
@ 2016-10-23 22:21
12016-10-23 22:26Pizza1016
♦3
Oops, got a little too trigger-happy with the upload button. Meant to say in edit summary: "Minor fixes to existing data"
22017-05-24 03:58CloCkWeRX Hey, are you able to weigh in on http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/785503 ?
32017-05-24 04:21Pizza1016
♦3
Yup that should have been split. Fixed now.
37754429
by TheSwavu
@ 2016-03-11 08:56
12017-05-24 03:30CloCkWeRX Howdy, thoughts on http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/909840 ?
22017-05-24 03:56TheSwavu
♦544
Not really. Might want to ask the original mapper:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/37452764
48929878
by Midliel
@ 2017-05-23 22:00
12017-05-24 02:55CloCkWeRX Ah nice work, I never quite manage to get all of the addresses while travelling along here. Welcome [back to] OSM!
48776359
by CloCkWeRX
@ 2017-05-18 01:50
12017-05-18 03:53Qwertii
♦18
I was wondering when this would happen, the maps.me data is months out of date so I can't see the latest nodes :S

Also I noticed you marked male, female and unisex all as no. Shouldn't one be yes?
22017-05-18 04:15CloCkWeRX All fixed re attributes.

All good re the duplicates, I added the other one from survey like... 1-2 weeks ago max? I reckon it'll be pretty rare it crops up
48666453
by triducsuz
@ 2017-05-14 07:33
12017-05-15 03:17Qwertii
♦18
Where are you sourcing this information from? Two of the tracks you have marked as asphalt look very much like dirt/gravel from satellite images.
22017-05-17 06:23CloCkWeRX The one near heatherbank is definately loose gravel/dirt; from survey. Its easy to accidentally get a bit carried away with street complete and harder to undo mistakes.
48716896
by KNAPPO
@ 2017-05-16 02:17
12017-05-16 03:15CloCkWeRX Ah nice work. If you like, I can help flesh out a bit of Wingfield, Dry Creek, Gepps Cross area
48520531
by Phillip Jubb
@ 2017-05-09 04:53
12017-05-13 12:02CloCkWeRX There's better imagery available in the Digitalglobe Standard layer
48501424
by CloCkWeRX
@ 2017-05-08 12:56
12017-05-09 11:50Qwertii
♦18
Should the website be the site root instead of the individual stores page? When a user clicks to see the website the probably want to see the stores products and similar as they already have the contact info and location from OSM.
22017-05-11 13:59CloCkWeRX I've tended to err for the webpage most directly describing a specific physical location; ie so you can find contact details or hours.
48493866
by Qwertii
@ 2017-05-08 07:57
12017-05-08 12:58CloCkWeRX Any chance the rug place is "Hali Rugs" rather than Rugs Hall?
22017-05-09 07:37Qwertii
♦18
Yeah looks like it is, You can see how I got the two mixed up though https://i.imgur.com/KynzHHX.png
48117974
by ivanvanann
@ 2017-04-25 09:46
12017-04-26 07:37tonyf1
♦471
Are you sure there is a shop here? There's nothing in the sat photo.
22017-04-27 00:32CloCkWeRX I think its http://winetasmania.com.au/east_coast_wine_route/listing/devils_corner_cellar_door_lookout
32017-04-27 07:13tonyf1
♦471
Thanks. Then I suspect the correct placement is 1km south, near viewpoint #2283984229 and "Corner Tasman Highway and Sherbourne Road"
29736262
by karitotp
@ 2015-03-25 19:35
12017-04-26 03:41CloCkWeRX This unfortunately seems very offset from GPS traces (see improve-osm.org) and imagery (which aligns to the improve-osm.org gps traces. Is it worth moving everything in one go?
22017-04-27 23:38karitotp
♦123
Hi CloCkWeRX,
That seems to be one of my first editions in OSM, i am wondering if the imagery have been updated for that area or if I used a different source, because I do not understand which was the reason for the offset from the imagery.
Anyway, thank you for notifying me about this. I see that...
19756287
by Softgrow
@ 2014-01-02 03:12
12017-04-15 11:41CloCkWeRX http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/254751950 might not quite exist, isn't in http://maps.sa.gov.au/plb/ - have taken it out for now.
47684752
by RubyMiner
@ 2017-04-12 07:56
12017-04-15 01:12CloCkWeRX Nice work! If there's a particular area you'd like to flesh out a bit, more than happy to help (particularly roads with shops/other POI on them) - have done a bit around Glenside for example.
47767444
by Rebecca Buser
@ 2017-04-14 06:30
12017-04-15 01:09CloCkWeRX Adelaide railway station seems to be duplicated in this one.

Bit hard to decide if airbnbs are tourist accomodation or not.
47557891
by Qwertii
@ 2017-04-08 04:36
12017-04-08 12:35CloCkWeRX Oh, let me see what's on my bike camera from today, rode around a bunch of Glenelg... will upload to mapillary
22017-04-08 13:35Qwertii
♦18
That would be sweet, loads of stores around here that need to be added.
46947849
by Shanegemhunter
@ 2017-03-18 04:50
Active block
12017-03-19 00:30nevw
♦1,975
Welcome to the Openstreetmap.org
You have added a few shop=bookmaker to the map where none exist.
Are you able to correct these edits in the 2 changesets you have uploaded?
22017-04-03 05:05CloCkWeRX These are now removed
46947995
by Shanegemhunter
@ 2017-03-18 05:04
Active block
12017-04-03 05:04CloCkWeRX Removed these, there's no evidence of any of them from imagery.
47246789
by Shanegemhunter
@ 2017-03-29 02:42
Active block
12017-04-03 05:03CloCkWeRX Removed this, its not verifiable
47168855
by Shanegemhunter
@ 2017-03-26 07:35
Active block
12017-04-03 05:03CloCkWeRX Removed this, its not verifiable
47372202
by Shanegemhunter
@ 2017-04-02 04:16
Active block
12017-04-03 02:37tonyf1
♦471
Hi
You continue to add features which do not seem to exist. Maybe you are not aware you are editing a public map? Please reply to this comment as well as one two weeks ago.
Thanks
22017-04-03 05:02CloCkWeRX I removed this.
33522800
by InExtremis_an
@ 2015-08-23 11:07
12017-03-26 12:14CloCkWeRX I think some of these buildings are double mapped; its a bit hard to tell which is the more accurate changeset
47114178
by igbert
@ 2017-03-24 04:35
12017-03-26 09:59CloCkWeRX Ah thanks for fixing that up, and welcome to OSM!
30346989
by ruthmaben
@ 2015-04-20 05:56
12017-03-23 02:47CloCkWeRX What's the source for these, bing doesn't appear to have the buildings.

Unfortunately a lot of these seem duplicated as well; and I can't pick which is the most accurate version
22017-03-23 12:40srividya_c
♦57
Hi CloCkWeRX,

Thank you for flagging this changeset.

We have reverted changeset 30347008 which created the duplicates and cleaned up the area.

The main source we used to trace these buildings was Mapbox Imagery. As a local mapper, it would be great if you verify these buildings existence ...
32017-03-25 10:43CloCkWeRX The current mapbox imagery seems to be blank, which is weird. Non free imagery suggests they do exist though.
21565224
by Leon K
@ 2014-04-08 06:29
12017-03-23 22:49Warin61
♦2,663
Why layer=1 for these buildings?

At the moment relationship 6592787 has 3 of these buildings .. all layer=1 ... and they over lap one another ... so in order to 'fix' the problem I'd like to understand the use of the layer tag here.
22017-03-23 23:01Leon K
♦40
Hi, not sure about the layer tag to be honest, I can't remember a specific reason for it. The reason for the three spearate parts is they are different heights and colours. It's part of the 3d tagging.
The layer isn't associated with that but might be because of the underground ...
32017-03-25 10:40CloCkWeRX Better to model the different chunks as building:part I reckon; and the building 'footprint' as a building.

A bit hard to get them all in a relation properly with ID; dunno about other editors
42017-03-25 11:01Warin61
♦2,663
Interesting and dynamic architecture is hard to map... particularly from satellite imagery! :) Don't think any of the 2D editors handle it well. Now if we modeled the world in solid modeler? :)))
My thinking at the moment is to map it by the roof over laps .. at least that is visible from the ...
52017-03-25 11:14Leon K
♦40
I've been there plenty of times, only issue I can see was one overlap, which i've just removed. Hopefully that solves whatever error you're seeing.
62017-03-25 11:16Leon K
♦40
A single building and building parts might work better, might look into that. 3D tagging isn't so bad, eventually you learn how to see the result from the tags.
72017-03-26 00:41Warin61
♦2,663
Thanks Leon. I'll have a look at it later .. There should be a method of tagging the roof too so that they don't clash.
45625260
by itzcorbinn
@ 2017-01-29 16:41
12017-03-21 06:11CloCkWeRX Its probably better to map the individual cafes/restaurants as points
40792459
by TheOldMiner
@ 2016-07-17 07:17
12017-03-21 05:30CloCkWeRX With http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/431490830 I dropped it to landuse=commercial only, so that the individual buildings inside of it wouldn't overlap.
44614403
by cameror lhpq
@ 2016-12-23 08:03
12017-03-21 05:19CloCkWeRX This area might need a bit of cleanup to match the bing imagery available - its close, but not quite right.

You might be interested to find the 'square' tool, or shortcut key = S in ID; which makes it a lot easy to get neat looking buildings.

I've tweaked this a bit to remove ov...
46566316
by nibennett
@ 2017-03-04 08:17
12017-03-17 02:48CloCkWeRX What's the source of this change, it doesn't match Bing, Mapbox or even some non-free aerial imagery very well
22017-03-17 02:51nibennett
♦2
The source is the developer of the estates maps, (I'm someone who has bought a block in the estate)
I mapped out the whole estate on the developers maps since none of the other imagery is up to date yet
32017-03-17 03:47CloCkWeRX Ah hah. Probably shouldn't go from the potentially copyrighted developer maps; but since you've got a block there you've probably surveyed it directly :)

Nice work on the detail around freeling and other areas, welcome to OSM!
42017-03-17 04:47nibennett
♦2
Fair enough. Yeah I've definitely seen it all just used their map of it that they gave us to help do it when I was at the computer.
Thanks
46915950
by CloCkWeRX
@ 2017-03-17 03:17
12017-03-17 03:18CloCkWeRX I swapped some of these to 'farmland' (more for the paddocks and similar), as opposed to farmyard (the bit nearer the houses, usually with a shed or two that is bigger than a typical backyard)
45465693
by nibennett
@ 2017-01-25 07:44
12017-03-17 03:09CloCkWeRX This one is a bit odd, its not really a reservoir like a farm dam so much as an emergency? drainage area... and if the water was that close to the road/houses, would be a bit of a problem. May better as https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Ddrain for the main 'drain' part of i...
46889500
by cleary
@ 2017-03-16 07:16
12017-03-16 11:10CloCkWeRX Ah nice, we did some work to add names, but not so much work to find the ones that were slightly off from data.sa.gov.au info
22017-03-17 04:50cleary
♦56
Thanks for the feedback.
35547747
by Josh_G
@ 2015-11-24 10:52
12017-03-15 23:52CloCkWeRX Ah nice, hadn't spotted the building mapping in Gawler! Will chip in a few hours to it at some point
45592770
by tobster1013
@ 2017-01-28 13:56
12017-03-15 13:22CloCkWeRX This seems to have broken the Largs Bay admin boundary, and turned it into a highway, going to revert in a bit
22017-03-15 23:28CloCkWeRX Alright, that's reverted now - the blue line through the park was actually an administrative boundary, not quite sure why it looked like a road
46698246
by Lee Drury
@ 2017-03-09 04:02
12017-03-09 04:11Martini097
♦13
you've added the tag building=yes to some large areas of land that are also tagged landuse=commercial. the normal convention is to only place the tag building=yes on specific/individual buildings and not large areas. the tagging of landuse=commercial is enough to let people know that there will...
22017-03-10 01:11Lee Drury
♦2
Right, so if an area already has building=yes and it is a commercial property I would also tag as landuse=commercial?

And if there is an area that is a known as landuse=commercial but lacks individually tagged buildings, I can designate the whole areas as landuse=commercial?
32017-03-11 08:36CloCkWeRX I've tweaked how http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/435898495 is modelled - tracing the individual buildings inside of it.

It can be a little tricky with the ID editor making some assumptions about something being a building, when you are tracing the whole area.
46699348
by Shiboopy
@ 2017-03-09 05:22
12017-03-09 11:49CloCkWeRX Ah nice work! For the buildings, try the 'S' shortcut key to square them.

Keep up the mapping!
44395211
by Liquid_Plasma
@ 2016-12-14 11:30
12017-03-08 08:38CloCkWeRX Ah nice, I hadn't noticed the house mapping you added - thanks! We've finally fleshed out around here almost completely.
46515381
by Qwertii
@ 2017-03-02 08:17
12017-03-02 12:28CloCkWeRX One thing I've been meaning to do more of is indoor mapping - room=shop (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:room) combined with POI tagging kind of thing - http://openlevelup.net/ shows the results. For places around Rundle Mall, it might be a handy tool

22017-03-03 06:28Qwertii
♦18
Oh cool, I was wondering how multilevel buildings would be mapped.
43687158
by Velo Mapper
@ 2016-11-16 02:47
12017-02-20 02:35CloCkWeRX Is it Strickland or Strickleland? Through work we have some (non free) documentation that suggests its not Strickleland.
46066364
by RubyMiner
@ 2017-02-14 01:42
12017-02-14 01:51CloCkWeRX Ah nice work. You can use the 'S' shortcut to square buildings, which makes them a bit neater/easier to trace. Keep it up
22017-02-14 03:11RubyMiner
♦1
Thanks for the tip. I'll amend all of them now.
32017-02-14 03:11Qwertii
♦18
Oh neat, I didn't know there was a shortcut for it. That will make things much faster.
45996110
by Andrew Pikot
@ 2017-02-11 12:01
12017-02-12 23:23aharvey
♦1,707
This looks like a residential home, is it really a cosmetics shop named "home"?
22017-02-13 03:17CloCkWeRX Could have meant http://www.revivebeautyclinic.com.au/ (presumably at the shopping centre up the road); or maybe https://www.facebook.com/maryannesbeautypadstow/ ... but that's in a different spot.
39560671
by CloCkWeRX
@ 2016-05-25 16:45
12017-02-11 03:30TheSwavu
♦544
I'm going to go out on a limb here but I'm not sure that the carriageways of Port Road cross over. Unless, of course, this is some sort of SA specific traffic calming ;-)
22017-02-12 10:09CloCkWeRX New thing we are trialling here - Car Gladiators. Two drive in, one drives out!

Its weirdly shaped, because they've dug a bit hole where the northmost lane used to be and put the traffic right next to the other lane - previously separated by a wide median.

I've tweaked the two not to...
32901399
by Heino craft
@ 2015-07-27 05:18
12017-02-10 06:37CloCkWeRX Good start on the housing in this area. I've used the 'square buildings' tool in ID (shortcut: S) to straighten up a few of these to better match the imagery. Keep it up
43844810
by boldnesz
@ 2016-11-21 11:52
12017-02-07 04:35CloCkWeRX Fairly sure the HJ's on Glen Osmond Road is a lot further south east
22017-02-07 10:16boldnesz
♦1
I'm pretty sure of this one. I had lunch there, it's next to the gas station.

It maybe changed meanwhile or there is another HJ's at the place you're talking about
32017-02-07 23:52CloCkWeRX http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2597881208 is the existing petrol station/HJ's combination. https://www.hungryjacks.com.au/stores puts only one there.
45854559
by Qwertii
@ 2017-02-06 12:26
12017-02-07 04:05CloCkWeRX Ah nice work! I've been vaguely meaning to trace more housing/farmland along Flaxley Road - keep it up :)
45713659
by hryciuk
@ 2017-02-01 11:19
12017-02-02 12:37CloCkWeRX If you are around there, any chance of grabbing street numbers along Smith Street?
45697144
by Ballisticv
@ 2017-01-31 20:37
Active block
12017-02-01 05:37nevw
♦1,975
This edit is incorrect. You have changed place=locality to natural=water for Port Douglas. Do you want me to correct it or are you able to fix it?
22017-02-01 12:59CloCkWeRX Reverted this one for the moment
32507634
by Chad Wamsley-Taylor
@ 2015-07-08 22:28
12017-01-25 03:38CloCkWeRX This doesn't match imagery, or a lot of GPS traces from improve-osm - how certain are you of the GPS traces you used?
22017-01-27 03:20Chad Wamsley-Taylor
♦1
you might want to check any "updated" satellite imagery. I personally travel on this road at least once per week. you are looking at old imagery of the old road before construction was completed. Road is still accessible to Mine personal, which could explain updated GPS traces, Public have...
32017-01-27 05:29CloCkWeRX > Road is still accessible to Mine personal
Maybe that bit could be tagged with highway=service access=private or similar?

Are you able to upload your GPS traces into OSM by any chance?

The data in improveosm.org is fairly dense and recent - 2016-8-23 2:55:34, 9+ trips/50 gps points per ti...
42017-01-27 05:34CloCkWeRX Looking at non-free imagery, I can see the new road - I might just re-add the old one with appropriate tagging/notes
52017-01-27 05:37Chad Wamsley-Taylor
♦1
The road has been physically blocked off at the northern end, so only accessible by mine authorized vehicles, GPS tracks could have been a external float carrying mine equipment in from mine site. road is all overgrown. can't upload our GPS tracks unfortunately.
62017-01-27 05:43Chad Wamsley-Taylor
♦1
its also blocked off at the south, at Railway crossing, no Physical connection at either end to Peak Downs Mine Road
45458629
by Hiimbraydon
@ 2017-01-25 03:03
12017-01-26 08:37nevw
♦1,975
This appears to be a residential area and you have mapped a river, pier, water??
Has this much development occurred recently? This is a public map.
22017-01-26 12:21CloCkWeRX There's no river in Sunbury, I think its safe to say this can be reverted
32017-01-26 12:39nevw
♦1,975
Deleted now
32200880
by Zhent
@ 2015-06-25 09:25
12017-01-14 11:52CloCkWeRX I've checked a lot of these against LPI basemap imagery, and most are pretty accurate. A few (Evergreen Drive) aren't in LPI; suggesting maybe the master plan was revised. Are you able to find out if anything has been dropped from the development?
22017-01-15 06:36Zhent
♦20
Not sure. I would recommend on the ground surveys as the best way to keep up from here on out.
21594756
by vanessalaro
@ 2014-04-09 19:07
12017-01-09 03:52CloCkWeRX Hi - http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/273080558 doesn't appear on bing imagery or mapbox imagery, are you sure its right?
44722191
by kidudjjwjwehxu
@ 2016-12-28 05:23
12017-01-02 10:39sb9576
♦19
Please remove your graffiti. Any contributions you make to improve the OSM are most welcome, but your graffiti is not an improvement.
22017-01-02 11:49CloCkWeRX Reverted, think thats all
44722240
by kidudjjwjwehxu
@ 2016-12-28 05:29
12017-01-02 10:40sb9576
♦19
Please remove your graffiti. Any contributions you make to improve the OSM are most welcome, but your graffiti is not an improvement.
22017-01-02 11:48CloCkWeRX Reverted
44816515
by kidudjjwjwehxu
@ 2017-01-01 03:20
12017-01-02 10:37sb9576
♦19
Please remove your graffiti. Any contributions you make to improve the OSM are most welcome, but your graffiti is not an improvement.
22017-01-02 11:46CloCkWeRX Reverted
44722258
by kidudjjwjwehxu
@ 2016-12-28 05:30
12017-01-02 10:40sb9576
♦19
Please remove your graffiti. Any contributions you make to improve the OSM are most welcome, but your graffiti is not an improvement.
22017-01-02 11:44CloCkWeRX Reverted
44722266
by kidudjjwjwehxu
@ 2016-12-28 05:30
12017-01-02 10:41sb9576
♦19
Please remove your graffiti. Any contributions you make to improve the OSM are most welcome, but your graffiti is not an improvement.
22017-01-02 11:43CloCkWeRX Reverted
44722276
by kidudjjwjwehxu
@ 2016-12-28 05:31
12017-01-02 10:41sb9576
♦19
Please remove your graffiti. Any contributions you make to improve the OSM are most welcome, but your graffiti is not an improvement.
22017-01-02 11:41CloCkWeRX Reverted
44816501
by kidudjjwjwehxu
@ 2017-01-01 03:16
12017-01-02 10:42sb9576
♦19
Please remove your graffiti. Any contributions you make to improve the OSM are most welcome, but your graffiti is not an improvement.
22017-01-02 11:40CloCkWeRX Reverted
39701720
by keeponpedalling
@ 2016-06-01 03:40
12016-12-31 02:16keeponpedalling
♦3
A deleted section of track named 'Creek Loop' is visible in strava mapping. It is an obsolete section that I deleted some time ago but I can't figure out how to deleted it from strava. If someone can help it would be appreciated.
Thanks
22017-01-01 10:26CloCkWeRX Strava will (eventually) update, though it may take a number on months
44677015
by tycoonz
@ 2016-12-26 08:22
12017-01-01 03:59CloCkWeRX With these, it's probably better to tag them as 'sidewalk'. https://www.mapbox.com/blog/mapping-sidewalks/ talks about it a bit in detail
44780775
by Antony333
@ 2016-12-30 10:22
12017-01-01 03:21CloCkWeRX I've tweaked how these are modelled - leisure=pitch and sport=tennis for example are a bit better. Welcome to openstreetmap :)
44103987
by Qwertii
@ 2016-12-02 04:18
12016-12-03 23:24CloCkWeRX Ah nice work, I don't get up there to survey often enough
22016-12-04 04:10Qwertii
♦18
Im up in Aldgate most days. If there was a mobile editor that wasn't extremely difficult to use I would have added some more by now.
44128921
by Liquid_Plasma
@ 2016-12-03 03:17
12016-12-03 23:22CloCkWeRX Nice work! I should probably expand the coverage of Glenelg down south till it meets up with your work
28320164
by Yorx
@ 2015-01-22 05:48
12016-11-19 09:45CloCkWeRX I don't see much GPS activity for http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/323574984 ; do you know if its accurate? Do you have any more information on the construction?
35522157
by lcmortensen
@ 2015-11-23 03:41
12016-11-17 14:36CloCkWeRX Its a bit hard to make sense of http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/247800173 - improve-osm suggests one set of GPS traces, strava heatmap another; neither are quite how its traced at the moment.

http://strava.github.io/iD/#background=Mapbox&id=w247800173&map=17.06/174.05481/-41.60812

htt...
22016-11-19 00:32lcmortensen
♦48
The road here was realigned in 2015 with the replacement of the Dashwood Pass rail overbridge (see https://www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/sh1-dashwood-rail-overbridge-replacement/). The current route is a best guess awaiting an accurate GPS trace.
22788688
by xtianetkti
@ 2014-06-07 07:41
12016-11-14 11:07CloCkWeRX I updated a few roads like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/286706063 which seemed to have completed construction - do you know if the speed limit of 15km/h is still valid? Did you want to trace the other nearby areas just to the north as well?
42305900
by stev
@ 2016-09-20 18:32
12016-11-11 02:39CloCkWeRX Do you know if the road works have started or similar? There's no GPS traces via http://strava.github.io/iD/#background=Bing&id=w194715172&map=18.38/-0.55229/51.90851 yet, so I'm assuming its very early days
37787713
by Glucosamine
@ 2016-03-12 18:11
12016-11-11 02:37CloCkWeRX http://strava.github.io/iD/#background=Bing&map=17.64/-0.65949/51.99354 shows a bit of a different story with http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/46910762 - are you able to take a look with your knowledge of things on the ground and decide if that bridleway is right; or the gps trace a bit over fro...
30490468
by NigelThornberry
@ 2015-04-26 04:25
12016-11-10 04:01CloCkWeRX Hey, just wanted to say nice work with the house mapping around here!

We use mapbox streets at work as a property industry company - http://imgur.com/a/CpPTU is what it looks like in our system.

The stuff on the left, blurred, are recent sales along Danks street, which includes things like Lan...
43433614
by Sam Carman
@ 2016-11-06 01:44
12016-11-08 12:37CloCkWeRX Keep it up with the building mapping :)
22647040
by bigalxyz123
@ 2014-05-30 21:42
12016-11-05 10:56CloCkWeRX Do you happen to know the surface of http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243064597 ? From a strava user note: there is a route but it is not a official road more like a farm track and unsuitable for road bikes
22016-11-05 11:13bigalxyz123
♦5
Hi - I had a look on Google Street View at both ends of the route. It's a narrow farm road but has a good surface. I've added it as a service road, but with the original footpath way still there in the same place. I'm never quite sure - with public footpaths that are also roads - what...
32016-11-07 08:03CloCkWeRX Track can be a good compromise in that case.
43044791
by deptho
@ 2016-10-20 21:12
12016-11-07 03:20CloCkWeRX http://strava.github.io/iD/#background=Bing&map=18.15/-0.11229/50.98508 shows a bit better layout of some of the roads which you might be interested in
41675069
by AlwynWellington
@ 2016-08-24 22:12
12016-11-05 13:24CloCkWeRX I think this might have misaligned http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1684996913
32910775
by KikeTM
@ 2015-07-27 14:17
12016-11-05 10:32CloCkWeRX Is this cycleway better modelled as part of the footpath, with bicycle=yes?

http://strava.github.io/iD/#background=Bing&id=w362607270&map=19.54/-0.97000/37.59444
25744404
by aharvey
@ 2014-09-29 11:27
12016-11-04 01:00CloCkWeRX Do you know if the bridge (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/771693) is actually there still?
22016-11-04 03:46aharvey
♦1,707
The bride is there but it's a pipeline not a footbridge. I've fixed this up via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/43394284.

Not sure why it was marked as a path in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/38993006
42722923
by Baconcrisp
@ 2016-10-07 22:08
12016-10-29 12:02CloCkWeRX Do you know if http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/60703903 is a private road at all?

A strava user reports: "Camino privado cerrado"
22016-10-31 15:15Baconcrisp
♦135
I'm not sure.
36233507
by Charles Murray
@ 2015-12-29 03:55
12016-10-29 10:48CloCkWeRX Ah, thanks for adding Herron Todd White :) We're more of a valuation company though!
15363567
by Fledge
@ 2013-03-14 15:15
12016-10-27 04:56CloCkWeRX Hi, you might know if http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/762754 is resolvable or accurate
22016-10-27 14:57Fledge
♦1
Sorry, I just used OS OpenData Locator. They could be wrong, of course.
37910029
by fayor
@ 2016-03-18 00:44
12016-10-27 04:45CloCkWeRX Do you know if the intersection at http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/614616601 is accurate? Imagery suggests something different to what is mapped.

Strava users report: "it will always send me up this road against traffic. I must deviate around it one block and then cut over.", which I ...
22016-10-27 13:36fayor
♦125
A quanto mi risulta l'incrocio è mappato correttamente. L'immagine si riferisce a un periodo precedente.
39241078
by oglord
@ 2016-05-11 12:36
12016-10-27 04:42CloCkWeRX Do you happen to know what the condition of http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/46707418 is on the ground?

Strava users report a problem, and the heatmap suggests the imagery is out of date ... but you've mapped accurately to aerial imagery.

http://strava.github.io/iD/#background=Bing&ma...
22016-10-27 11:08oglord
♦2
Yes the heatmap is correct. The cycle path has been realigned as per the Apple Maps aerial imagery.
42909719
by humin0129
@ 2016-10-15 02:47
12016-10-19 05:28nevw
♦1,975
You are meant to enter the tags name=* in English in this country.
If you want to add name=* in Chinese use name:zh=* instead.
22016-10-19 23:28CloCkWeRX Lets revert the renames and move it to the right tags, I think!
32016-10-19 23:33nevw
♦1,975
Agreed.
42016-10-19 23:49CloCkWeRX All sorted out; some merged with the better features, some removed.

38279670
by samsavvas
@ 2016-04-04 03:14
12016-10-16 03:06CloCkWeRX Hi! I notice you've added a lot of notes for the bikeway; probably something more suited to a bike routing engine - are they in there for a specific purpose?
22016-10-16 04:37samsavvas
♦1
Hi, I'm afraid that this was an unsuccessful (or at least an uncompleted) experiment on my part to see if OSM could be used to develop a guide to the Outer Harbour Greenway. I'm very happy to remove these notes but I can't figure out how - any guidance would be appreciated. I have no ...
32016-10-16 21:14CloCkWeRX No probs, I can clean these up. A good end user routing engine would be something like Strava's route builder - lets you generate a course with elevation, based on popularity. Others: RideWithGPS, mapmyride, runkeeper, etc, though they dont use open data under the hood.

http://wiki.openstree...
42016-10-16 22:26samsavvas
♦1
Thanks a lot for these suggestions - I’ll follow them up and get back to this project. The PortBUG (of which I’m secretary) has had a long interest in providing maps and directions to using this Greenway for naive or younger users, principally because the Gov’t seems reluctant to d...
42916419
by CloCkWeRX
@ 2016-10-15 11:50
12016-10-15 13:36trigpoint
♦2,372
Are you absolutely certain about this?
Have you been there and checked? Did this Strava user send you a photo?

Firstly a missing unclassified road in the Midlands has alarm bells ringing, there is as much chance of finding Elvis selling fruit and veg on Leicester Market.
So did you check the av...
22016-10-16 15:11Richard
♦220
Geograph photos:
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/408432
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1036267
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/408921
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/408923
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4019525
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/408927
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4...
32016-10-16 16:28trigpoint
♦2,372
I have changed this to a track
42016-10-16 21:07CloCkWeRX Thanks, that seems a more appropriate modelling
22634422
by Sander H_BAG
@ 2014-05-30 09:39
12016-10-15 10:45CloCkWeRX Strava user report - "Geen doorgaande weg (ook voor fietsers)" for http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6869718 - but I'm not really sure if that means access private or something else. Do you happen to know?
22016-10-15 14:54Sander H
♦85
No idea, I only cleaned up an old tag on this road that originated from the AND import in 2006 while performing the BAG import cleanup steps in this area. Maybe it's better to add a note so that local mappers can check.
27853478
by Ronnie Nys
@ 2015-01-02 01:53
12016-10-13 14:48CloCkWeRX Is this complete? Strava GPS traces suggest it is.
There are also Strava user error reports:
Temos um circuito muito bom neste local e não podemos marcar como rota. Aguardo ajuda.
22016-10-13 21:05Ronnie Nys
♦7
The Google satellite images are very recent (2016) and show that these new roads are already in use. When zooming in on the following link you can see the details.

https://www.google.be/maps/@-12.7086332,-38.3050097,1191m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=nl

32016-10-14 01:11CloCkWeRX Thanks, I've updated it based on the GPS traces
9891203
by bgamberg
@ 2011-11-20 22:57
12016-10-13 14:56CloCkWeRX Strava user error report: "I'm trying to take the Main Road onto 460, but it keeps backtracking and taking an imaginary street through the woods. " with http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/136663375 - I think mapbox imagery might be viewable to double check some of these paths
11828192
by Jomegat
@ 2012-06-07 18:39
12016-10-13 13:42CloCkWeRX Hi,
There's strava user error reports like:
"Won't allow route through a paved bike path. Shows as a dashed line path on map but it is an established paved bike path. "

and

"There is a sidewalk here, but no vehicle access. Should be able to route. "

Are the f...
42238300
by kalanz
@ 2016-09-18 01:45
12016-10-13 13:23CloCkWeRX Hi, I've got an old (2 years ago) report from strava errors: "Although there is currently construction on the longfellow bridge, it is open to bicycle traffic in both directions. I can't get the my route to go over the bridge though."

Do you know if that's the case curre...
42750593
by Medina Huzejrovic
@ 2016-10-09 10:10
12016-10-10 13:08nevw
♦1,975
You have mapped a Post Office here with the name HOME.
Is there really a Post Office here called HOME?
Is it instead your home?
Please review this object and tag correctly thanks.
22016-10-10 14:11CloCkWeRX Looking at Australia post, there's several offices on Sydney Rd; and the already mapped post office on Grantham Street.
42744803
by Restaurant El Concón
@ 2016-10-09 00:21
12016-10-10 05:08CloCkWeRX Hi - http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/741825 - you added what looks to be a phone number for this restaurant, is that the case?
40150679
by nitrofurano
@ 2016-06-20 07:39
12016-10-08 05:33CloCkWeRX http://strava.github.io/iD/#background=Bing&id=w405980926&map=17.00/-39.37608/-11.24524 suggests that these roads need to be realigned to GPS traces
4074648
by werner2101
@ 2010-03-08 19:03
12016-09-23 05:37CloCkWeRX http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31605383 and similar don't appear to be visible on imagery
22016-10-07 07:46werner2101
♦14
Do you think it's usefull to discuss a 6 year old changeset? If fixed an import error long time ago.
32016-10-07 08:29CloCkWeRX Given that imagery which is seemingly more recent doesn't appear to show the buildings... its worth spot checking and removing obviously wrong data probably.

I've picked this up from reviewing GPS errors via improve-osm.org. Feel free to track down the original import changeset and rais...
15089129
by mrcookie
@ 2013-02-19 12:43
12016-10-02 16:57CloCkWeRX Strava users report: "Should be able to cross from south to north here" re http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/279628742 - but imagery is inconclusive. Do you know if this is a wall for certain, or could it be a tunnel?
22016-10-03 21:12mrcookie
♦2
I was there 2 times. The first time there was no MA-3440 and the Cami was uninterrupted. The second time the MA-3440 was REALLY new and interrupted the Cami, and no way to cross. A car had to go backwards up the hill to Llubí, because there even was no way to turn the car and te navi didn...
39510919
by aytfadc
@ 2016-05-23 14:19
12016-09-27 05:15CloCkWeRX http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/122500205 looks complete according to bing imagery, is that the case?
22016-09-27 08:26SomeoneElse
♦13,362
One of the Edinburgh locals will have more info, but the current road state looks like it mirrors the work being done to support the (as yet unopened) new bridge, and the imagery looks like the old road state before any of the work started.
42329663
by Level
@ 2016-09-21 17:29
12016-09-27 04:39CloCkWeRX These are close, but don't align to strava gps traces (http://strava.github.io/iD/#background=Mapbox&map=16.00/-112.02065/40.56063 vs http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/383642261 for example)
41280543
by CentralMSMapEditor
@ 2016-08-06 01:24
12016-09-24 09:39CloCkWeRX There's no imagery for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/435897007 that seems to match up with the road
38212940
by tms13
@ 2016-03-31 21:31
12016-09-23 05:01CloCkWeRX Theres no GPS traces or imagery matching Cawburn Road, do you have any photos or similar?
22016-09-23 14:18tms13
♦77
Yes, I have the photos, but I don't generally publish my survey photos or GPS tracks. Is there something in particular that you want a picture of?
39383459
by BoxBike
@ 2016-05-17 18:09
12016-09-21 19:16CloCkWeRX Do you know when this bike path will open?
22016-09-21 20:31BoxBike
♦2
no, they are still working.
36142942
by EdgarDS
@ 2015-12-24 11:48
12016-09-12 05:12CloCkWeRX Bing suggests http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/63636407 is finished, as well as strava user reports:

"There's a trail here, but I can't route there
Created 2016-08-29 (13 days ago)

Existe un puente en este lugar para cruzar la ría pero no la reconoce el constructor de ru...
22016-09-12 07:30EdgarDS
♦1
Teoricamente, esta prohibida la circulacion por el puente por la situacion del mismo, pero ni se han empezado las obras, ni es muy dificil colarse para transitar por el. http://www.eldiariomontanes.es/bahia-centro-pas/201606/10/reparacion-antiguo-puente-sobre-20160610215407.html
41074965
by Peter VK4IU
@ 2016-07-28 00:14
12016-08-09 04:24CloCkWeRX This duplicates existing data
31236628
by srbrook
@ 2015-05-17 18:58
12016-08-05 02:50CloCkWeRX Strava users report way 345760205 is just farmland now, imagery tends to concur. Can you resurvey and perhaps add notes to it to reflect whats on the ground?
22016-08-05 15:38trigpoint
♦2,372
Historic OS 1-25k mapping shows a PROW on this line, unless it has been legally extinguished it should not be removed.
There is a legal right to walk a PROW irrespective of condition.
40940552
by B 67
@ 2016-07-22 03:41
12016-07-27 13:19CloCkWeRX This seems to add a few 'almost junction' errors in according to keepright - http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?schema=50&error=89670790 - and it's a little off from the bing/mapbox imagery. I don't suppose you could grab photos of it via mapillary next time you are in t...
22016-07-27 13:35B 67
♦1
Hi, I've never been here. Had never heard of keepright or mapillary until now either. So much to learn. I'm sure the paths are are a little off as I only based them on photos elsewhere. Feel free to make corrections. Or I'll try to do so myself when I can.
40111697
by aytfadc
@ 2016-06-18 09:03
12016-06-27 04:42CloCkWeRX What's the source for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/320322817 - there's no mapbox/bing imagery for it afaict
37681086
by TheSwavu
@ 2016-03-08 08:10
12016-03-29 12:39inas
♦18
I notice this changeset changed Crookwell from a GNB town to a GNB locality. This isn't the case - Crookwell is still a GNB town. There is also a locality Crookwell. Was this a scripted change?
22016-03-29 22:05TheSwavu
♦544
No this was a manual edit. I did a comparison between all of the place nodes in NSW tagged with ref:nswgnb and checked to make sure that their place:nswgnb were still correct. These are all the places that needed their place:nswgnb changed to "LOCALITY".

In the case of Crookwell the pla...
32016-03-29 22:21inas
♦18
I'm really sceptical that GNB are changing towns to localities in their database - especially for places like Crookwell. Perhaps we need to understand the changes actually being made to reflect these in OSM.
42016-06-21 14:28CloCkWeRX http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/113764320 is still marked as a village, but it doesn't really look too inhabited - is it better tagged as place=locality?
52016-06-22 00:38TheSwavu
♦544
I didn't change the place tags on any of these only the place:nswgnb:

http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=113764320

Personally if a place doesn't make it onto the list of UCLs:

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/05773C1D8C9F2022CA257A98001399F7?opendocumen...
62016-06-22 00:48CloCkWeRX Yup, that prompted it
72016-06-22 04:48TheSwavu
♦544
Good-O. I won't bother then.
6376832
by hulius
@ 2010-11-15 12:05
12016-06-14 04:31CloCkWeRX https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/85389940 - do you know if this is still under construction? Imagery is inconclusive
22016-06-20 09:03hulius
♦2
Well, these are actually abandoned works on this road. As you can see, it's an alternative way a few meters southern completely functional so I'm afraid it never going to be concluded. What do you think it's the better option to tag this situation?
32016-06-20 09:14CloCkWeRX I think if its physically ok to drive on and connects to places, marking it as a highway service/residential/etc is OK.

I just rechecked bing/mapbox imagery and it looks as though road is physically there...
18845320
by coco33
@ 2013-11-11 22:01
12016-06-18 08:05CloCkWeRX Do you know if the proposed roads have been built? Satellite imagery is inconclusive
40008148
by CloCkWeRX
@ 2016-06-14 04:06
12016-06-14 10:56Hugo André Sousa
♦1
Yes. It still's under construction.
Part of it is constructed, the other is not.
The road is blocked.
22016-06-14 23:05CloCkWeRX Yeah - I split the bits that were physically finished and visible in imagery off from the stuff that wasn't, changeset comment was perhaps a bit broad
24263524
by zvenzzon
@ 2014-07-20 22:47
12016-06-14 01:42CloCkWeRX https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/293600476 - is this still under construction?
22016-06-14 06:40zvenzzon
♦79
Mapped this during travel, cannot resurvey. I have looked at Bing, Mapquest Mapbox and the Spain-specific image layers available in JOSM. Cannot however see any plan of the new Road or confirmation that is has been finished. However, I would be surprised if this is not finished at this point. If i r...
32016-06-14 06:46CloCkWeRX Much appreciated :)
10983671
by peines
@ 2012-03-14 23:06
12016-06-14 04:30CloCkWeRX https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/155076555 do you know if this is completed? Imagery is inconclusive
21734648
by Julian Lozano
@ 2014-04-16 17:49
12016-06-14 04:29CloCkWeRX Do you know if https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/274833008 is still under construction? Imagery is inconclusive
22017-02-23 21:58Julian Lozano
♦1
As far as I saw 2 months ago, that was still under construction.
10229175
by Daniel Garcia
@ 2011-12-28 18:58
12016-06-14 04:25CloCkWeRX https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/143088024 - is this still being built? Imagery shows cars parked where the road would go
16375708
by erlenmeyer
@ 2013-06-01 10:16
12016-06-14 04:22CloCkWeRX Do you know if https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/172947802 is finished? Imagery is inconclusive
12318228
by MrWebber
@ 2012-07-19 10:20
12016-06-14 04:21CloCkWeRX https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/251154876 Do you know if this is still under construction? Imagery is inconclusive
17437914
by jacksparrow
@ 2013-08-21 09:20
12016-06-14 04:15CloCkWeRX Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/234400672 still under construction?
10683759
by Lübeck
@ 2012-02-14 15:04
12016-06-14 04:14CloCkWeRX https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/150359112 - is this built now? Imagery shows unpaved roads
15426340
by gpesquero
@ 2013-03-19 23:08
12016-06-14 04:12CloCkWeRX https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/211046542 - small parts of this are built, do you know if the connecting parts are under construction?
22016-06-14 14:36gpesquero
♦12
Hello CloCkWeRX... I haven't been in this place for years, so I don't know about it.
I've checked aerial imagery (Bing & PNOA dated 2013) and it looks like they're doing some works, but nothing worth editting for the moment....
16805608
by cronoser
@ 2013-07-03 13:11
12016-06-14 04:11CloCkWeRX https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/228518877 - do you know if surrounding construction work has taken place?
22025-03-06 19:09cronoser
♦101
sorry to answer late, I don't know.
10761321
by gsantos
@ 2012-02-22 17:49
12016-06-14 04:08CloCkWeRX Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/151515618 being built? Imagery doesn't show anything
13738265
by Hugo André Sousa
@ 2012-11-03 19:07
12016-06-14 04:07CloCkWeRX Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37235417 still being built? Imagery isn't very conclusive
6744799
by antecessor
@ 2010-12-23 12:36
12016-06-14 04:03CloCkWeRX Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/91238988 still under construction?
116550
by jakomo
@ 2008-08-07 00:25
12016-06-14 04:01CloCkWeRX Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/26100001 still being built at all? Imagery suggests nothing is there
6936413
by ACarmona
@ 2011-01-11 12:57
12016-06-14 03:59CloCkWeRX Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/94522235 being built? Imagery suggests no
8573167
by Winid
@ 2011-06-28 16:36
12016-06-14 03:58CloCkWeRX https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/119484116 - is this finished construction?
3483721
by jmorais
@ 2009-12-29 18:14
12016-06-14 03:56CloCkWeRX https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/47148068 - is this being built any further? Imagery suggests no
12109733
by LucianaCardoso
@ 2012-07-04 11:55
12016-06-14 03:55CloCkWeRX Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/170089306 finished to your knowledge?
13150085
by Picholeiro
@ 2012-09-17 22:35
12016-06-14 03:52CloCkWeRX Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/181521518 still under construction? Imagery doesn't show it finished, but it was under construction approx 3 years ago so may be finished
14170215
by jasonez
@ 2012-12-06 01:15
12016-06-14 03:51CloCkWeRX Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/172936462 still under construction? The imagery shows some improvements around it that may be worth updating
34982571
by pg510negro
@ 2015-10-30 22:53
12016-06-14 03:49CloCkWeRX Is this being built, or just proposed (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/377625726) ? We should update the name or the tagging to clear it up
10331770
by Picholeiro
@ 2012-01-08 14:08
12016-06-14 03:46CloCkWeRX Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/117551653 being built? Imagery doesn't show any indication of it
37324286
by pedrojuan01
@ 2016-02-20 08:44
12016-06-14 03:44CloCkWeRX Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/398862506 under construction? Imagery doesn't suggest it is
22016-06-14 09:33pedrojuan01
♦6
Take a look to the lastest "orto" image at: http://www.conselldemallorca.net/sitmun/idemallorca.jsp
22919034
by numbfew
@ 2014-06-14 01:31
12016-06-12 05:26CloCkWeRX Are The Clifford Apartments still under construction?
22016-06-12 07:40TheSwavu
♦544
No. Currently for sale on AllHomes.
32016-06-12 07:44CloCkWeRX Thanks for updating that. I was trawling through all contruction=* via osm turbo, looking for stuff over a few years old. To find these new developments, are you just working from survey/local knowledge or subscribing to something like planningalerts?
42016-06-12 09:40TheSwavu
♦544
I'm not putting new developments in.

I just checked the local real estate website to see if they had been finished ie: are there now properties for sale.
38443615
by ratm
@ 2016-04-10 06:44
12016-06-12 05:36CloCkWeRX Is this finished construction? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/286594384 ? Still tagged as construction / can't tell from bing
22016-06-12 07:27TheSwavu
♦544
Yes.
32016-06-12 07:38CloCkWeRX Thanks!
8088976
by Emmertex
@ 2011-05-09 00:56
12016-06-12 06:25CloCkWeRX https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/112423824 doesn't seem to exist, can you confirm?
37610204
by aaronsta
@ 2016-03-04 14:38
12016-06-12 06:06CloCkWeRX Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/401616172 still under construction?
22016-06-12 06:22aaronsta
♦61
Contruction is still in progress for landscaping. All traffic movements are now open. It was completed in late March 2016 when this changeset went live. http://gatewaywa.com.au/news/latest-news/filter&archive=true?start=30
17200783
by GeoffC
@ 2013-08-03 08:00
12016-06-12 05:28CloCkWeRX Is this area still under construction (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/50845458 specifically)
22016-06-12 07:32TheSwavu
♦544
Not for quite a few years now.

Still needs to be better aligned using NSW LPI imagery.
25640781
by mrpulley
@ 2014-09-24 09:08
12016-06-12 05:23CloCkWeRX Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/107948769 still under construction? Bing suggests no
22016-06-12 07:50TheSwavu
♦544
It has been finished:

http://investment.infrastructure.gov.au/projects/ProjectDetails.aspx?Project_id=050891-13NSW-NP

but it's been a while since I've been on the Barton so I don't know what was built.
32016-06-13 13:06mrpulley
♦170
The construction=minor tag was added 3 years ago. I don't recall any work when I went through a year ago., so it should be safe to delete this tag.
13656791
by jpanther
@ 2012-10-28 05:04
12016-06-12 04:54CloCkWeRX Was https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/159018215 ever built?
23983316
by AlexOnTheBus
@ 2014-07-06 12:54
12016-06-12 04:44CloCkWeRX Do you know if https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/291616515 has finished construction?
22016-06-12 06:31AlexOnTheBus
♦2
No - at this time there is no track installed there. When the Middleborough Road grade separation was built the space was left for a third track to be built to handle peak-period express trains through Laburnum - what could be called "active provision". For rendering purposes I would have ...
13901273
by Beager
@ 2012-11-17 02:46
12016-06-12 04:41CloCkWeRX https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/123184536 - is construction finished on this? It shows at least a footpath on bing imagery
22016-06-15 03:16Beager
♦10
This small section of path (the way you've referred to) was gravel when last visited it.
I've ridden past it since, but wasn't looking if it's still gravel or not.

The path of Gardiner's Creek: Warrigal Rd - Burwood Hwy is complete and has been for a while.
38992355
by nevw
@ 2016-04-30 02:16
12016-06-12 04:30CloCkWeRX Ah neat, she (Sarnya) used to be my landlord.
13693573
by marquisite
@ 2012-10-31 01:53
12016-06-12 04:26CloCkWeRX https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/188426204 - that should probably be completed by now, safe to mark it as no longer under construction?
13234902
by MapperCat
@ 2012-09-24 15:13
12016-06-12 03:47CloCkWeRX There's a few weird polylines; like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/119575757 which were added here. It looks like some kind of import, but lacks correct tags / some of the buildings are way off from imagery. Can you take a look at this and clean it up?
39796593
by InputMan
@ 2016-06-04 12:21
12016-06-04 16:37CloCkWeRX So with tracing places like this; you don't need to add both an area and an individual node with the same information - the area tracing will set the right name and other details.

You might be interested in tracing the car parking and building itself separately - right now this is tagged as ...
22016-06-04 21:56InputMan
♦2
I see. I was concerned over the parking as some of the parking came from a parking place (like an automated "parking" spider, or something), which may indicate on the map that the parking was for the general public. I wasn't sure about that, so I removed it from some of the building...
19084608
by schadow1
@ 2013-11-24 02:07
12016-05-29 12:28CloCkWeRX I'm guessing from strava user reports this (w247960495) is now built?
38136746
by Warin61
@ 2016-03-29 06:49
12016-03-30 10:17CloCkWeRX Nice work! I spent a bit of time with a list of Canberra schools (via the JOSM opendata plugin and data.gov.au); adding buildings, tennis courts, etc and a lot more detail.

I wonder if there's a similar list for SA schools we could use to find other likely sporting grounds
22016-03-30 21:17Warin61
♦2,663
I'm using overpass turbo with the wizard entry sport=football for the football... I think I have most of those done for OZ.. there are a great many in Europe though if you want to reduce their numbers.

I'm also targeting leisure=pitch without sport=* again using overpass turbo with th...
35811731
by frantz58
@ 2015-12-07 17:58
12016-03-30 02:27CloCkWeRX Why is Grand Tunnel du Chambon marked as access=no ? http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/384864359
21324284
by matthewsheffield
@ 2014-03-26 13:00
12016-03-19 12:22CloCkWeRX Rosedale drive doesn't match imagery etc at all - does it exist?
37822280
by unicorno19
@ 2016-03-14 14:31
12016-03-14 14:55CloCkWeRX Please stop mapping like this, what you are contributing is not as per the HOT task or the actual content on the ground. Please ask your instructor or mapping party organiser to stop the activity and discuss with the HOT-OSM mailing list.
22016-03-17 11:01geo_prof
♦3
okay we stop with exercises
37822320
by miri98
@ 2016-03-14 14:33
12016-03-14 14:52CloCkWeRX Don't map like this; it's wrong and will need to be reverted. Can you tell your instructor or mapping party host that this is inappropriate and to stop the activity.
22016-03-17 12:29geo_prof
♦3
ok! understood will refer you but how many trees ... :-)
37822319
by Martyhorse00
@ 2016-03-14 14:33
12016-03-14 14:47CloCkWeRX Don't map like this; the task doesn't require forests
37822293
by EDEN CANO
@ 2016-03-14 14:32
12016-03-14 14:42CloCkWeRX Why are you mapping like this, it has no relationship to the imagery or HOT task
37822178
by Aute00
@ 2016-03-14 14:29
12016-03-14 14:40CloCkWeRX Why are you mapping forest? This little or nothing to do with the imagery or task
37278664
by nickbarker
@ 2016-02-18 00:45
12016-02-18 05:25CloCkWeRX Ah the building for the Reepham already seems tagged as a pub etc
27489144
by fbello
@ 2014-12-15 19:10
12016-02-18 02:32CloCkWeRX http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/317410025/history causes a lot of errors in keepright - is this better modelled as highway=proposed or not even as a highway at all (just part of a relation)?

http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?zoom=13&lat=-25.58087&lon=-48.5838&layers=B0T&ch=...
22016-02-19 00:53fbello
♦3
This unbuilt part of the route (using tag=dummy) is important to periodically check the relations of national routes for inconsistencies. highway=proposed may be rendered in some maps, which is not the intent. The errors in keepright can probably be avoided by adding a layer tag with an unused layer...
32016-02-19 00:59fbello
♦3
added layer=-5 instead
33798853
by luiz Fernando Kuhn Seibel
@ 2015-09-04 17:03
12016-02-01 02:54CloCkWeRX This causes a lot of errors in keepright, and the main highway should probably be highway=proposed, not highway=planned. Specifically http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/296110059
22016-02-04 02:43naoliv
♦1,783
I have fixed the proposed highway.
36893260
by Conquest
@ 2016-01-30 06:39
12016-01-30 11:25CloCkWeRX Ah neat. If you are keen, there's a few others via http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/South_Australian_Roads that we know of - there's a generated .osm file with the details
36753797
by muzzamo
@ 2016-01-23 08:05
12016-01-24 23:28CloCkWeRX Ah nice!
24527950
by perry22sl
@ 2014-08-04 05:29
12016-01-20 12:10CloCkWeRX What's "Household Code" ?
36641372
by demetrio_m
@ 2016-01-17 20:14
12016-01-18 10:39CloCkWeRX What's the error osmose is coming up with? The wiki suggests that combination of tags (direction=clockwise, highway=mini_roundabout), and in Australia that's consistent with the traffic flow...
22016-01-18 16:42demetrio_m
♦11
Osmose signals the tag as unrequired because, by law, in the country the roundabouts are clockwise. A similar rule is applied by Osmose to the tag junction=roundabout that does not need any tag oneway=yes because the junction classified rondabout have the oneway by default.
32016-01-18 23:33CloCkWeRX Ah hah! Thanks
36457175
by CloCkWeRX
@ 2016-01-09 02:34
12016-01-14 14:03SomeoneElse
♦13,362
What was the routing problem that was previous reported? You've changed 2 derelict_canal ways only here; I can't see how that should affect routing?
22016-01-16 08:22CloCkWeRX The path was intersecting the waterway; but there was clearly not a bridge etc.

I split the waterway either side of the bike path to better reflect was is on the ground/apparent from GPS traces, and satellite imagery.

Given that the canal itself is filled in; I don't think it should be m...
32016-01-16 13:46SomeoneElse
♦13,362
What is the problem with a path intersecting with a derelict_canal? I can think of several examples locally to me (just a bit north of here) where that happens, where the canal is still very much visible as a derelict_canal but a path crosses it or even runs along it.

Did you try asking the prev...
42016-01-16 14:52CloCkWeRX Feel free to revert/model it better if you have on the ground observations that are more accurate than the GPS traces and satellite imagery; however *even the original way had it documented that it had been filled in*.

Routers really shouldn't direct riders through derelict canals without s...
36311838
by Leon K
@ 2016-01-02 06:01
12016-01-13 02:48CloCkWeRX Do the various offramps intersect with the Cross city tunnel? It's also at layer -2 and showing up in missing-junctions checks on keepright
22016-01-13 07:53Leon K
♦40
The tunnel doesn't intersect with the surface roads except where the ramps surface and are already marked.
It does pass directly below the surface roads though. I'd class the junction errors as false positives.
As for the layer, yes the tunnel is below the surface so -2 seems appropria...
26633310
by Josh_G
@ 2014-11-08 02:15
12016-01-08 02:44CloCkWeRX Ditto http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?schema=50&error=71070414
26614517
by Josh_G
@ 2014-11-07 13:29
12016-01-08 02:43CloCkWeRX There's a couple of routing errors with this one; like http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?schema=50&error=71074868 - could you take a bit of a look?
29167691
by themapedit
@ 2015-02-28 23:48
12015-04-07 16:00CloCkWeRX There's no evidence of much of this in mapbox or bing imagery, nor is there anything in Property Location Browser. What's the source of these roads?
22015-12-28 14:00CloCkWeRX I'm removing these.
31264913
by volatile_ant
@ 2015-05-18 19:24
12015-12-28 11:25CloCkWeRX This intersects a lot of buildings; also sourced from digitalglobe - which is more accurate? The existing building data, or road?
16175239
by CloCkWeRX
@ 2013-05-18 03:31
12015-10-25 08:37GerdP
♦2,751
please review:
highway=bump on node 2309010300
which is not connected to a highway.
What is meant?
22015-11-19 10:22GerdP
♦2,751
Ive removed that node now.
32015-11-22 04:01CloCkWeRX That was a speed bump; should have been traffic_calming=bump
42015-11-22 07:51GerdP
♦2,751
thanks for the feedback.
Do you remember the road ?
The bump was mapped close to the middle of the roundabout, in that case I see no need to map a bump.
Bing seems to show another obstacle
~20m north of the node, maybe this was meant?
34094562
by muscatelle
@ 2015-09-18 00:59
12015-10-03 08:57CloCkWeRX Ah neat, someone else in the area who knows the details/can survey :)
34019448
by unsungNovelty
@ 2015-09-14 12:18
12015-09-15 03:08CloCkWeRX Ah nice, thanks. Keepright either didn't tell me about it or I missed it :S
22015-09-20 05:13unsungNovelty
♦52
:)
33845035
by slice0
@ 2015-09-07 01:45
Active block
12015-09-07 07:12CloCkWeRX Oops, accidentally tagged a road name as the petrol station there. I like to tag these with a landuse=commercial, name=Shell Inglewood, brand=Shell combo which works well for larger petrol stations. Either way, keep on adding :)
22015-09-08 22:04slice0
Active block
Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option.
32015-09-09 03:56CloCkWeRX I have been doing a bit of work with missing road names - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/South_Australian_Roads

Its not the most thrilling of jobs but it does help with routing.
33674611
by TheSwavu
@ 2015-08-30 01:29
12015-09-02 06:24CloCkWeRX http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Victorian_Government_data - afaik, we've never managed to successfully get explicit permission. Fantastic if you've got it, but you'll want to be mindful of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines#Ensure_that_the_data_licens...
22015-09-03 06:45TheSwavu
♦544
Hmm, that's an interesting point. I had used the data on the basis of this:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2013-October/010086.html

which is the closest thing I could find to formal permission to use any data.vic stuff. But I suppose you could interpret this to only cov...
32015-09-04 09:07TheSwavu
♦544
I emailed data.vic yesterday asking them to confirm or deny any permission we may have. I'll post any response I get to list-au and revert this changeset (and the other) or update the contributors page depending.
33743132
by TheSwavu
@ 2015-09-02 05:40
12015-09-02 06:13CloCkWeRX Be careful with a few of these, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/South_Australian_Suburb_Boundaries was done a while ago - swapping to relations makes it harder to refresh from the source data. http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/beD gives a good view of what's present.
22015-09-03 11:02TheSwavu
♦544
May I suggest that if you have a cunning plan that you should let other mappers know. Perhaps by tagging with a note to that effect or mentioning it in the changeset comment. Relying on our ability to read your mind is not going to work.
26428028
by datristanthefirst
@ 2014-10-30 03:41
12015-08-17 03:37CloCkWeRX This doesn't seem right at all: apartments and roads named all of the same thing?

If its a vanity suburb or similar community, it's better to draw a landuse=residential around it and name those.
31766522
by hryciuk
@ 2015-06-06 11:03
12015-06-10 10:37CloCkWeRX Ah nice work on the buildings!
22015-06-10 11:00hryciuk
♦1
Thanks.
29242784
by danafer
@ 2015-03-04 12:02
12015-05-28 14:10CloCkWeRX What are these amenities? They are showing up as wrongly tagged - http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#zoom=17&lat=27.690871&lon=85.33511&layer=Mapnik&overlays=FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT&item=0%2C3030&level=1%2C2&tags=&fixable=
30968090
by osmapb1
@ 2015-05-10 16:26
12015-05-11 22:00CloCkWeRX This has caused a lot of conflicts with existing buildings traced via Bing imagery
27683421
by geesona
@ 2014-12-25 05:09
12015-04-17 19:24CloCkWeRX You might be interested in seeing the impact of your work with addresses - http://qa.poole.ch/ ; click the 'no address' tickbox.
30157108
by metaodi
@ 2015-04-12 07:33
12015-04-13 14:33CloCkWeRX Ah nice :) Good to see the building mapping is being fleshed out
28085092
by nrs19
@ 2015-01-12 12:29
12015-03-30 22:17CloCkWeRX All of the dams here should be landuse = reservoir
29747843
by shravan91
@ 2015-03-26 09:45
12015-03-26 10:21CloCkWeRX Ah thanks re these, I'm doing a lot for https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/South_Australian_Roads and planning to come back and do a pass of 'way ends near other road', but all help is appreciated :)
28998087
by kustere
@ 2015-02-21 12:45
12015-02-22 00:27CloCkWeRX Ah nice work on the buildings etc! I've mapped heavily from Port Adelaide in to Brompton, maybe between us we can knock off parts of Hindmarsh, Welland, etc.
28440627
by nrs19
@ 2015-01-27 12:01
12015-01-28 14:35CloCkWeRX Nice work on the buildings! Let me know if you want a hand tracing a few in the area
27039182
by Pierce
@ 2014-11-26 08:35
12015-01-17 14:37CloCkWeRX For the new buildings here, what's your source? I can't see much on bing, mapbox or http://data.gov.au/dataset/geelong-roofprints-kml
28081123
by nrs19
@ 2015-01-12 08:31
12015-01-13 06:14CloCkWeRX Ah nice :) I tried cleaning the buildings up a bit, and I never have enough energy after riding through here to remember the details of what I saw well!
25910092
by Leon K
@ 2014-10-07 03:53
12014-12-27 16:50CloCkWeRX http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?schema=50&error=69263475
17098732
by ratm
@ 2013-07-26 08:52
12014-12-27 16:49CloCkWeRX These are better traced as polygons - they are coming up as errors on http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?schema=50&error=49257263
25572312
by Noah's_Nails
@ 2014-09-21 06:21
12014-12-23 23:18CloCkWeRX This doesn't match up with satellite imagery for the area at all.
26547106
by Josh_G
@ 2014-11-04 12:15
12014-11-05 10:17CloCkWeRX Neat, moar buildings!

How far are you keen to trace? I'd be happy to help do rural housing or detail on a place like Lyndoch, making it easy for you to add in shops/landmarks/etc.
22014-11-05 10:44Josh_G
♦2
That'd be great - just trying to get as many of the rural landmarks/buildings traced as possible in the area. Hike all around here so its all useful data.