Changeset No. Date Contributor Comment
12018-10-18 05:57:35 UTCWarin61 Looks like the Pioneer Womens Walking Track uses parts of Way: Centre Track (24692212)

Think Pioneer Womens Walking Track would be better as a route relation - so it can use these other ways without conflicts.
12018-10-18 05:32:35 UTCWarin61 Hi,

The roads you add should 'join' to the other roads, not just look like they meet. This is important for computer routers as they need to find where roads join so they can turn into/out of them.
You have the end of Zenith Place a few meters from Ferdinando St for example. I have joint it up ...
12018-10-18 05:18:28 UTCWarin61 As you have now gone and removed various ways used by the relation 5985104 that related to snow fall and there for tree line ...
you may as well remove it and all the ways that are not used by anything else. Do check if you remove a way that is is not used by anything else. Like another relation. \...
12018-10-16 03:43:59 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Landuse=residential should be applied to large areas, say a suburb or at least a block. What you have applied it to is a building. So I have changed the tagging to building=house.
12018-10-15 04:15:49 UTCWarin61 Hi,

The name=tag is for names only, to contain solely name, not to describe the type or location of the object or one of its other properties (such as height, elevation, operator, access restrictions, classification/certification/quality labels...).

Deleting name=Park/Feild from a number of p...
12018-10-13 04:58:07 UTCWarin61 Hi,
The edit looks to have broken the relation for Clarence Valley Council. Possibly others?

What were you trying to do? The changeset comment does not tell me that.
22018-10-15 01:20:01 UTChodgo81 Sorry, I was editing the roads in the area, and noticed someone else had deleted that segment of summerland way. So I repaired the missing piece. I generally operate without the boundary layers turned on so that I do not disturb them.
32018-10-15 02:56:12 UTCWarin61 Ok,
Admin boundaries are a problem. Some of them use roads and creeks, so when people come along (like me and you) and 'improve the road/creek' they can break the boundaries... mutter mutter.

I now take the view that the road/creek is the thing that counts, the admin boundary can ether put up w...
12018-10-14 05:00:47 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Why did you remove way 400740574 from relation 6015049? This brakes the relation. .. it is for the Chambigne State Conservation Area.

I do wish your changeset comment said more about what you are doing.
12018-10-13 22:15:49 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Way: Manuka Place (630117401) was overlayed by Way: Wattle Close (238849730).
I have shortened the Wattle Close way ... but I am not certain of the names here. Can you please check these name are now accurate?
22018-10-15 16:18:52 UTCKanaLee Hi Warin61,

Thank you for catching that!

The names for Manuka Place and Wattle Close are accurate per Vicmap, though not an exact match for Vicmap geometry. I have removed name Wattle Close from a middle segment and added noname=yes.

I have also updated road classification of the Manuka Pla...
12018-10-13 04:09:50 UTCWarin61 Hi,
You have tagged landuse=homestead. I do know what a homestead is. But the closest OSM fit is landuse=residential .. probably with description=homestead?
I also note that some of these are inside a tree area .. and there is no hole in the tree area for them.

There are a few of them you hav...
22018-10-13 17:53:17 UTCRobert Copithorne Thanks for letting me know. Checking the history of that changeset, it was created on 11/01/16, which I take to mean 2011-01 (Jan)-16. At that time there was a proposal for a feature landuse=homestead. (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Homestead), so I would have felt that its u...
32018-10-13 20:55:23 UTCWarin61 I don't think landuse=homestead is rendered. Think you may find any rendering has been done due to another tag. Reading through the proposal I cannot see it fitting the Australian circumstance.

In any event - these areas should be part of a relationship for the tree area with the role of inner.
12018-10-13 04:19:05 UTCWarin61 Hello,

You have a node tagged as landuse=homestead, name=Viaduct Barn.
Umm .. that would be better tagged as an area. And 'homestead' is not something OSM knows about, possibly landuse=residential for a homestead. But is it a homestead? Or a barn?
I think making it an area with landuse=reside...
12018-10-10 00:37:37 UTCWarin61 Hi,
You removed way 460671406 .. that forms the outer of a pedestrian area ...
relation 6805057 now only has an inner ...

Either remove the relation and have no pedestrian area here or reinstate the way you deleted.
22018-10-10 00:43:02 UTCBen_VK is there an easy way I can reinstate this 'way'? Undo that single item removal?
32018-10-12 04:52:25 UTCWarin61 Done.
I'm not an iD users - so I did it with JOSM.
12018-10-11 22:19:56 UTCWarin61 Hi,
The nodes with the tag arboretum=yes look like individual trees? Might be better tagged natural=tree - this is for significant trees and I'd take it that is the case if you have tagged them as individuals?
An arboretum is usually a collection of trees - so an area. That is what has attracted ...
12018-10-11 00:52:36 UTCWarin61 Hi,
On Way: 410778807 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
I have not changed it, but I think it should be tagged natural=scrub.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dscrub
22018-10-11 10:25:29 UTCGinaroZ thanks - fixed. I didn't create it originally but obviously didn't notice it when editing the shape
32018-10-11 10:57:00 UTCWarin61 Arr, sorry may not have tracked who made the tag originally?

Was told once that I was the last person to touch something so I was responsible for it.. ummm not certain that is totally correct.
12018-10-11 05:00:37 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Why not make these ponds one area? It would solve problems with overlapping ways.
If there are gaps between these area they they are not evident in the ways you have put in.
22018-10-11 07:17:20 UTCGlenhope1 Yeah, didn't do it right. I wanted to show separate ponds because that shows what they are more clearly. I'll adjust.
32018-10-11 09:53:32 UTCGlenhope1 Have a look now. Better?
12018-10-11 01:17:39 UTCWarin61 Hi,
On Way: 613922075 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
I have not changed it, but I think it should be tagged natural=scrub.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dscrub
12018-10-11 01:16:29 UTCWarin61 Hi,
On Way: 221467102 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
I have not changed it, but I think it should be tagged natural=scrub.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dscrub
22018-10-11 11:10:22 UTCika-chan! UK Got it.
12018-10-11 01:15:19 UTCWarin61 Hi,
The tag landuse=scrub I think it should be tagged natural=scrub.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dscrub
12018-10-11 01:12:26 UTCWarin61 Hi,
On Way: 248048284 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
I have not changed it, but I think it should be tagged natural=scrub.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dscrub
22018-10-11 18:07:56 UTCEssex_Boy Cheers for that. My mistake. I've now changed it to natural=scrub.
12018-10-11 01:11:21 UTCWarin61 Hi,
On Way: 459779977 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
I have not changed it, but I think it should be tagged natural=scrub.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dscrub
12018-10-11 01:10:16 UTCWarin61 Hi,
On Way: 254491816 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
I have not changed it, but I think it should be tagged natural=scrub.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dscrub
22018-10-11 06:44:48 UTCc2r cheers, yes, that looks like an error on my part.
12018-10-11 01:09:02 UTCWarin61 Hi,
On Way: 356375516 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
I have not changed it, but I think it should be tagged natural=scrub.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dscrub
12018-10-11 01:07:59 UTCWarin61 Hi,
On Way: 61192637 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
I have not changed it, but I think it should be tagged natural=scrub.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dscrub
12018-10-11 01:06:20 UTCWarin61 Hi,
On Way: 545490074 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
I have not changed it, but I think it should be tagged natural=scrub.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dscrub
12018-10-11 00:59:03 UTCWarin61 Hi,
On Way: 411212810 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
I have not changed it, but I think it should be tagged natural=scrub.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dscrub
12018-10-11 00:58:14 UTCWarin61 Hi,
On ways 410478440, 411483863, 411454355, 411444715 and way 410476931 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
I have not changed them, but I think they should be tagged natural=scrub.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dscrub
12018-10-11 00:54:36 UTCWarin61 Hi,
On Way: 411099606 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
I have not changed it, but I think it should be tagged natural=scrub.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dscrub
12018-10-11 00:51:12 UTCWarin61 Hi,
On Way: 246876954 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
I have not changed it, but I think it should be tagged natural=scrub.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dscrub
12018-10-11 00:49:31 UTCWarin61 Hi,
On Way: 210359791 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
I have not changed it, but I think it should be tagged natural=scrub.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dscrub
12018-10-11 00:48:16 UTCWarin61 Hi,
On Way: 263281792 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
I have not changed it, but I think it should be tagged natural=scrub.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dscrub
12018-10-11 00:46:53 UTCWarin61 Hi,
On Way: 320802992 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
I have not changed it, but I think it should be tagged natural=scrub.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dscrub
12018-10-11 00:45:16 UTCWarin61 Hi,
On closed Way: 67614774 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
I have not changed it, but I think it should be tagged natural=scrub.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dscrub
12018-10-11 00:43:22 UTCWarin61 Hi,
You have me puzzled (not hard to do :) )

On closed Way: 483503062 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
I have not changed it, but I think it should be tagged natural=scrub.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dscrub

But you also have it tagged barrier=hedge. And a foot pat...
12018-10-11 00:34:25 UTCWarin61 Hi,
On Way: 381444237 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
I have not changed it, but I think it should be tagged natural=scrub.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dscrub
22018-10-11 20:41:40 UTClanzelot72 Fixed! Thank you for the message!
12018-10-10 03:54:04 UTCWarin61 Hi,

For Way: 250644211 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
Scrub is not a 'landuse', in OSM the tag to use is 'natural=scrub'.
22018-10-10 16:29:02 UTCAlex McKee The commit you have commented on is 5 years old. I usually look up the tag if unsure so I imagine the Wiki probably listed that at the time.
32018-10-10 16:32:25 UTCAlex McKee People like you discourage contributors. When I started mapping in this area for OSM there were hardly any roads shown, let alone landuse. I get some sort of nitpicking message like yours once every few months, remember that without early contributors, who may not have got everything quite right, th...
42018-10-10 21:23:43 UTCWarin61 I see it as 'housekeeping' - tiding up so that things are 'in order', conforming to present tagging practice.

I was told that I have to contact each contributor to advise them of this potential mistake in tagging and the potential correct tag. That imposes a fair degree of work on all, myself I'...
52018-10-10 21:44:53 UTCWarin61 P.S I took a look at wayback machine for landuse=scrub .. https://web.archive.org/web/20110801000000*/https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dscrub
No entry found there. If I could find an entry there then I might be able to justify an automatic change.

From April 2009 I got https://...
12018-10-10 09:36:25 UTCWarin61 Hi,
You have 'landuse=yes' on Way: 470882539

??? ummm what does that mean?
22018-10-13 04:29:38 UTCWoodWoseWulf Doh! Thanks, I changed the tag.
12018-10-10 09:36:25 UTCWarin61 Hi,
You have 'landuse=yes' on Way: 403431681

??? ummm what does that mean?
12018-10-10 04:09:55 UTCWarin61 Hi,

For Way: 278113429 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
Scrub is not a 'landuse', in OSM the tag to use is 'natural=scrub'.
12018-10-10 04:09:13 UTCWarin61 Hi,

For Way: 226269754 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
Scrub is not a 'landuse', in OSM the tag to use is 'natural=scrub'.
22018-10-10 09:41:56 UTCMichaelCollinson Thanks. Corrected. /Mike
12018-10-10 04:07:50 UTCWarin61 Hi,

For Way: 447878335 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
Scrub is not a 'landuse', in OSM the tag to use is 'natural=scrub'.
22018-10-10 12:35:41 UTCPaul Berry Corrected in changeset #63379263. Thanks for spotting this!
12018-10-10 04:07:02 UTCWarin61 Hi,

For Way: 462659048 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
Scrub is not a 'landuse', in OSM the tag to use is 'natural=scrub'.
12018-10-10 04:06:10 UTCWarin61 Hi,

For Way: 324467140 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
Scrub is not a 'landuse', in OSM the tag to use is 'natural=scrub'.
22018-10-10 06:13:49 UTCSomeoneElse Thanks
12018-10-10 04:04:48 UTCWarin61 Hi,

For Way: 631973710 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
Scrub is not a 'landuse', in OSM the tag to use is 'natural=scrub'.
22018-10-10 21:21:16 UTCJK1 Hi, thanks for pointing this out. I have now corrected it.
12018-10-10 04:03:45 UTCWarin61 Hi,

For Way: 429325406 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
Scrub is not a 'landuse', in OSM the tag to use is 'natural=scrub'.
12018-10-10 04:02:39 UTCWarin61 Hi,

For Way: 310213093 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
Scrub is not a 'landuse', in OSM the tag to use is 'natural=scrub'.
12018-10-10 04:02:13 UTCWarin61 Hi,

For Way: 578649115 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
Scrub is not a 'landuse', in OSM the tag to use is 'natural=scrub'.
12018-10-10 03:59:40 UTCWarin61 Hello you :)

For Way: 441921493 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
Scrub is not a 'landuse', in OSM the tag to use is 'natural=scrub'.
12018-10-10 03:57:33 UTCWarin61 Hi,

For Way: 303633269 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
Scrub is not a 'landuse', in OSM the tag to use is 'natural=scrub'.
12018-10-10 03:55:38 UTCWarin61 Hi,

For Node: 1885038964 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
Scrub is not a 'landuse', in OSM the tag to use is 'natural=scrub'.
12018-10-10 03:52:19 UTCWarin61 Hi,

Scrub is not a 'landuse', in OSM the tag to use is 'natural=scrub'.
22018-10-10 19:29:25 UTCdevonshire Yeah, you're right. Landuse tagging is so fucked up that the odd error is hard to avoid. :)
12018-10-10 03:51:08 UTCWarin61 Hi,

Scrub is not a 'landuse', in OSM the tag to use is 'natural=scrub'.
12018-10-10 00:32:06 UTCWarin61 Hi,
When you add a sporting pitch, add the sport that is played there. If more than one then sport=cricket;rugby for example.

I have added a few sports here. Bound to be some I have missed.
22018-10-10 03:28:51 UTCDavid Dean I'm happy to leave that up to other mappers, or do it on the ground when StreetComplete asks me. Having a pitch marked with no sport is better that no pitch marked at all.
32018-10-11 05:09:49 UTCaharvey > Having a pitch marked with no sport is better that no pitch marked at all.

+1
12018-07-18 03:21:44 UTCaharvey Hey mate, a lot of those junctions you've added aren't really tourist attractions. Where did you source the names from as most I can't find any signs with the name...
22018-10-09 06:56:47 UTCWarin61 Boronia Gardens, Epping .. as a 'guest house' ...tagging for the render? More like a block of flats.
12018-10-07 13:46:16 UTCMaradona11 Hi,
I have reversed the oneway at the Westpoint Interchange. Buses travelling from the Stations use this lane going South. https://www.busways.com.au/blacktown/travelling-with-us/interchange-maps
22018-10-07 22:05:11 UTCWarin61 Strange!
Passengers would then exit on to the island .. and have to cross the road to get out.

Same thing on the other side with Way: Patrick Street Bus Tunnel (316000496)

That is not as safe as it could be if the ways were reversed - passengers would then exit to the curb and not be force...
32018-10-07 22:13:46 UTCWarin61 Oh,
One other thing.

The LPI base map shows these one way sections as being longer, I think those might be better approximations than what is present in OSM at the moment.
42018-10-07 23:12:00 UTCMaradona11 Yes there are lifts going into the middle (island) to access the bus bays. I have been there myself few years back and dont believe it has changed.
12018-10-06 04:34:16 UTCnevw You have placed the business node in the middle of the roadway instead of the actual physical building where the business is located.
22018-10-07 09:30:49 UTCWarin61 Moved. Possibly where they are.
Node has no physical tag so it will not render (show up on any map). I have added the physical tag shop=glass and removed the description tag.
32018-10-07 10:55:31 UTCnevw Thanks
12018-10-04 03:30:55 UTCaharvey +1 This park is shown in the LPI Basemap and Imagery.
22018-10-07 09:10:16 UTCWarin61 If you look you'll find a few missing parks ... No 1 Lucinda Rd is a park on the LPI base map.
12018-10-07 09:03:56 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Looks like your adding building in the Mosman area using the LPI Imagery.

Please use the comments section to say what your doing - makes it much easier to look back and check for yourself and others.


Most building are 'square' - i.e. they have right angled corners. The right angles are...
12018-10-07 04:23:43 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Would not these roads be classified as 'residential'? Certainly not 'secondary'!
12018-10-04 12:05:27 UTCaharvey Hey Warin, the mine you added from the LPI Base Map already exists in OSM from a more accurate survey at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2057044065 so I've deleted the one you added.
22018-10-04 12:09:51 UTCaharvey https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mountain_pass is probably a good idea for those mountain passes, as it's well documented on the wiki. I couldn't find any documentation of the landform tag https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landform
32018-10-04 22:37:24 UTCWarin61 Thanks for spotting the mine. I did download a small area around it but obviously not big enough. Trouble is ..it does not render :)

Pass ... umm the OSM key mountain_pass is for a road. I am adverse to using the key natural as that confusingly applies to both 'natural' and 'unnatural' things so ...
42018-10-05 00:32:19 UTCaharvey It renders in OsmAnd :) Activity to get it rendering on the main OSM map https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/331

It would be great if you could document your landform usage on the wiki as a proposal or just on the tagging list so we can discuss it?
52018-10-05 00:34:52 UTCWarin61 Still have to deal with the proposed 'ephemeral' !
Then there is public transport v2 that I said i'd do a bit on...
lots 'to do' :)
12018-10-04 22:59:21 UTCWarin61 Hi .. some thoughts.
Where a footway crosses a road there should be a node tagged highway=crossing and so on.
You also have tagged some of the nodes for the footway with tags for traffic lights .. the lights should be on there own individual nodes .. not doing double duty.
22018-10-04 23:48:34 UTCahhok Thanks for the feedback Warin, I'm still getting used to contributing.
12018-10-04 01:14:47 UTCWarin61 Hi,

The Cascase Rock to MacLaren Point path overlays several roads .. not good. Are there 'tracks' or 'paths', are motor vehicles allowed along them or not???

In short .. don't overlay one thing with another where they are in fact the same at that point.
If you want the route to show up the...
12018-10-01 22:32:17 UTCWarin61 Hi
Overlapping ways is a no no.
You have placed footpaths on top of roads. Not good.
12018-10-01 03:57:41 UTCWarin61 Hi,
You added Way: Glenfield Circuit (620649160) but this overlaps the existing Way: Briar Road (179372205).

Either it is Briar or Glenfield, but not both.
12018-10-01 01:07:16 UTCWarin61 Use the tag noexit=yes to indicate there is no connection on the last node of Perrins lane, and possibly on Pinch lane too.
12018-10-01 00:36:48 UTCWarin61 Hi,
If something has not been built then it does not exist. Use the planing or construction tags!

Mawarra St you have as two things - one overlayed on top of the other - one as a street the other as a cycleway. Err same thing on Albion and Macdonald. You may have them in other places. Find them...
12018-10-01 00:03:34 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Adjusting the geometry to Ersi has put a kink in the road that is not there, placed the road so that is not relative to the other things - like buildings that are on the map. And the source on the road says bing.. which should have been changed to Ersi.

I have put the road back to bing. This...
22018-10-03 02:35:54 UTCspjaquish Hi Warin61,
After looking into the area in question, I see how the road may have better aligned to Bing in certain places.
I appreciate you bringing this error to my attention and applying corrections!
Regards,
Spencer
12018-10-01 00:03:29 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Way: 251900617 - you added the tag 'landuse=grass' yet it has the tag 'natural=wood'.

This means the area is covered by trees.
This also means the area is covered by grass.

Yet is cannot be both.

----------------------------
The Way: 251900617 needs work! Leave it to represent the...
12018-09-29 10:10:06 UTCWarin61 Hi,
The relation for Central Qld Uni does not make OSM sense. type=building does not compute for a type of relation.
12018-09-29 10:02:30 UTCWarin61 HI,
I think that level has been substituted for layer in tagging some of these features?
12018-08-15 06:38:57 UTCtonyf1 Hi
I am unsure, do these gates actually exist? You aren't adding fictitious gates to stop sat navs routing traffic through residential streets?
22018-08-15 09:48:49 UTCSimon Hutchison This is very easy to confirm.. take a look at google maps street view. It is a age care home which I'm working for. The only gate left open is the one on Eastbourne road.
32018-08-15 10:42:35 UTCtonyf1 Thanks
42018-09-28 05:21:46 UTCWarin61 Don't break roads that go through these gates. The routing engines should stop routings through he gates where the access=private is made. If they don't then the routing engines need fixing, bon't fudge the map to fix something else.
52018-09-28 07:37:22 UTCSimon Hutchison Ah, thanks for pointing that out, I didn't actually mean to break the road completely. (I've fixed that) Please be aware that these are private access controlled gates managed by the aged care facility I'm working for. The gates and roads they cover are not accessible by the general public.
62018-09-28 08:55:02 UTCWarin61 The gates with access=private should function. But, too be cautious, probably tag the roads too, assuming they are access=private ?
12018-09-28 06:07:28 UTCWarin61 Hi,
The foot path that crosses several roads and a train line... what kind of crossing are they ? You have nodes on each crossing .. but are they 'uncontrolled'?
Way: 589146974
12018-09-28 05:52:56 UTCWarin61 Hi,
I have removed the name=Walking Path.
The name is for the name only, not a description. The map should tell you it is a path for walking, just as it tells you there is a road.
12018-09-28 05:38:54 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Looks to me like this 'track' is really a route made up of several tracks/cycleways.
12018-09-20 12:51:40 UTCaharvey Hey mate, I'm not sure I agree with changing https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/626872748 to match the cadastre. I think we should map the actual use on the ground (how it was before). Those wooded areas aren't being used as recreation area, so in my view, they shouldn't be included. There is a secti...
22018-09-21 04:13:10 UTCWarin61 Bet both ways?

I don't like land covers and land uses being the same ways.. leads to things like national parks being the end of tree cover. Not hard and fast on it though.

Pennant Hills Park is taken to the LPI boundary, they have increased the number netball courts there over time. They may...
32018-09-21 05:03:00 UTCaharvey Generally I agree re sharing the same way, but in this case it does look like the land cover and land use line up.

It comes down to the principle of mapping how it's being use at the moment on the ground, not where the legal parcels extend to/where it could go in the future.

> I'll try to t...
42018-09-28 05:05:20 UTCWarin61 I've taken a look.
The trees overlap some fences and shelters.
4 netball courts are now parking.
Etc.
I have reduced the rendering area.
But have made a non rendering area for the legal area. It may be useful if they extend.
I have also add the Bradley Reserve to the south of here, as a p...
12018-09-27 04:16:33 UTCWarin61 Hi,
You have marked the western most bit of Bathurst St as one way - meaning you cannot turn right into Lee Point Rd. Just checking that was what is intended.
22018-09-27 05:33:25 UTCThann That’s correct. If a driver wishes to go north on Lee Point Road they must now turn left and use the roundabout to do a 180°.

Also, the same on Wanguri Terrace. No longer able to make a right turn from Lee Point Road when travelling south.
12018-09-24 05:07:19 UTCWarin61 Hi,
How does this walk way connect to East Bank Road? A the moment they dont connect.
22018-09-26 14:18:02 UTC29dollars Hi
The walk path starts very close to the road (some metres) from memory, but I'm not sure that it technically connects but it is clearly meant that the path is meant to be accessed directly from the road. From memory I think there is a rough grassy area around where the road ends and where the ca...
32018-09-26 21:42:30 UTCWarin61 At the moment a routing engine for a person on foot on the path has nowhere to go at the end. Not connected to the road so they cannot walk to it and then along the road. The only option they have is to walk back along the path.
42018-09-29 02:29:23 UTC29dollars OK, thanks. That's a good point that I hadn't thought about properly. I've now tidied up the road end and path end (so they link) as well as the car park. Hopefully that has fixed it. The unfinished task is that the path continues on to the north to another road (I understand), but I did not wal...
12018-09-24 04:59:48 UTCWarin61 Hi,
The two ways marked Yundamindra - Linden Road and Mount Celia Road over lap each other. Only one way should be there as there is only one road.
Please delete one of them where they overlap.
22018-09-24 18:20:17 UTCxujiayi_1256 Hi Warin61, thanks for pointing this out. I've corrected the overlapping ways and will keep it in mind for future projects. Please feel free to leave a comment if you see more of them and I will clean it up ASAP. Thanks!
12018-09-23 03:07:10 UTCaharvey I think it would be better to add the maxspeed on the water area as it applies to all craft, not just ferries. It also avoids needing to split these ways which makes editing more complicated.
22018-09-23 04:36:50 UTCWarin61 No source for the information. Possible copyright breach?
The nippers run has no permanent installation - just along the beach. Not verifiable.
Revert?
32018-09-24 04:54:32 UTCaharvey I'm tempted to agree to a revert, these ferry routes are already complicated and I think splitting to add the maxspeed just adds unnecessary complexity when that maxspeed is more appropriate on the water area.
12018-09-23 02:40:35 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Excellent change set description! Unfortunately the section you added is over the top of a remained of the way tagged as Jimma Crescent. What is best to do in this situation would have been to break the old way of Jimma into 2, and rename the relevant section to Cooroy.
I have fixed it by bre...
22018-09-23 03:36:49 UTCShaunKolo Thanks Warin61, much appreciated. That does make sense. It wasn’t obvious to me how to select and split a line when I was trying to edit/add the feature. I requested the review just in case I had it all wrong. All the best
32018-09-23 03:56:43 UTCWarin61 Sorry .. not an Id user so I cannot help there. (I use JOSM) Should be somewhere in an Id help thingy somewhere.
12018-09-23 03:08:17 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Where a foot path crosses a road .. there needs to be a single node that connects both, otherwise they are not 'joined' and could be taken as separate layers. Then add to that single node the tag highway=crossing. Similar for cycle ways.
12018-09-23 01:34:57 UTCWarin61 Hi,
The relation appears to be a a collection of trails, not a single route.
12018-09-22 03:36:43 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Way: 626625841 amenity=parking crosses it self. That is not good. Seehttps://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=152.94736&lat=-27.10649&zoom=16&opacity=0.84

You could make it into a multipologon .. or just 2 separate ways.
12018-09-21 03:13:01 UTCWarin61 The building tag is for the building only .. not the block it sits on.
12018-09-21 02:56:47 UTCWarin61 Hi,
The name tag is to be used for the name only. 'Footpath' is not the name.

-------------
Now read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks for information on how to map footpaths.
As an example I have done the end of Koch St for you.
12018-09-20 16:43:57 UTCDs5rUy The alignment of the cricket field in the North Lakes Woodside sports field seem off? It is as far as I can tell centered exactly in the middle between the two soccer fields and with exactly the same alignment. There are no markings on the grass that match the outer oval and I don't know enough abou...
22018-09-20 16:46:25 UTCDs5rUy Oh, also, I would recommend using ESRI Word Imagery instead of Bing for the area around North Lakes as it has higher resolution, is more current and sharper, and after crosschecking with various other sources, seems to be much better aligned then Bing in this area.
32018-09-20 23:48:55 UTCWarin61 I have approximately centered the cricket to the center of the 2 soccer pitches, using OSM. If you require it better than that .. then fine tune it using what ever you want? Think you'll find the pitches move somewhat from year to year as the playing surfaces deteriorate with use. So I'm not too wor...
12018-09-20 12:46:04 UTCWarin61 Hi,
are you certain Terrys Creek is visible in this area? The tagging of the past way shows it below ground level. I agree the LPI imagery suggest something ... but it could just be a concreted area.
12018-09-18 04:21:16 UTCWarin61 Hii,
Deleted Way: Gundaring Road North (608451579) - duplication of what is already there.
12018-09-18 04:11:35 UTCWarin61 Way 625872547 tagged as building=retail .. in not a single building. I have removed this tagging.
12018-09-18 04:11:32 UTCWarin61 Reverted.
The relation created was not an area.
The deletion of existing areas last information.
There were no relations changed by this changeset.
12018-09-14 08:23:20 UTCNmxosm Würden Sie bitte beschreibende Changesetkommentare verwenden? Das hilft anderen Beitragenden, Ihre Änderungen besser nachzuvollziehen. Siehe auch: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:%C3%84nderungssatz
Vielen Dank.

Could you please use descriptive changeset comments? This helps othe...
22018-09-15 05:39:37 UTCWarin61 Hi,
For change set comments ideas see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

In this change set you made changes in Germany and Australia .. a fair distance apart. It would have been better to make them as 2 change sets - one in either county.
Node: 1797849488 (entrance to...
32018-09-15 17:17:40 UTCJohn Embrey Not me - I have not been on Open Street Map since 13 September and the only changes I made were to Widnes in England.
I have never made any changes in either Germany or Australia. I cannot explain how those have got tagged with my id.
John Embrey
42018-09-15 22:03:17 UTCWarin61 Then someone is using your account.

I'd change your password. And check that no one is using your computer .. even an old computer.

Look at your changeset history and check back untill you find the ones that are 'yours'.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/John%20Embrey/history
52018-09-15 22:07:04 UTCWarin61 And looking back at your changesets...
they don't appear to have ANY change set comments ..
It will help you, and the rest of us, if you make change set comments...
12018-09-15 05:20:10 UTCWarin61 Hi,
A problem is that it is still visible in some satellite vies and on the LPI base map. The problem now is that some one can come along and add it back in using the older information from these sources.
It is better to leave it in .. but change the tags so it does not render. Usually these thin...
22018-09-15 07:26:54 UTCGammaPiSigma Warin61,
Great point, never thought of it that way. Thank you. I have recovered the deleted way. Not sure how to change the tags so it does not render. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, GPS.
32018-09-15 07:40:22 UTCWarin61 If you tag it abandoned:highway= then it will render .. but very faintly. I'd go with that.

To make it not render ? Well any tag the renders are not using ... gone:highway= would do.
12018-09-15 06:51:49 UTCWarin61 Hi
Relation: Hotel Bay View (8687586) .. has 2 ways ..as outers. But they share segments. Not likes by OSM inspector.
So this would be better as a single way - no relation required?
12018-09-15 06:48:21 UTCWarin61 The name tag is for name only.

If you want to describe some thing .. use the description tag!!! e.g. Pizza Hut, Pool Lawn .. these are not names.
12018-09-15 05:53:45 UTCWarin61 Could you please add change set comments? This informs others to what you are doing.
Read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

The track you added .. does it have a name? If not then noname=yes can be add to it.
I have add a fixme=continues to the present end.
12018-09-15 05:44:07 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Would you please make change set comments? This help understand what you are doing .. without added work on others.
Read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
12018-09-15 04:23:48 UTCWarin61 Hi,
You can use the LPI Base Map to provide information - road names, addresses etc. Also the LPI Imagery is very good.
Oh, and welcome to OSM.
12018-09-15 04:08:49 UTCWarin61 Hi,
These pitches are not for soccer. Look up netball, basketball and tennis.
If you look on the LPI Base Map you can see the area is a school.
12018-09-13 05:49:37 UTCWarin61 Hi,

You need to check these additions for errors.
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=116.89833&lat=-22.01886&zoom=11&opacity=0.60
22018-09-13 08:36:29 UTCBrackoNe Hi Warin61!

Thank you for your feedback. I have fixed remaining issues. Thank you for your help, as I could see that you have fixed some of the issues.
Several editors are on vacation, so I have jumped in now to fix these issues.

Thanks,
Nemanja
12018-09-12 03:22:56 UTCWarin61 Hi,
the name tag is only for names - so Omega Apartments (under construction) is not good.
Use the description tag to describe it ..
But in this instance use the construction key thus ..
building=construction
name=Omega Apartments
description=construction of apartments

12018-09-08 08:37:00 UTCWarin61 Hi,
No 362 Marsden Road .. no house there .. it is a park. The 362Rs can be removed around there too... Don't know if parks have addresses.

Going well?
22018-09-08 12:23:17 UTCMoult Thanks Warin! Yes, going well, and I think you're right. However before removing it I think it's best to check it out in person first. I see you live in the Epping area! Do you mind checking it out?

P.S. I live in Epping too.
32018-09-08 12:29:41 UTCWarin61 I have been past it several times. No houses. I have not seen a sign to say it is a park ..nor a name of the park. I'll have to stop and really look at it next time .. if I remember. It does form the function of a park.
Last time they were doing some works to the footpath there. It has been a while...
12018-09-06 21:17:48 UTCxdiamondx This park does not exist any more. Duke Street in fact does extend through here now. To check for yourself, look at the more current Bing Aerial Imagery.

Please revert your edit.
22018-09-06 23:20:56 UTCWarin61 Thanks for the info. Reverted. Added note and source tags to that section of Duke St so that other mappers can see the information.
12018-06-13 23:48:20 UTCWarin61 Hi,
What is the source of this Mt Alexandra Reserve?

I can see some reserves in the LPI Base Map .. but nothing for Mt Alexandra?
Looks to be a reserve rather than a park.
http://www.wsc.nsw.gov.au/services/community-facilities/parks-reserves
22018-09-05 10:29:45 UTCWarin61 Removed name. It is now only tagging a tree area.
12018-09-04 05:01:17 UTCWarin61 The relation has inners that share segments with outers .. that is not ideal.
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=114.58523&lat=-23.08396&zoom=12&opacity=0.58
22018-09-04 05:47:11 UTCBrackoNe Thanks, I will fix it today. I will cut out one part and delete it. The other will be shared. However, this lake is still in progress. It's easy to spot that just North part of geometry has been fixed.
12018-09-03 01:56:21 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Here you have a lift gate with access=customers ... but then you ban then coming by foot, bicycle, car, horse, motorcycle .. what .. do they fly in?
Node: 4880311080
12018-09-03 01:41:51 UTCWarin61 Hi,
I am confused by the gate with the tags
access=no
foot=yes
bicycle=yes
motorcar=yes
motorcycle=yes

So what is not allowed through this gate? Motorcars, motorcycles , bicycles and pedestrians are all allowed through it.
12018-09-02 07:15:41 UTCWarin61 Hi,
In this change set you have introduced a new node with the tags for a gate.
There is no road here in OSM now.
Your change set comments make no sense in relation to this gate...

Roads that are private should be tagged access=private, the road should still exist in OSM - it is a navigatio...
12018-09-01 04:14:15 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Regarding the wood relation .. that is not how to do it.
Here I would make one way for the outside - place that as the outer role in the wood relation.

Then place the way for the water into the wood relation - with the role inner.
12018-08-31 05:48:20 UTCWarin61 Hi,
This relation is not closed.. more work to do.
22018-08-31 06:06:20 UTCSam Wilson I know. :-) I'm glad someone's keeping an eye out though! Thanks.

I got dragged away last night, and couldn't finish it. Also I have to research a bit about where the boundary is around the wharf. Landgate seems to think East Fremantle for example goes down the river centreline, but Fremantle doe...
12018-08-30 05:33:12 UTCWarin61 This has left Doreen with only one member .. and not closed.

Did you really mean to delete all those ways?

Looks like a mess to me.
12018-08-28 23:54:18 UTCWarin61 When you make a new way for these turn restrictions ...
You are overlaying the old way with another .. that is not good - it can be seen in OSMinspector - routing as a duplicate way.
Rather than making a new way .. split the old way at the point desired. This means there are not two ways occupyin...
22018-08-29 19:57:05 UTCmagrej Hi Warin61,
Thank you for pointing this out, I'll check it later.
12018-08-28 06:17:58 UTCWarin61 Hi,
These buildings are usually 'square' meaning the corners are usually right angles.
In iD there is the 'Square corners tool' (Shortcut S).

In addition .. you could also add addresses to there from the LPI Base Map.
Hope that helps.
12018-08-27 23:20:29 UTCWarin61 Hi,

When you make a roundabout .. the roads connect to it ... they should not overlay the roundabout but stop at the connection to the roundabout .. and then restart at the exit point of the roundabout.
12018-08-20 04:50:02 UTCWarin61 Two problems;
Is there a left turn from Wheatleigh St to Chandos St??
Thechange has broken the boundaries for Crows Nest .. and some other suburb/s. .
22018-08-26 00:35:09 UTCWarin61 No response. Deleted.
12018-08-25 07:47:58 UTCWarin61 Hi,
You are creating a number of errors.. for example in this change set
Relation: RI Mangrove (8589561)
has an intersection between the multipologon ways ..
see https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=153.25738&lat=-27.65014&zoom=10&opacity=0.67

As I recall most of ...
12018-08-24 05:50:59 UTCWarin61 I am sorry .. but OSM does not store temporary events. These would be best kept in your own system as an overlay.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_temporary_events_and_temporary_features

12018-08-23 22:37:14 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Welcome to OSM!

A few things about his change set that attract my attention.

a) the change set comment of 'pokemon'. Past edits have been made for/by pokemon players that have placed fantasy object into OSM. OSM is about the real world and thse fantasy objects are not appreciated inside...
12018-08-21 00:33:10 UTCaharvey It seems from the previous editors that this is indeed a named interchange if you delete https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3537363017 how is the interchange and name retained in OSM?
22018-08-21 01:54:35 UTCWarin61 a) From my reading of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=motorway_junction this names an exit off the motorway - not the entry to it.

b) the Way: Windybanks Interchange (8063077) is seen as you go under the way .. just like you see the name of Way: Falcon Street (171334934) when y...
32018-08-21 02:27:42 UTCaharvey Part of the problem may be highway=motorway_junction isn't intended to be used to map interchanges, generally the whole system of offrams/onramps where two major roads connect are an interchange and in this case it's a named interchange like https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2130503373 or https://w...
42018-08-21 03:00:07 UTCWarin61 Yet that is the interpretation that I have come to. Otherwise .. what name do you give the way over the motorway there? Those signs do state the name of the road over the motorway ... so this is only logical (Dr Spock aproves?).

As for the problem of motorway interchanges .. Perhaps place=motorw...
52018-08-21 04:24:26 UTCaharvey Yeah I agree that the name of the way should be as signposted. I've restored https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3537363017 using the tag place=highway_interchange.
12018-08-20 09:16:29 UTCWarin61 Not a great change set comment.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
12018-08-20 05:14:24 UTCWarin61 Park areas are best determined using the LPI Base Map .. not imagery. The park/reserves don't necessarily follow land covers.

Not all of the area tagged as grass is grass.
12018-08-20 05:14:18 UTCWarin61 The house numbers in Colgong Crescent are wrong.

This change set will need checking.
The source statement is incorrect - you cannot get house numbers nor street names from imagery.

So what is the source for this information?

A reply is expected.
12018-08-17 06:58:24 UTCWarin61 Hi,
"Add local stuff" is not a good change set comment .. see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
12018-08-17 05:17:12 UTCWarin61 Hi,
There is a mapper who thinks the cemetery is part of the Anthony Beale Reserve ..as near as I can make out from their mapping.
You may like to put your thoughts forwards on their changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/61721512
12018-08-17 05:05:51 UTCWarin61 No!

You are leaving the relation with one member - the cemetery as an inner.

Either;
a) delete the relation - so the cemetery is part of the park.
Or
b) restore the relation with the outer as the way presently tagged as the park.

Your choice. Is the cemetery part of the park? then opti...
12018-08-17 04:50:33 UTCWarin61 Routes Mt Ollivier and Muller Hut are the same.
Suggest deletion of Mt Ollivier. Possible alt_name addition to Muller Hut.
22018-08-18 10:20:14 UTCjuhanjuku I'm agree
12018-08-15 02:14:13 UTCWarin61 Hi,
I believe the symbol and reference used for the hiking relation come from the book Rother Wanderführer, Neuseeland. As these are not 'on the ground' I don't think they should not be used in OSM.

It would be like using an English travel guide to detail Berlin with their notes.
22018-08-15 14:29:17 UTCjuhanjuku Hi,
osmc:symbol is for rendering purposes:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:osmc:symbol
This symbol must not be equal with physical markings on path. For that is tag symbol.
So I can't understand why it bothers you.
There are thousands of hiking routes around world which have no markings...
32018-08-15 21:31:20 UTCWarin61 If I see a symbol on the map I expect to see the same symbol on the trail.

From https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:osmc:symbol
"Finally, don't just add a osmc:symbol to a hiking route because it looks good on the map. osmc:symbol should always reflect the route symbol that is used as ...
42018-08-16 04:56:50 UTCjuhanjuku Why you deleted ascent and descent tags? I have written permission from publisher to use Rother Wanderführer data on OSM
52018-08-16 06:06:39 UTCWarin61 a) How am I supposed to know that from this changset comments/source or the tags on the relation? I am not a mind reader.

b) Where in OSM is the permission shown?
I have looked on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors and on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue.
62018-08-16 06:51:25 UTCWarin61 Take a look at https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=6215093 click on the elevation profile .. that shows
Accumulated ascent: 695 m
Accumulated descent: 700 m

There will be some errors in there .. but might be better data than that book.
72018-08-16 22:58:57 UTCWarin61 There are 2 main issues raised here that are applicable to other change sets of yours.

Issue 1. Copyright.
A) The change set source does not state the guide book you are apparently using. And it is now too late to include it there. None of the features that apparently use the guide book have an...
82018-08-17 00:51:04 UTCPolarbear-repair Dear juhanjuku,
the Data Working Group became aware of this discussion. You say in comment #4 that you "have written permission from publisher to use Rother Wanderführer data on OSM.". This would be great news.

However, could you please _submit a copy of this permission_ to the Da...
12018-08-15 03:14:56 UTCWarin61 Hi,

Don't the horses of the BNT go north - they normally rest up in Hall .. use the Canberra Centennial Trail???
I think the route you have is the cyclist alternative path.
22018-08-15 03:39:23 UTCTheSwavu Route through the ACT is based on ACTmapi data (small detour in Bonner where the suggested path takes you through a drain). Horses can't use the Centennial trail as there are locked gates.
32018-08-15 04:53:37 UTCWarin61 Ummm
BNT update to map 10 (copyright) May 2018
" Once reaching the ACT border turn right onto Dukes Road and cross cavaletti you will be off road all way to Hall. Space for horse truck or float approx. 500metres south of
ACT border sign at the Mulligans Flat style and horse cavaletti, in M...
12018-08-14 06:36:51 UTCWarin61 Hi,
This changeset has broken the admin boundary Lang Lang, Yannathan and Caldermeade.
Partial reversion of this changeset to restore these relations.
12018-08-14 01:27:15 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Welcome to OSM.

The Forsyth Park boundaries are shown in the LPI Base Map - these are the legal boundaries of the park. Outer areas might be seen as part of the park, but legally they are not. They can be legally part of the road verge or some other thing. Probably still a council responsibi...
22018-08-14 01:43:01 UTCWarin61 Oh,
The change set comments .. not the best ..
please read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
12018-08-13 17:32:44 UTCHLOSM Hi Warin61,

I saw that you added a segment here with two route relations (Auckland Hauraki Tour Aotearoa and Te Araroa North Island). Here is the lat and lon for the specific segment,
-37.00144885,174.80207825000002

Is it possible for you to add these two relations into the adjacent segment w...
22018-08-13 23:40:31 UTCWarin61 Possible? Oh .. that is from a roundabout ..
there are 2 duplicated segments that I did not pick up on.

Way: Puhinui Road (615737626) is preferred as that includes the roundabout in the routing.
Way: Puhinui Road (24709480) is not preferred as it goes directly from Tom Pearce Drive - not thr...
32018-08-14 18:20:56 UTCHLOSM Thank you for changing it and moving the two relations over to the way 615737626.
12018-08-13 05:23:07 UTCWarin61 Again .. what is the source? It is not bing as that shows a farm field here.

22018-08-13 07:37:54 UTCWarin61 Hi,
These comments are made in public. I think that is the best place for them.
I was altered to some possible errors in this locality by OSMinspector .. see https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=138.81025&lat=-34.45381&zoom=14
I looked to see if I could fix them .. but f...
32018-08-13 11:31:53 UTCnibennett the source is not google. I own land on otto avenue and was physically out there last week. Most blocks in otto avenue, koch street and block court are built on, or in the process of building.

In this case being a country town satellite imagery is way out of date. (Most recent is google and even...
42018-08-13 12:22:45 UTCWarin61 OK.
For ways that dead end - don't connect - tag the end node with noexit=yes .. that will tell the tools not to flag them as possible connections. Might also get highway=turning_circle if there is one?

Where I have estimated things from a personal survey .. then I list that as my source. If s...
52018-08-13 12:31:04 UTCnibennett Thanks for the tips about the tags / listing the source.
Hadn’t found how to change the source. The esri ones was the most recent satellite available through osm, still older than the google which i didn’t use and obviously my personal out there.

Nah no turning circle. That’s ...
12018-08-13 09:48:06 UTCWarin61 Hi,
You add foot=yes and bicycle=yes to part of the Queen Charlott Track. Is this true - even for those not staying at the Resolution Bay Cabins?
22018-08-13 17:43:31 UTClocke Hi, for the part I added this information it still seems to be true, the part only for those staying at Resolution Bay is tagged as access=private (not by me) (there is a detour).
12018-08-13 05:21:47 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Koch Street looks like a farm field to me. On bing, Digital Globe imagery.

What is your source? It is not Bing...
12018-08-11 04:40:35 UTCWarin61 Breaks relation of Sydney Harbor. Removes the end of wharf 5 Circular Quay ...
Reverted.
12018-08-10 10:52:26 UTCWarin61 I have no idea what LVE means. Explain.

The building you entered as Way: 615521052 .. crosses it self. The bing imagery is very poor to see that kind of detail from.
12016-06-14 04:23:12 UTCLeon K The source:maxspeed applies to the ways but putting it on every node is overkill.
22016-06-14 21:13:11 UTCsamuelrussell I agree, I firmly remember discovering my error after upload and chasing down nodes with source:maxspeed applied to them to correct.
32017-04-06 12:01:15 UTCaharvey You've also added maxspeed=40 to pedestrian footways which have no maxspeed signs from ground survey. I've fixed up one of them.
42018-08-08 23:07:55 UTCWarin61 Done the southern part ... ~100 nodes with source:maxspeed .. but no maxspeed.

I did a search ..so that should be all the nodes done for this area.
12018-07-25 08:36:02 UTCWarin61 Hi,
scrub is not a land use .. it is a land cover, that you may tag as natural=scrub.
22018-07-25 20:03:28 UTCDyserth Yeah well at least it rendered before you altered it to different tags. What's the point of changing tags to prevent the polygon from rendering at all? iD allows entering of the tag landuse=scrub and OSM Mapnik then renders it which is the point of "improving the map". I feel we shouldn't ...
32018-07-25 22:36:02 UTCWarin61 Tagging for the render? :)

Editors should allow 'any tag you like' as that is an OSM principle.

Natural=scrub is the documented tag on the OSMwiki .. if you search for scrub there you get that page. Natural=scrub has over 1,800,000 uses in the data base, so it should render!
Landuse=scrub is...
42018-07-25 22:55:27 UTCWarin61 Note
natural=scrub look like it renders
see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/180492080#map=16/51.1315/-3.2225

man_made=clearcut looks like it does not render see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/412607126

52018-07-26 09:53:09 UTCDyserth Hi it would seem that while natural=scrub renders it does not render if the polygon is tagged with landcover=scrub also (or man_made=clearcut), only if the natural=scrub is standalone. Please can you check this and modify your edits accordingly. Cheers.
62018-07-26 11:03:39 UTCWarin61 Before you changed is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/388771229/ it rendered correctly with landcover=scrub and natural=scrub!!! And I believe that the change you made there is yet to be processed ..

The problem here is apparently man_made=clearcut.

You will note this is not rendering corr...
72018-07-28 23:49:01 UTCWarin61 Now that is strange ...

Not rendering here as 601076497 natural=scrub, but when I download it to JOSM it is rendering (well untill zoom level 12)?

Way: Knowles Wood (388771229) is rendering as natural=scrub. So that is fine.


Rendering with natural=scrub and landcover=scrub on;

Way:...
82018-07-28 23:59:16 UTCWarin61 Arr .. the wood area over laps the scrub area... merging Node: 5713634516 with Node: 5713635454 might fix it.. ok those nodes combined into 516 ...looking for other problems ... none found. Ok, wait for the changes to filter through.
92018-07-30 22:12:24 UTCWarin61 Ok .. I am now happy that it renders.

Are you happy with this way now?

Would you like to add the tag clearcut to it and see what that does?
102018-08-03 03:05:04 UTCWarin61 No response.

I'll reintroduce the tag you had of clearcut and see what happens then.
112018-08-08 00:08:17 UTCWarin61 Well .. there we are now.
landcover=scrub, man_made=clearcut and
natural=scrub all coexisting. And it renders on the standard map.
Look like the reason this did not map was the over lap between this way and the other way for the trees.

So, are you now convinced that the landcover tag does n...
12018-08-04 23:11:34 UTCWarin61 Things that go under bridges are not necessarily in tunnels.

Sub stations are not military areas.



-----------------------
Furphys removed.
12018-08-04 21:48:57 UTCWarin61 Reverted.

No point in saying why.
12018-08-04 10:17:18 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Sixmaps is copyright.

I hope what you are using are the LPI NSW base map or Imagery. That is what you have ready access to using JOSM.

Sixmaps is the commercial arm of LPI ... Please correct your source statements from here on?
12018-08-04 01:48:08 UTCWarin61 In this change set:
You add a view point in Canada. What is the source of this view point? It cannot be LPI NSW Imagery.

You changed the name of Manly Creek to Manly Creek - Reserve and added "reservation"="members_only" This is wrong .. you need to change it back.

School ...
12018-07-29 09:43:51 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Deletion of way 41748629 has broken 2 council boundary relations. I am restoring it.
Probably undoes your changes. Take care.
22018-07-29 10:35:31 UTCalanmcd Hi Warin61, Thanks for the message. I did notice that a boundary line extended south west within this area but finished with no connection. I'd like to see what you restore there.
32018-07-29 10:37:21 UTCalanmcd The last node was also connected to a road and I couldn't disconnect it as usual with iD OR Potlatch.
42018-07-29 10:48:42 UTCalanmcd I can see you've restored the line, but it's again now connected to a road and serves no purpose as a boundary since no area is enclosed. Seems wring to me.
52018-07-29 11:03:05 UTCalanmcd OK - I can see now in JOSM that the roads are also tagged as boundaries. So I can work out how to see this is iD and Potlatch as well.
62018-07-29 11:08:51 UTCalanmcd I've also corrected the boundary line as it was connected to a road which does not exist. I extended it to the road and deleted the small section of road which does not exist.
72018-07-29 11:10:52 UTCalanmcd Hope that puts it all right
12018-07-28 04:51:07 UTCWarin61 Can be better.
The gates need to be connected to a fence.

Circles can be made - then separated into circular segments.

No need to address details on things that don't receive mail and visitors go to the park as it has a name they can search for.. not the playground.

Fix your other error...
22018-07-29 01:05:18 UTCTagaSanPedroAko And, why this has a large bounding box?
32018-07-29 01:31:09 UTCWarin61 Because redbackspider copied Le Desert from France to Australia in a previous changeset?
42018-07-29 01:31:35 UTCWarin61 PS redbackspider does NOT communicate.
12018-07-28 07:06:21 UTCWarin61 Hi,
No bunkers? Tag natural=sand for renders.

Ar .. you have only just begun. Pardon while I watch with interest what you do.
I have tagged the Cooper Pedy GC .. all sand, with the non-rendering golf tags. Could not do much out there with the sand every where.
12018-07-28 05:05:49 UTCWarin61 Bad changeset comment.
What else could be wrong here?
22018-07-28 05:52:42 UTCWarin61 There is no permanent SLSC building on the beach!!!!

The Russel Jones Memorial Pools' name does not include the date. Nor do there need to be both a node and a way with the details.
12018-07-28 03:38:54 UTCWarin61 Moving Le desert from France to Australia is not on.
12018-07-26 10:55:01 UTCWarin61 This rendered correctly before you remove the landcover tag.
12018-07-26 07:14:22 UTCWarin61 Hi,
There are some problems with Way: 610735693 - building = school.

First as a single building .. it crosses itself. That is not on.

Second there is a conflict between the building and a road already in OSM

Third .. using bing .. it is not a single building .. but at least 5 separate bu...
22018-07-26 07:22:16 UTCWarin61 Oh the pitches you have marked as basket ball .. one is netball - different court markings. I have corrected this. There are a few other pitches to map here too.
32018-07-26 07:23:19 UTCnigelcharles I have separated the above school building. Bing is rather blurry for this. The roads in general seem a little out of place on most maps for that area by a small margin, however I will just work around that
42018-07-26 07:25:57 UTCnigelcharles I have not yet worked out how to mark interior courtyards, the building in the set, to the left - Smithton Primary School has internal components which are linked, but also has actual connections as well. Is there an easy way to mark concave shapes or interior atriums/courtyards?
52018-07-26 09:10:59 UTCWarin61 Interiors are dealt with by declaring a multipolygon relation - the outer way is placed into the relation with the role 'outer'. Then the way for the inner is placed into the relation with the role 'inner'. You can have more than one inner, and more than one outer. The relation carries the tags, not...
62018-07-26 09:15:03 UTCnigelcharles Yes, that was definitely the building i worked on recently wondering about interiors. I will check some examples and try and fix that up right too. Thanks for the info
12018-07-25 20:21:29 UTCDyserth Hi Please see reply comment on C/S 60102631. Applies here too.
22018-07-26 02:23:24 UTCWarin61 If you look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/388771229/
you can see it now renders. It did not render before the tag change.

I have commented at length on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60102631. Further comments can be made there.

12018-07-24 23:20:22 UTCWarin61 No.
These are not;
riverbanks
rivers
bridges
fords ...
unclassified highways ...

They are farmers fields.
Tracks

They may have water ways that the farmer has made .. but they are not creeks, streams nor rivers.

And stop using the name tag as a descriptor!!!!
12018-07-24 00:01:23 UTCWarin61 Again .. names are for names only. Not as descriptions. E.g. 'Intermittent Stream', 'Condamine Intermittent River', 'Condamine Riverbank', 'Service Road' etc.

Remove them.
------------------
Living Road ...it is a service road.

The cemetery IS NOT A VILLAGE!!!!! Way: Killarney Cemetery (...
12018-07-23 23:13:30 UTCWarin61 The Prince of Wales Hospital should be expanded to the buildings and linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Wales_Hospital_(Sydney). The landuse should be removed .. that is on a much larger area.
The river .. is not a river . that looks like an ovderflow or channel used by a farmer to ...
12018-07-22 22:32:07 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Welcome to OSM and thanks for your contribution.

The way 609727892 you introduced for parking is not correct. Ways should not cross themselves .. in this case they need to be separated up into 3 individual ways.
22018-07-23 08:24:55 UTCChan_13 Hi,

Thanks for the message. It looks like you corrected it already?
32018-07-23 10:43:30 UTCWarin61 Sorry, yes I corrected it. But wanted to pass the information on to avoid repeats.

Keep mapping, there is heaps to do.
12018-07-22 23:29:06 UTCWarin61 Inappropriate change set comment. Again.

Your Swamp DropDown is not a swamp. It could be a storm water drain ... Swamps are drawn as an area.

the Coogee SLSC is already on a building there is no need for it to be on a node. And this node now distorts the building.

Multiple nodes and ways ...
22018-07-23 01:48:45 UTCWarin61 name=Old Smoke ... but what is it?
barrier=Old Smake .. what kind of barrier???
12018-07-21 22:36:24 UTCWarin61 Half the changes you made have already been edited by 2 other mappers!

Hero Sushi is not a simple 'shop' but sells food .. I have retagged it as a restaurant

Deleted 'Randwick city council service road' .. it does not exist as a permanent thing.
22018-07-21 22:54:57 UTCWarin61 Arrrg.
Enough ...
Dog park deleted.
natural features corrected -they don't go to the center of roads/path
12018-07-21 01:04:42 UTCWarin61 a lot, lot that is not right!

1) do not add personal things .. e.g. finish line.
2) do not duplicate what is already in OSM - some of the path is already there.
3) Try finding things on the OSM wiki .. life jacket is hard though .. it is emergency=life_ring .. don't draw a representation of it...
12018-07-19 22:28:08 UTCWarin61 Length 10 cm?????
Deleted. What are you thinking?
12018-07-19 05:11:31 UTCWarin61 Hi,
1) The changset comment does not say what you are doing. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
2) breaks the admin boundary for Coogee.
3) the name key should not be used as a description e.g. name Pyramid with area=yes for a bit of playground equipment is not appro...
12018-07-19 01:05:08 UTCWarin61 Hi,
A guide in principle .. one feature one main tag. There should not be a leisure=park with another tag landuse=* .. they should be on two separate features.
If a leisure=park is all grass then add the subtag surface=grass.

Tags of landuse_1 or _2 etc are not good. In fact any tag that is f...
12018-07-16 00:43:09 UTCWarin61 Hi,
When you add a building:part .. the base of the building should carry the maximum number of levels, not just the number of levels it has it self. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:part
22018-07-17 06:36:25 UTCJohn Bek Ok, got it now. Apologies
32018-07-17 06:42:20 UTCWarin61 That is fine. Somethings like these building parts are very confusing! And then there is landuse=grass grrrr.
12018-07-17 04:23:27 UTCWarin61 Hi
The playground Way: 497966365 tagged with landuse=sand is not correct .. landuse is the human use of the land. The sand is a landcover, and in this situation the tag to use is surface=sand.
I have corrected this.
12018-07-17 04:07:54 UTCWarin61 Hi,
You have a 'landuse=sand' for Way: 517307485 also taggged leisure=playground.
I think you meant landcover=sand .. but that will not render .. surface=sand should render.
Out of interest, where did you get landuse=sand from?

I have corrected this.
12018-07-17 03:40:37 UTCWarin61 Hi,
The landuse key is for the human use of the land. Scrub is not a human use of the land.

Scrub is a land cover .. you can use landcover=scrub - it will not render .. and natural=scrub - that will render .. no matter if the scrub is natural or 'unnatural'.
12018-07-15 23:00:07 UTCWarin61 Humm... not quite what I meant :)

The greens and driving range are within the golf course so don't need the leisure=golf_course tag themselves.

Chipping_green only has 2 uses around the world .. so it is not likely to be recognized. I would tag it golf=green, description=chipping green, surf...
22018-07-16 03:47:09 UTCmmmuntazim if its alright i will leave it the tag leisure golf course in. that way customers would know what and where are the features . thank you immensly for your help.
12018-07-15 03:33:17 UTCWarin61 Hi,
There are a number of problems...
The driving range relation .. lets deal with the relation problem first.
A multipologon relation has an outer way or in this case outer ways. These are correct.
However .. why are there inners or other ways in the relation? These form part of the driving r...
22018-07-15 03:37:14 UTCWarin61 Err .. tag the outer area (the relation) as a golf course see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course - this means removing hte pitch and driving range .. and I'd remove the grass as not all of it is grass.

Then I'd map the driving range as a separate way inside the golf c...
32018-07-15 04:30:23 UTCmmmuntazim i tried just golf but it corrects to golf _1 automatically. could you kindly explain inner and outer ways ? i didn't see that during editing and the wiki is unclear in regards to what exactly needs to be done. and this is just a driving range with no relation to the course despite have a practice ar...
42018-07-15 07:48:10 UTCWarin61 Relation - outer ways define the outer extent .. in this case of golf.
Inners make holes .. so they are not 'golf'.
Looking on https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2081338#map=17/-37.84568/144.96342 it can be seen that the building, path and bunker are excluded from the driving range .. and th...
52018-07-15 18:04:08 UTCmmmuntazim i have made teh requested changes to the best of my understanding. thank you very much for havign the patience. please advice futher after the edit #60737323
12018-07-14 02:59:20 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Welcome to OSM.
The additions you have made to the Albert Park Driving Range relation .. what role do they play .. they do not for the outer boundary .. nor are they an inner boundary .. they are part of the driving range? If they are part of the driving range then they don't need an entry in ...
22018-07-15 03:21:51 UTCmmmuntazim ah i see. the line was already there. but it was inaccurately represented. i just edited it to add details like its a outer boundary with a fence. i did not want to confuse customers as they might think its open to enter that way.
32018-07-15 03:32:47 UTCmmmuntazim there is an outer boundary with a fence. and the actual building where they reside during the sessions.
12018-07-13 13:33:21 UTCBrettM6000 Hi Warin61, Jack William Park was already mapped but you put a closed line named Jack Williams Park over top of it. I think your change can be removed. As well, Wiradjuri Park was already mapped. It is to the east beside the river. Although the LPI Base Map shows Wiradjuri Park where you have put it...
22018-07-13 22:46:24 UTCWarin61 Thanks Brett.
Not zoomed in enough to see the Jack William Park so though it was not there.
I have left behind the way for the LPI Wiradjuri Park as a warning for others .. the new tags will not render but should give a message to anyone who down loads that area.
32018-07-14 18:06:49 UTCBrettM6000 OK, yes that is fine, no worries. Thanks for the update.
12018-07-11 00:30:09 UTCWarin61 Hi,
football ??? what kind of football? Soccer?
Multiple sports are added using the ';' as a separator ... e.g. sport=cricket;soccer
Given the shape of the pitch I'll assume OZie rules.
12018-07-10 23:52:59 UTCWarin61 The entries to this roundabout for the junction of Clarkson Drive, Inskip Avenue and Karoonda Road do not look like the entries you have made.
The one way sections should carry the name of the road too and should be tagged oneway=yes.

I have corrected this. Please take a look at it and use it...
22018-07-11 06:27:09 UTCCocoEnBuisson Ok I gonna make that for the future thanks for the tips ^^
12018-05-14 23:21:20 UTCWarin61 Hi,
You have added the address as a name to some of these buildings... Why?
The name tag should only carry the name, nothing else.
22018-05-16 22:33:00 UTCJohn Bek There are many buildings whose names are the street addresses, so this is why I have named them as such. Even the building that I work in has an address for its name. But if name tags can only carry "names", then so be it
32018-05-16 23:14:38 UTCWarin61 Many buildings have their address as a sign on the front of the premises .. and bless them for it!.
However ... you tagged 10 Bridge Street as the name of that building .. yet it has a name that is not '10 Bridge Street' ... see https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/exchange-house-could-reap-1...
42018-07-07 12:13:26 UTCaharvey It can be hard to tell sometimes, but I think that if sources (signage, local knowledge, etc) confirm that the building name is the address + street, then it's okay to put that in the name tag as that reflect it's name.
52018-07-08 07:37:21 UTCJohn Bek Yeah, I think I'll just leave it blank from now on anyway, if the signage states only an address.
62018-07-09 00:01:18 UTCWarin61 I'd not take a simple sign stating the address as the name of the building.. I would add it as the address of that building. If I recall correctly all the 'names' I removed were not entered as the building addresses .. I did add the addresses. I did not remove 'names' that reflected addresses eg 'On...
12018-07-08 04:11:06 UTCWarin61 Hi,
An area of scrub .. is not necessarily a reserve. Way: 580315513 I have changed from nature_reserve to scrub .. that is all you can tell from imagery. The LPI Base Map would show a reserve - this particular bit is inside a park.
Well spotted on Simon Pearce Park though. :)
12018-07-02 22:11:56 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Roundabouts don't go well on boundary relations. You need to remove them from the relation and make a new way - use the LPI Base Map to see where the boundary should go.
22018-07-04 01:02:40 UTCWarin61 Keep the comments on the changeset - makes it easier for me to track.
Add way 604071145 affected 2 boundaries .. I have fixed them.
Adding way 604071144 affected 2 boundaries.. I have fixed them.

Note: in NSW, Australia you can use the NSW LPI Base Map to see where boundaries should be - the ...
12018-07-03 22:41:32 UTCWarin61 Hi,
the relation for Valla Reserve has a name .. but no physical presence .. like a park. And if the relation is a park then it would include the parking, picnic and building areas within the park. So it is really just a simple way.

And then the boundaries. Use the LIP Base Map for these .... m...
12018-06-24 23:53:30 UTCWarin61 Reverted. At least in part.
Destroyed 3 buildings, a parking aisle...

Check that what you wanted to add is still here.
22018-06-25 00:26:56 UTCBCC90 Hi Warin61,

Oh no so sorry wasn't meant to do that. I will check it out later tonight to make sure it is all good. My apologies

Regards

Tigerman90
32018-06-25 00:28:49 UTCBCC90 Thanks for fixing it too
42018-06-25 06:02:56 UTCWarin61 No worries. It is just that I had trouble with the reversion .. I usually go for a partial reversion so it keeps most of the changes... but this one did not want to do it. So I fully reverted then copied across to a new layer those bits that were to be fixe3d and then got the bits that the reversion...
52018-06-25 06:39:14 UTCBCC90 No problem. If I lose my changes I can easily put them back. I use a program that uses a map based on osm and that is not updated for a while so can use that to check it
62018-06-26 23:50:50 UTCTigerMan90 Hi Warin61. I checked the affected area and all is good. As a matter of interest, how did you pick it up? I would love to know so I can check my future changes after uploading it to ensure it doesn't happen again. Thanks again
72018-06-26 23:56:20 UTCWarin61 Hi, I run OSMinspector .. usually first thing in the morning. As an area checker ..it picked up the building problem
Here you go https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=116.78174&lat=-32.55236&zoom=6

82018-06-27 00:00:28 UTCWarin61 Oh .. if you want to look for your 'errors' only then http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#zoom=8&lat=-32.223&lon=117.262&item=xxxx&level=1&tags=&fixable=&overlays=FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT and select 'issues by user' put in your details, check all the errors that it can li...
92018-06-27 00:04:24 UTCBCC90 Hi. Great I will check that tool out later will come in handy. Thankyou
102018-07-01 22:46:27 UTCTigerMan90 Hi, thanks for the links to these tools. In my case, did the OSM Inspector say something like that the buildings were destroyed in the overlays tree view? Thanks
112018-07-02 04:34:20 UTCWarin61 IIRC on the area checking .. something along the lines of crossed ways. Something like that.
12018-06-30 01:46:31 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Not all of this park has grass. And the tags landuse_1 leisure_1 etc are better tagged as separate items .. not generally for all the park.
It would be nice to have a name for this park.

Similar comments for Lake Weeroona Park
12018-06-28 04:03:52 UTCWarin61 Hi,
The tags you have added confuse things. I'd take the area as a park - that is its main function.
If you want to add drinking water ..then do that as a separate item .. preferably as a node where the water is. Playgrounds and picnic tables the same.
If you cannot be bothered but want to sign...
12018-06-28 01:32:58 UTCWarin61 Hi,
The total area is not

bare rock
dirt

Nor is mountain a land use..

This area needs work!

The 'old school forest' .. is not all trees. And might be better named as Zion Hill?

There are 2 areas tagged Zion Field .. .are they all the same name?
12018-06-27 23:56:20 UTCWarin61 Deleted.
Deleted Cowey Gang Path too.

They do not exist.
12018-06-27 01:52:54 UTCWarin61 This 'Monde Park' .. it is not visible in Bing... does it exist?

And grass is a surface .. is the Park entirely grass?
A garden? Of grass?
A pitch? for what sport?

I don't think so. I have left it as a park for now, but removed the rest.

22018-09-29 03:28:24 UTCBarty10101 I have made changes to the changeset to more accurately reflect the space. do you have any other feedback about the changes?

Thanks
12018-06-24 04:30:52 UTCWarin61 Hi,
You have chosen to use the tag 'produce=wood'. I think this could be confusing .. with the tag 'natural=wood' already in frequent use. I think the tag 'produce=timber' may be better?
Thoughts?
12018-06-24 04:21:22 UTCWarin61 Hi,
There are 2 landuse=forest here .. one with produce=wood the other without.
The one without. I assue this is simply a grout of trees .. why not tag them natural=wood?

The one with the tag produce=wood I assume is productive .. but the word wood I have trouble with .. I thing produce=timber...
22018-06-24 04:23:23 UTCWarin61 Err fat finger here.. again?
Hi,
There are 2 'landuse=forest' here .. one with 'produce=wood' the other without.

The one without. I assume this is simply a group of trees .. why not tag them natural=wood?

The one with the tag 'produce=wood' I assume is productive .. but the word 'wood' I hav...
32018-06-24 12:53:45 UTCMarkLD Hi Warin61,
I agree that the particular landuse=forest that was tagged produce=wood should be timber as it is a species (Pinus radiata) specifically used for construction, whereas those landuse=forests that are used primarily for paper production (i.e. Eucalyptus globulus) I am still happy to go wi...
12018-06-23 02:40:07 UTCWarin61 Hi,
I too am questioning the Sugar Delete SF .. it does not appear in the Forestry Corporation list of SF... Is the cadid ref 169381348 verifiable .. and links to something?
22018-06-23 03:14:59 UTCTheSwavu http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries/MapServer/5/query?where=cadid%3D169381348&text=&objectIds=&time=&geometry=&geometryType=esriGeometryEnvelope&inSR=&spatialRel=esriSpatialRelIntersects&relationParam=&outFields=*&a...
12018-06-19 22:53:05 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Unfortunately this breaks relations for
Mulligans Flat Nature Reserve
has some effect on the boundary for Throsby

Reverted. Start again .. but be carefull in deleting things.
22018-06-19 23:07:10 UTCNorkmeister Hi,
Yes I realised my mistake and wanted to revert all the changes, but couldn't find a way to do it easily. After three or four false starts trying to get the fence line in I decided that the GPX file provided was too inaccurate and gave up. I'm sure when they finish building it someone more local...
32018-06-19 23:12:52 UTCWarin61 Hi,
if you need help yell out on the Au talk group.
talk-au@openstreetmap.org .. you 'll need to subscribe. By locals who know the countryside.
12018-06-19 22:52:56 UTCWarin61 Unfortunately ...
The changeset that made this error also made other errors . So this 'fix' just makes fixing the rest of the errors .. harder?

I have reverted this changeset along with the other error causing changeset.
22018-06-19 23:26:40 UTCwambacher you should have malied me before the revert.

now it's your problem

walter
12018-06-15 07:18:54 UTCWarin61 Hi,

The reserve has a legal boundary shown in the LPI Base Map. The grass can begin or end at some other place - they don't need to be aligned.
12018-06-13 01:08:05 UTCWarin61 Hi,
An old entry .. but a question on it.
Relation: 2723199
Tags:
"landuse"="forest"
"type"="multipolygon"
"source"="Bing"
Near Laurieton. Is this simply a collection of trees .. or is it used for timber like a state ...
22018-06-13 02:59:32 UTCPeter W34 Hi Warin, Looks like a wooded area but not used for timber production at the moment. It is hard to tell whether it is managed as a forest. I would have kept the tags from the previous mapper.
12018-06-12 03:40:17 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Way: 466215252 - forest is not entirely covered with trees.. and if you look closely on th eLPI base map you can see it extends to the east for some distance too. I have extended the area and tagged it as a park. It could be a nature reserve though.
12018-06-06 23:16:45 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Welcome to OSM.
Your changeset comment of 'a lot, lot' is not helpfull. Looks to be detailing a residential plot? Why not say so?
Read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments for ideas?

The way 594113013 only has thetag area=yes .. but what is it? Looks like it could be...
22018-06-11 23:23:42 UTCWarin61 I have deleted some ways.
Some of these look to be in the middle of a building. Others appear to be irregular shapes of what look to be swimming pools - probably private swimming pools.
Remove multiple tags on a few nodes for a simple parking entrance on the same drive way.
12018-06-10 00:07:54 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Bing imagery cannot possibly be the source of these boundaries. What is your source?
22018-06-10 02:19:29 UTCKeith Probably just slipped thru, as it was capad
12018-06-06 23:33:12 UTCWarin61 HI,
These tags already exist in the relation - they are duplication and I have removed the tags... but

The relation is not closed.. as these 2 ways do not form an area Ways: 594644996 and 594644996.. perhaps they should be removed from the relation untill this can be resolved? Put tags on them ...
22018-06-06 23:59:07 UTCcleary I am still working on this relation. It is rather complex and I am doing it slowly and trying to doublecheck it. I should be finshed in a two or three days. Perhaps you might check again in a few days to be sure I have it right.
32018-06-07 00:16:02 UTCWarin61 Good Luck with it..
12018-06-05 23:00:14 UTCWarin61 Messed up .. not a closed relation presently. Warmbatcher has also beentrying to correct it.

I have used the LPI Base Map to close the relation ..
22018-06-06 09:26:26 UTCWarin61 The document is copyright ... do you have permission to copy it into OSM?
12018-06-04 09:34:31 UTCTheSwavu Hi,

Welcome to OSM.

What source are you using for the boundaries of Wianamatta Regional Park? Your changes do not match the data in the NPWS Estate or the LPI data sets.
22018-06-04 11:06:07 UTCDanial Stuart Atkinson Hi there - please refer to http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/planmanagement//final/20140041WianamattaRPVol1.pdf
32018-06-04 20:55:29 UTCTheSwavu There is a note right at the start of that document that says:

" All development areas included on plans are subject to change and represent indicative design for roads/
open space etc at the time of the Landscape Masterplan report being written. This will be subject to ongoing
design d...
42018-06-04 22:00:46 UTCDanial Stuart Atkinson See https://www.epnsw.com.au/projects/wianamatta-regional-park-masterplan/

See http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/parks-reserves-and-protected-areas/park-management/documents/wianamatta-regional-park
52018-06-04 23:35:10 UTCTheSwavu Err... your first link is just another link back to the same master plan you referred to before. Your second link is to the management plan that says in the first paragraph:

"This plan of management will apply to those lands and other land once acquired under the National Parks and Wildlife ...
62018-06-06 09:08:38 UTCWarin61 OSM maps the present .. not the predicted future.
72018-06-06 09:23:17 UTCWarin61 There is a copyright notice on;

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/planmanagement//final/20140041WianamattaRPVol1.pdf

https://www.epnsw.com.au/projects/wianamatta-regional-park-masterplan/

and the third document links to
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/help/copyright-disclaime...
12018-06-05 23:00:21 UTCWarin61 Not fixed... relation 6058483 also uses these ways... leave it to the locals???
22018-06-06 07:29:40 UTCglglgl If the locals don't seem to care about intact relations, then maybe it is not a good idea to leave it to them.
Instead, the last changeset done (assumedly) by a local destroyed the relations again and left them open.
32018-06-06 07:54:08 UTCglglgl And as far as I can tell, after my changes, the admin relations as well as the Regional Park relation was intact.
42018-06-06 09:19:13 UTCWarin61 Sigh. I've fixed it .. again. I hope he has better explications of what he is doing ...
Further comments on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/59521132 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/59584398
12018-06-06 07:30:23 UTCglglgl But leaving the admin relations broken is not really an option.
22018-06-06 09:03:05 UTCWarin61 You continue to break the relation 6058483 for the Wianamatta Regional Park.

And other relations...

WHY????
What are you trying to disconnect ... ??
Are you trying to disconnect South Creek from the boundaries?
If so .. how about make a way or relation for south creek - a new one. Then ...
12018-06-05 23:00:34 UTCWarin61 Broken relation 6058483 - wood.
Repaired....
22018-06-06 22:34:13 UTCberms Thank you for the message. I see where the issue was created which caused a gap and intersection between the wood multipolygon ways. I appreciate you making the correction.
12018-06-05 22:37:57 UTCWarin61 This has broken relation 6354226 - wetland.
I have corrected this using the NSW LPI Bzse Map ... and changed the appropriate source tags to suit.
22018-06-06 22:29:31 UTCberms I see that the wetland was accidentally collapsed. Thank you for making the correction and bringing it to my attention.
12018-06-02 22:42:24 UTCWarin61 Hi,
You set tree=evergreen in relation .. ? not in wiki? It does have leaf_cycle=evergreen so i have set that.
12018-06-02 11:00:35 UTCDruzhba I think assuming that "snow-covered in winter" means landcover=tundra at http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5985104 is not reliable enough. What are you planning?
22018-06-02 22:30:13 UTCWarin61 I don't know the area well enough to say it is tundra. I was working on removing sections of the treed area ... and I have now done that ... at least roughly. In the past the entire National Park was tagged as a treed area .. despite the lack of trees above the snow line and that the trees did not s...
12018-06-02 01:28:00 UTCWarin61 Hi,

I have used LIP Base Map to make one large park .. there do not look to be any boundaries in the LPI Base Map data.
The way is 592892827 and viewable here https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/592892827#map=15/-30.1043/153.2030
I think this might be the true extent of Woolgoolga Beach Reserve...
12018-06-01 05:20:52 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Way: Car yards (556625873) with the tags:
"name"="Car yards"
"building"="yes"
"shop"="car"

is not a building over that entire area... and is better left tagged as a landuse. Deleted.
The name should not be a descrip...
12018-05-31 00:04:35 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Relation: 8337801-wetland marsh .. is not good.

What a mess!
Did a general tidy up of both wetland and river. Try not to leave a mess behind you.
12018-05-29 22:59:37 UTCWarin61 This building ... is not correct yet.
Forget about the relation ... just do the building and get that right first.

I have deleted the relation and placed its tags on the bottom bit of the building.
So work on the building parts .. I'd help but I too get confused with them.
12018-05-29 22:53:05 UTCWarin61 As the Tallebudgera Creek river bank is already part of the relation that has the same tags .. these tags are duplications .. deleted.
12017-05-19 04:12:36 UTCWarin61 Katoomba St numbering looks to be in error ... compare it to LPI Base Map ...
.. and to mapped shops ..

I have corrected it around some surveyed shops.
22017-05-19 04:14:13 UTCWarin61 So far .. only near Bendigo bank...
32018-05-29 09:17:44 UTCWarin61 No response... deleting addresses.
12018-05-24 02:18:34 UTCWarin61 Hi,
St Patrick's Estate is not a park...
looks to be made up of separate land uses - school, residential etc..
22018-05-24 02:46:25 UTCFreshwaterBeach I agree with that. The area was previously tagged as a park, I'm not sure what tag would be more appropriate, so I have left it unchanged. I've just updated the area for the Estate from the source on their website.
32018-05-24 02:50:18 UTCWarin61 Opps .. not looking far enough at the tag history, sorry.
Not certain what to tag it. Don't think OSM has a tag for estates. I think the boundary is out of date anyway ... I adjusted some of it to the LPI Base Map think that is more accurate .. but even that is out of date.
42018-05-24 03:02:21 UTCFreshwaterBeach All good. 👍
12018-05-23 22:00:16 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Relations should not have ways that contain the same tags.. so all these outer ways with the same tag as the relation that you have created generate errors..
22018-05-23 22:52:49 UTCLingleBells Thank you, I’ll be sure to pay attention to that in the future.
12018-05-19 05:05:34 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Adding roundabouts ... they should be tagged 'junction=roundabouts'.
This one in particular needs to be added to a 'relation' for 'SVWM Swan Valley Scenic Loop Whiteman Park Link' .. as the addition of the roundabout breaks the connection between the two roads for that route.

I have corre...
22018-05-19 05:32:10 UTCshinjiman Okay, seems this was the first time to adding the roundabout there using the external tools. (Drawing the circle by ID seems very hard to achieve for that.)
12018-01-22 07:03:11 UTCaharvey whats https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/529140614 for? The Royal Botanic Garden is mapped out at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3744999 it seems to overlap it.
22018-01-22 08:00:52 UTCLeon K To be honest, not sure. I cleaned up the edge of an existing area, no idea how I ended up replacing it, especially since it was 4 months ago.
32018-05-17 22:46:33 UTCWarin61 ??? Deleted ... leisure=park ... inside the botanic gardens... make no sense.
42018-05-17 23:19:21 UTCLeon K I wish i'd never touched this one. As far as as I remember there were multiple areas overlapping. I remember smoothing the edge,
52018-05-18 00:37:16 UTCWarin61 Hopefully (wishful thinking?) I have managed to catch most of my mistakes before someone else noticed ...
Fingers crossed that this deletion is ok. I think it is .. I did some work on these gardens - separating up the domain etc ... and adding paths, art work .. that was some time ago.
Presently...
12018-05-12 05:49:00 UTCWarin61 Hi,
What sports are played here? Other than Aussie rules.
22018-05-14 00:50:19 UTCMJFC See list of Tenants here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Showground_Stadium

Cricket, soccer, Rugby League, and AFL all listed.
32018-05-14 01:16:03 UTCWarin61 Cannot use wikipedia due to copyright conflicts.
I have tagged it a cricket;multi as cricket is visible in imagery. Ozzie rules is tagged on the oval pitch, this pitch is the rectangular one.
42018-05-14 02:48:53 UTCMJFC Use of semi-colon value separator is frowned upon:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator
'multi' fits here; no need to isolate one sport over others.

FYI link to (non-wikipedia) source for information about use as a soccer field:
https://www.wanderland.com.au/services/...
52018-05-14 06:00:08 UTCWarin61 The use of the semi-colon separator is accepted for sports - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sport I quote it "Where a number of sports are associated with a single feature then separate the sports with a ';', for example 'gymnastics;badminton'. "
Your link has a copyright at ...
62018-05-14 06:02:18 UTCWarin61 sport=multi https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Asport%3Dmulti says "use list of sports instead (Semi-colon value separator, involving separating the items with a semicolon e.g. sport=basketball;soccer;volleyball ). This would be preferred if you know the list of sports the facility is mea...
12018-05-13 00:39:28 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Why do you claim these building are historic??? What is the source of the claim?
22018-05-13 12:03:14 UTCTheSwavu Recycled changeset comment. Take a look at the tagging in this changeset and none of them say historic. I was caught out by the same thing on one of their other changesets where they haven't changed the comment from the last thing they uploaded. As you've discovered the changeset comments don't get ...
32018-05-13 22:22:57 UTCWarin61 Yep. Discovered after I made the comment... was use to the comment 'updates' .. thought this one was better ... but was deceived.
12018-05-13 00:49:17 UTCWarin61 Hi,
This is not a building .. it may be a property, but it is not a building.
Deleted.
12018-05-12 22:34:09 UTCWarin61 HI,
OSMinspector objects to the way going back over itself. Does the ferry actually use the same path in both directions? Or is there a correct side for each direction of travel? If there is a different path then it would be best to map it.
22018-05-13 03:08:30 UTCNoskburg Group Hi , there are several ferries all part of one very large network that these ferry routes are for. And, yes one ferry on a particular route will at times go over the same route in the reverse direction as we have not yet been able to find the tags that allows a bi-directional route for ferries....
12018-05-12 00:08:57 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Some of the roads you are adding .. are not connected to the other roads .. they may look connected on a paper map but when used for routing they don't actually connect - the ways don't share a node.
12018-05-11 23:58:33 UTCWarin61 Hi,

You are creating 'relations' that are not closed. E.g Relation: 8284240 - tennis pitch. You are also creating a way e.g Way: 586936820 ... which has the same tags. The relations you create are not closed - they don't connect to form an area...
So these relations are - duplications or ways y...
12018-05-11 05:53:06 UTCWarin61 Hi
sport=football is not specific... does it mean rugby ... australian football or something else.
12018-05-11 05:31:50 UTCWarin61 Hi
sport-football is not good!
For multiple sports
sport=multi a little better
sport=rugby;soccer is better - please specify the known known sports.
12018-05-09 23:56:40 UTCaharvey reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/58835027 due to poor quality seo spam
22018-05-10 05:13:07 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Welcome to OSM.
You attempted to add an 'office' ?? But the node (point) you added only had the name, address etc data .. no OSM physical features. So the entry has been removed. Maybe if you add the node again but this time with office=yes or office=company it will remain. The description ta...
12018-05-10 00:00:12 UTCaharvey reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/58835066
22018-05-10 04:53:21 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Welcome to OSM.
This changeset moved a set of traffic lights well away from where they should be.
It also added a node (a point) that had no tags (data) and added a node with address 44;61 which makes no sense to me. There is already a node there with the address 44.
So... all this has be re...
12018-05-04 22:52:19 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Do you know this area?
It has me puzzled ... I can see no signs to say it is a 'park'. Agree that it is 'undeveloped' and may be best to tag it as an area of trees...
22018-05-04 23:48:19 UTCTony Cooke Hi,
Yes I do know the area.
To be fair, you could be right. There are a number of walking and BMX trails through the area but other than that it is undeveloped. I suspect I tagged it as a park simply because it seemed the best label.
I'm not aware of a park name - or I would have added it.
32018-05-05 03:09:03 UTCWarin61 From the LPI Base Map .. I expect it is part of the Hospital is some official way... possibly for future expansion, drawn up by a planer unaware of the topography.
Might be best to remove the park and recreation grounds tags as these are assumptions based on appearance/unofficial use?
42018-05-05 05:44:14 UTCTony Cooke I doubt it's hospital ground - it is quite steep - as is Denistone Park nearby. The hospital itself is on a level section. I suspect it was just left as greenspace, maybe originally remnant forest.
If you want to remove the tags, go for it.
12018-05-02 21:43:41 UTCWarin61 Hi,
The relation 584484312 carries a name ... but no physical or administration features ... What is it?????
22018-05-03 01:07:42 UTCwoowoowoo HI there, I'm sorry, relations do my head in! I can't find this relation 584484312. I did have some problems splitting up a former single building into three parts, but I thought I'd cleaned up all the bits. Are you able to clarify the problem?
32018-05-03 01:14:11 UTCWarin61 The relation has been deleted by someone... they are not considerate enough to leave any feedback.
My guide is .. don't use relations unless you really need to.
I can only assume that the name that was tagged on the deleted relation is now lost. It was a 3 digit number .. possibly a building num...
42018-05-03 01:36:50 UTCwoowoowoo Yeah, I was splitting up some buildings, and the ID editor sometimes creates relations automatically. So, it was probably just one of those fragments - certainly not anything I created deliberately, or was even aware I'd created. If it was a three digit number, it would have been one of the unimelb ...
52018-05-03 04:18:17 UTCWarin61 Arrr got the number wrong ..? The otehr one must be a way I fixed up.

It is relation 8257215 .. name=873 ... and it is still there so you can work out where the name should go.
12018-05-02 21:59:56 UTCWarin61 Hi
Relation 8256350 "natural=bare_rock' has 1 member - this does not need to be a relation. It is a simple way. Changed.
12018-05-02 21:59:37 UTCWarin61 Do not use the name= tag to describe something!!!!!!!
If you really must describe it then use the tag description=
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:description
22018-05-04 01:08:20 UTCSanityChek The name was temporary while I worked out what daft name they had given it, and found details of the monstrosity building they were putting up
12018-05-01 21:30:02 UTCWarin61 Hi,
The Gondwana Rainforests of Australia World Heritage Area relation is now not closed...
Secondly .. are you certain that the additions are part of the world heritage listing?

I'm not doing CAPAD ... leaving it to others.
22018-05-01 22:18:51 UTCnevw Thanks Warin
I have fixed now. I have not intentionally added any new Gondwana parts, just fixed the overlapping ways and duplicated nodes through JOSM from Capad updates. I will check against the Gondwana data for this area.
12018-04-28 23:42:17 UTCWarin61 Hi,
You have made the path part of the park. If it is to included as part of the park it needs to be defined as an area - not just a simple a=way.
12018-04-20 23:49:42 UTCWarin61 Regarding relation 8222546 - running track.

Basic relationship rules;

Relation outer ways should not touch each other

Relation way should not have the same tags as the relation.

------------------
I have separated out the running track and correct it.
Ways 581481805, 581481801 and 5...
22018-04-21 11:58:10 UTCBrettM6000 Hi, Thanks for looking at that. I'm happy to be corrected. My motivation was to show the synthetic surface of the field while still showing the main track. Originally I had most ways merged by decided to separate them out. I think that 581481805 should be merged into the main running track because i...
32018-04-25 01:45:29 UTCWarin61 You look to know more about the details there .. so I'd pass it back to you :)
Long jump is not well documented .. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dlong_jump

I was attracted by OSMinspector that detected a possible error. Having identified an error .. I fixed it as well as I coul...
42018-04-25 14:07:14 UTCBrettM6000 Hi. I merged parts of the track back together. I based it on what I could see at the Queensland Sports and Athletics Centre. I've never used OSM Inspector but I'll have a look at it. Let me know if warnings appear after my changes. Thanks.
52018-04-25 22:06:55 UTCWarin61 I keep an eye on OSMinspector https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=147.21387&lat=-31.88315&zoom=6 ... as it is fairly simple. There are other OA tools ... though they tend to be more picky and complex
https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?zoom=14&lat=-33.87613&lon=...
12018-04-25 01:33:18 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Relation 8229235 - shingle ...
As it is a simple single way ... why make it a relation?
Also ... this change set makes it an 'inner' role - as a hole in a non existent outer ... makes no sense.
I have deleted the relation .... the way is already tagged with shingle.
12018-04-21 00:07:58 UTCWarin61 Hi,
This changset has made a relationship for a National Park cross itself. I corrected it. Be carefull with things- they can be connected to more than what you are doing.
12018-04-19 21:04:07 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Relation 8217299 (heath) only has inners - there is no outer way.
22018-04-21 03:27:53 UTCKeith Fixed
12018-04-18 21:43:18 UTCWarin61 Hi,
This area appears to have better mapping on the LPI Base Map - more detail on twists and turns.
Do you mind if I change your entries to comply with the LPI data?
22018-04-19 01:55:39 UTCdhx1 If I recall correctly, the tracks I added in this changeset were traced from satellite imagery. So you are right that some twists and turns were probably hidden under trees in the satellite data. Feel free to change that to LPI data. I would suggest however checking the changes against Digital Globe...
32018-04-19 01:59:17 UTCdhx1 I just compared, and the current cliff lines in OpenStreetMap are very poor compared to the LPI Base Map. I'd say all the cliffs could be changed automatically--just delete the existing ones and replace with accurate LPI cliffs.
42018-04-19 02:18:45 UTCWarin61 The LPI Imagery is at least as good as the Digital Globe Imagery .. and it does not go white if you over zoom.
And yes the LPI Base Map has difference to the LPI Imagery .. so it is worth keeping an eye on the imagery where you can see what is being mapped. So I would tend to use the LPI Imagery h...
12018-04-17 05:11:18 UTCWarin61 Reverted. Some has already been undone.
12018-04-16 21:29:10 UTCWarin61 Hi,
This is not closed. I'm not getting into that CAPAD thing so I leave it to you.
12018-04-14 22:46:40 UTCWarin61 And has damaged relations for Clarinda District, Sandringham District, South-Eastern Metropolitan Region and Southern Metropolitan Region.

Way 5795202496 is named!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is a continuation of Charman and Chesterville Rds - junction in middle of the Nepean Hwy.

Repaired. Be more care...
12018-04-13 23:07:58 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Permanent Ave is two way, not one way. The road is only divided at the roundabouts.

If you want to separate it at each roundabout then be aware that there are 2 routes that will need modification as well.
22018-04-13 23:13:52 UTCWarin61 Similar for Prince Edward Ave. It is two way .. not one way... the road is not divided.
32018-04-13 23:18:00 UTCWarin61 Take a look at the LPI Base Map for how they split the roads at roundabouts ... they don't split it along the length unless the roads are split too.
42018-04-16 09:09:50 UTCaharvey We should try to avoid dual carriage ways like this, it just adds unnecessary complexity for what gain?
52018-04-16 09:11:28 UTCaharvey Wardell Road is kind of broken now with the oneway next to the twoway segments.
12018-04-13 22:50:32 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Reverted one node - used by a relation for a protected area.
12018-04-11 04:57:25 UTCWarin61 This is how you contact someone in OSM - you go to a changeset and make comment on it - you will need to log in.
To find the changeset in JOSM select the object then click on 'VIEW' top left of screen theh select 'history and you will see who did things to that object. Click on the changset and th...
12018-04-11 04:44:31 UTCWarin61 Hi,
The buildings you have added as Way: 505450991 and Way: 505451322 do not appear to exist. They have a road through them tat appears to exist.
This follows from a Diary entry https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/harrymahar/diary/43671#comments . As you can see I have named you, in part, in my r...
12018-04-10 22:37:14 UTCWarin61 Hi
The cycleway (way 573363541) .. does that connect to GIbson Street? They come close but have not connection in OSM .. so routing engines cannot rout a bicycle between the two.
12018-04-07 21:27:33 UTCWarin61 Hi, Welcom to OSM.
You have added 'Norman Crescent' ... this is named as 'Arkley Avenue' in the LPI Base Map. Are you certain of the name?
The road is also mapped as 2 one ways .. the road is a single 2 way road, it is not separated so a U turn can be done on it for instance. So it should be mapp...
22018-04-09 01:32:29 UTCaharvey Echoing what @Warin61 said, great start here, but these look like they should just be a single way down the road centre line (not a oneway way for each lane).
12018-04-03 21:01:20 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Beach relation 6554134 now has 0 width...
22018-04-03 22:31:53 UTCKeith How do you mean
32018-04-03 23:59:49 UTCWarin61 The beach has a length ... and a width.

The length is >0 meters
The width looks like 0 .. nothing.

As it is a relation, having 0 width is ridiculous. Arr the relation only has a surface=sand .. and is clearly part of the named beach. So I have combined the two into the one relation. This...
42018-04-04 00:54:49 UTCKeith I am assuming it is where i have have merged the nodes tof the inlet / river. Overlooked creating the sandbar/tidal zone. If you look at the warren river mouth that trace is incorrect in the sense that it is drawn as a water body to the ocean when it really part of a tidal / flood zone. That trace ...
52018-04-04 01:12:23 UTCWarin61 Firstly .. don't concentrate on 'display' but rather on correct tagging.
If you cannot find it on hte OSM wiki then try taginfo to see what others are using.
Alternative names? Cape? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcape

As for the sometimes river/sand surface...
Humm river...
62018-04-04 01:46:38 UTCKeith If you look at Relation: Sand Dunes (8171005) reef beach wa i have marked it as natural sand name sand dunes . When you look at these dunes in OsmAnd+ live it actually displays the sand dunes with the correct fill. eg ridges with a sand pattern. In osm it just displays as a sand polygon.
72018-04-04 03:35:43 UTCWarin61 Do NOT use the name tag as a description!
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name#Additional_data
"name=* tag is supposed to contain solely name"

If you must describe something use the tag "description=*"
82018-04-04 05:12:06 UTCKeith I will change to desc and see how it displays in OsmAnd. OsmAnd actually displays the polygon graphically correct which is a sand dune. Hopefully changing to desc will still display it graphically correct.
92018-04-04 06:29:48 UTCWarin61 Not about the 'display'. It is about being correct.
There are a large number of objects in OSM that have no name .. are they all to carry 'names' to describe them? Buildings? Tree areas? Grass areas? Water areas? Roundabouts? Toilets? All to carry descriptions of what they are in the 'name' space ...
102018-04-04 09:04:13 UTCKeith I use moving map software based upon when I look at the image on the screen and see that the arrow is in the sand dunes (the visual fill area of the polygon portrays that I am in the sand dunes) and I will be leaving the sand dunes shortly and arriving onto the beach area. When I am on that beach ar...
112018-04-04 09:22:07 UTCWarin61 Highways can have surface tags .. I use them, particularly on tracks. They can be displayed in OSMand .. some setting in its menus. Usually I just used 'unpaved' .. but it does distinguish between things like concrete .. so I'd hope it does something for sand too.
Tracks can also have other attribu...
122018-04-04 09:32:07 UTCWarin61 If you want more than my rants/ideas then the Oz talk group is good .... talk-au@openstreetmap.org
12018-04-02 01:04:13 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Thanks for repairing these.
12018-04-02 00:36:49 UTCWarin61 Hi,
You are changing the source of Way: 67803535. Yet you have not changed the tags on the way that say "source"="ABS_2006" and "attribution"="Based on Australian Bureau of Statistics data". These not are in error ... and should be changed.
22018-04-02 00:42:31 UTCWarin61 Err typo ...
'There are now in error ... and should be changed.'
32018-04-02 16:12:31 UTCkwametedros Hello, thanks for your comments. I will change the source info accordingly.
12018-03-31 21:26:22 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Is the D'Entrecasteaux National Park used for forestry? You have added the tag landuse=forest ... is it not just a land cover of trees .. not a land use?
22018-03-31 21:29:07 UTCWarin61 Oh .. not all of the area is covered by trees .. some of it is beach !
32018-03-31 23:42:50 UTCKeith I sort of inherited the setting for the NP. There seems to be a lack of presets for these types of things, european names like heath etc. In one way you have to build a series of layers over the top of that base layer like swamps etc and waterways. Big job
42018-04-01 02:47:16 UTCWarin61 1) Landuse=forestry was introduced for the first time with this changeset to this NP.

2) Trees don't usually start and stop at some administration boundary!
For example Lane Cove National Park https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2962929#map=13/-33.7737/151.1393 with tree area https://www.o...
52018-04-01 04:18:01 UTCKeith Okay I have changed the current ones I am doing to land cover. Unfortunately there is a lot of GIS data from years ago. There is the question of old boundarys (private property) that do not exist anymore that have been uploaded years ago. Yeagarup state forest has been taken in by the D'Entrecasteau...
62018-04-01 07:36:27 UTCWarin61 OSM specifies we don't use copyright data .. the source for D"Etrecasteaux NP is tagged as CAPAD 2016 .. think that is the best that can be done unless you have another source that is usable in OSM (non copyright or allowed by agreement).

After using landcover tags in a few NP I have come ...
72018-04-01 07:45:47 UTCWarin61 Without the tree area you can now see some problems ...
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7743426#map=12/-34.4876/115.7516 shows the state forest is still tagged .. as that is now part of the NP it can be retagged/removed. I'd retag it so that mappers can still see it, possibly from landuse=f...
82018-04-01 07:59:32 UTCKeith I started mapping the 4wd tracks in WA in 2001. I essentially drove the roads to create the track, applied waypoints to POI , geo referenced the photos and noted rd names, acquired some early satellite images from the USA and created maps for these parts of the coast. I got it to a point of creating...
12018-03-31 21:15:49 UTCWarin61 Hi,
These edits are resulting in the beaches getting crossed up.
Way so far effected are 485462676, 304473466, 485462672. There may be others too.
22018-04-02 15:57:19 UTCshawat94 Hey there,

Thanks for pointing this out! I was editing these coastlines with a filter on and must have not noticed I was editing a beach segment as well. I've replaced the crossed beach segments you noted and will review the other changesets from these edits to make sure there are no other crosse...
12018-03-11 20:32:54 UTCWarin61 Hi,
For things like parks use the LPI Base Map - it has the legal boundaries and names of the park. I have changed Rathmines Park to match the Base Map rather than imagery.
22018-03-27 03:12:03 UTCaharvey I think it's fine to use the imagery, in fact even preferable, after all the imagery reflect what's on the ground, which is what we should be mapping, not what the legal boundaries of the land parcels designated for the park.
32018-03-27 20:42:41 UTCWarin61 It can be hard to determine what is part of the park.
Is the Catalina Conference Center part of the Park?
Is the foot path to Starboard Close part of the park? And, if so .. how wide is the parks area there?
These things are easier to determine using the base map.
42018-03-28 15:12:25 UTCjkiht9 Next time I'll use both the imagery and LPI base map. I briefly visited the area in person and I mapped the limited bits I saw.
12018-03-17 20:26:35 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Some of these ways are used by other relations .. not just woods. This results in those relations being open ... and they need fixing... eg relation 3113565
As you now use another account .. I think this changeset should be reverted.
22018-03-18 01:05:05 UTCMulti Pass Hi,
Thanks for pointing out this issue. I didn't download the entire Lake Burbury relation when I modified it, hence it wasn't picked up by JOSM validator before I uploaded this changeset. It is a very simple fix, and I have also downloaded and rechecked the map data and there doesn't appear to be ...
12018-03-14 05:27:12 UTCnevw Hi Pwnedragon19
you have added too much detail with the Ashmont Pond Canal and water supply.
Just the real stuff on the ground is sufficient, thanks.
22018-03-16 05:56:46 UTCWarin61 Deleted the canal and water supply. Crosses boundaries in LPI Base Map, not eveident in LPI Imagery. Real stuff only in OSM please.

The buildings should be 'square' - use the S key in iD to do this.

The Finger Park looks like it should be larger .. use the LPI Base Map.

Ok? .. Keep mappi...
12018-03-13 21:43:25 UTCWarin61 Hi,
This has destroyed way 361670455 - a building...
22018-03-13 22:12:44 UTCdomhenry ok - how do I work which one yr referring to?
32018-03-14 07:45:44 UTCnevw Hi, it is this one...
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/361670455
42018-03-14 20:06:43 UTCdomhenry Oh boy that is a mess - I'll fix it up today
12018-03-12 21:36:12 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Memory test?
You named the Bulga trail 'no thorough road'. Is this for 'all' - including walkers, fire engines, land managers .. or is it for private cars/motorcycles .. ? And then is the 'end' at the gate in the north?
I have remove the description from the name, but think the access restr...
12018-03-11 00:11:19 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Relation 6361203 .. was tagged as a treed area .. you have added tags
name=Murchison Dam and waterway=dam ...

No .. this very large area is not a dam. I have remove these tags and reinstated natural=wood.
22018-03-11 04:14:32 UTCgreyim Oops I wondered about that Warin ... except the dam is not a wood either, its water!? -
Graham
32018-03-11 09:41:13 UTCWarin61 The area is ~ 100km east to west and ~ 50 km north south. Bit crinkly with edges and inner holes .. but it is a bit big for a dam.

Think you meant to target something else ... certainly made this area look as if the sea had risen a lot. :)
42018-03-12 02:15:55 UTCgreyim Oops i see Warin, I mistook the woodland inner hole for the dam lake itself, which is not so well defined. Especially the southern part of the lake, it's in 2 halves not sure why.... Graham
12018-03-06 21:15:11 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Welcome to OSM.
The 'Unnamed' track you introduced,
it got linked to an administrtion boundary and then draged the admindoundary awya from where it should be. I have undone that.
The name of 'unnamed' is not good ... use noname=yes. The name tag should ONLY be used for names, not other thin...
22018-03-06 22:24:52 UTCalanmcd Thanks for this
12018-03-05 22:30:15 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Looking at ways 565191189 and 565191193 ... these were not connected.

But I question the road classification! Most people here walk. I would think that these would be better classified as tracks .. looking at Digital Golbe Preium they are certainly smaller than the main connecting roads. The...
12018-03-05 22:18:05 UTCWarin61 Hi,
This has duplicated streets with a tag @id=way/somenumber ... these ways have no function... and generate errors ..
I'll leave it to you to fix the rest of these errors...
22018-03-06 16:15:22 UTCmelisramer Thank you! I'll be cleaning them up right now.
32018-03-06 16:45:46 UTCmelisramer Fixed in changeset #56940990
12018-03-04 20:57:32 UTCWarin61 Hi,
This dragged a node some 900 meters westwards .. making Isabella Drive wrong. I have moved it back. Take care.
12018-03-04 20:53:22 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Welcome to OSM.
Relations cannot share segments on outer ways.. So I have moved the tags on these relations to the individual ways and then deleted the relations.
12018-03-03 22:13:52 UTCWarin61 HI,
Welcome to OSM!
Are you local to this are?

A small improvement ..
Way 564917682 does not connect to way 564169861 .. they overlap but a routing engine will not think they are connected. I have merged nodes so they now connect.
I have also added the tag surface=unpaved.
There is a lot m...
22018-03-07 18:05:14 UTCAssai Hi!
No, I'm not a local. The source was an aereal image. I edited this area for https://tasks.hotosm.org/
Thank you for your feedback!
12018-03-01 20:40:18 UTCWarin61 Hi,
The entered buildings are not 'square' ... i.e. 90 degree corners.

In ID you can use S to set things 'square' see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Shortcuts#Modifying_objects

Of course not usefull for those buildings that are not square.
22018-03-02 01:52:24 UTCadamh Not all of the buildings are square...

However some are casually drawn, and id didn't permit complete precision. If i'd used josm and spent more time then it could be slightly better.

However all considered I think these are quite representative of the actual buildings and *way* better than wh...
12018-02-23 23:25:11 UTCWarin61 Hi,
When you divide a road into two .. please include the road name, if present, on the new section. Thanks.
12018-02-22 21:09:09 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Looks like you added tags on the ways of the relation 8042202 - Lake disappointment. These tags are duplicated of tag in the relation and should not be present.
The tag intermittent=* .. should only have yes or no as a value, dry is not a good value .. see the OSMwiki https://wiki.openstreetm...
22018-02-22 22:27:05 UTCspjaquish Hi Warin61,
Thank you for your comment! I now see how my tags were redundant. This was my first time editing tags on a lake so I appreciate the feedback!
Regards,
Spencer
12018-02-14 03:21:29 UTCTheSwavu Install PT assistant:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/PT_Assistant

Then you can do less finger crossing.
22018-02-14 04:23:36 UTCWarin61 May be so. But less understanding?

There is a present relationship that 'does' this line ... but osminspector reports it as not good. That has been ther for quite some time.
This is my attempt to get an 'osminspector good' train route for public transport v2. I think yesterdays effort was undo...
32018-02-14 04:33:38 UTCTheSwavu PT assistant adds some validation rules to JOSM, it just speeds up the trial and error process. You still need to know what you are doing.

Had a look at the other relation. It is a bit of a mess. Looks like someone tried to convert to PTv2 without knowing what that is.
42018-02-18 20:55:50 UTCWarin61 Yay. Valid according to osminspector. PT assistant thought it was valid before osminspector but more changes were needed. Don't think PT assistant was worth it for me. I do have some more to do before I'm happy with it. I'll do the original relationship and then do a diary entry on my thoughts on ho...
12018-02-17 20:59:17 UTCWarin61 Reverted.
This changeset;
broke relations for St Peters and Alexandria.
displaced Campbell Road from the location given by LPI Imagery.
It may have had impact on other things.

12018-02-13 21:21:06 UTCWarin61 Hi,
The way 560844072 you entered tagged leisure=pitch .. what sports are played here?
12018-02-12 23:05:27 UTCWarin61 Replaced way 543024409 the rings touches itself.
If you are going to map such detail .. do it well.

You have broken a administration boundary .. many times. That is going to involve a considerable amount of work and time to fix. It may be easiest to simply revert your changes to anything to do...
12018-02-12 07:46:06 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Using the base map you can see that this road leads to a farm (the homestead [ranch] has the name Wyoming) - so it is not 'unclassified' but 'service'.
Also the base map contains road names .. you can see this one has no name so noname=yes is a suitable tag. Note you must zoom in to say a 50m ...
22018-02-12 16:57:00 UTCspjaquish Hi Warin61,
Thank you for the advise on tagging, especially as it relates to homesteads and service roads.
I am at times apprehensive to use the noname=yes tag as I'm unsure if a road actually has no name in reality, or if it has a name but we are unable corroborate it with a resource at the mome...
32018-02-12 21:05:14 UTCWarin61 Any unnamed road could have a name added later. All 'we' have is the LPI Base Map (unless you survey .. and even than the sign could have been removed) so I use that .. and I also tag source:noname=LPI Base Map Feb 2018, This is the truth .. and 'we' can do no more. Adding fixmes all around the plac...
42018-02-13 17:26:25 UTCspjaquish Warin61,
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question! This information will be very useful, and hopefully make me a better OSM mapper moving forward!
12018-02-11 20:55:29 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Welcome to OSM.
These 'Horse Paddocks' ... you have tagged them as;
'buildings' that is an error.
'surface=ground' ... grass is a better description.
'name=Horse Paddock' .. that is a description .. not a name, so description=horse paddock is better.
Take a look on the OSMwiki?
https:...
12018-02-09 21:02:57 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Assume you are local to this area?
There needs to be a resolution between
Way: Betley Cycle Track (338425982) [which presently crosses itself] and the
Dunolly Havelock Cycle Trail (346449700) that looks to use parts of the Betley Cycle Track.
22018-02-10 03:56:05 UTCmodellerau No, I not local, but using OSM Inspector, I corrected an Error and noticed may other warnings. These were mainly crossing ways, which I added an intersection at each one, thus removing the warnings. As to your concern, I cannot provide a resolution
32018-02-10 05:29:21 UTCWarin61 Errr .. I think that is the wrong thing to do for this way.

While it may remove the 'errors' in osminspector .. it may confuse the real problem here.
Best to contact a local and have them look at it.
12018-02-09 20:04:48 UTCWarin61 Deleted Way: 255733717. Poor duplication of Way: 255733720.
In this area the imagery that should be used is the LPI Imagery - better resolution and positional accuracy.
22018-02-09 21:41:37 UTCjaecord Thanks for the catch, again! I fixed the geometry of the pier and deleted the duplicate way. When I first started working on these piers, I didn't check for the LPI Imagery until later in the day. I will go back through piers I created and try to catch any that should be improved. Thanks again!
32018-02-09 22:25:40 UTCWarin61 No worries.
I had intended to do it myself ... but you were too quick for me! :)
These show up on osminspector as area problems, that is how I come across them.. mainly looking for my own errors.
42018-02-09 22:35:32 UTCjaecord Oh nice! I just started playing around in OSM Inspector but didn't check out that Areas View, thanks for the tip. I'll try make more use out of that tool for sure.
12018-02-09 21:03:09 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Welcome to OSM.
For this park ... the park encompasses the footway so the park boundaries don't stop with the footway. If you look at the LPI Base Map you can see the legal boundaries for this park so you can get the boundaries right. I have made these changes. Take a look at it.
Keep mappin...
12018-02-08 20:54:51 UTCWarin61 Hi,

There was a typo - highway=unclasified ... As I suffer from these too I took a look at them ... most are unclassified, but some are tracks or service. I use the LPI Base Map to determine the 'track, service' thing .. doted lines = track or service. Service is a short section leading to buildi...
12018-02-06 20:51:46 UTCWarin61 Hi
Removal of way 2765771 has damaged Relation: Daintree Close Park (6311578) .. unclosing it.
Suggest you reinstate way 2765771 and place it back into Relation: Daintree Close Park (6311578) with role outer.
12018-02-06 20:46:59 UTCWarin61 Has broken relation 1601491.
22018-02-06 20:49:31 UTCderyadilmen thanks much for the correction
12018-02-06 20:44:34 UTCWarin61 Hi.
This changeset has caused problems with a beach area.
Also the source and attribution tags do not reflect the new source. Is this source better than the old source? And are you mapping the hi tide mark, low tide mark or some other water level?
22018-02-06 20:47:43 UTCderyadilmen Hello, sorry, thank you for the correction. I am trying to map high water level mark as it has mentioned on wiki coastline page, but I am editing the coastline for the first time, greatly appreciated comments
12018-02-06 20:25:45 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Movement of node 6504008 has resulted in crossing of way forming river bank. I have corrected this. Take care.
22018-02-06 21:20:21 UTCjaecord Hi,
Thank you for taking the time correct that resulting error for me. Same to you!
12018-02-06 20:25:34 UTCWarin61 Hi
Moving node 3947680995 has caused the relation for the baths to cross... I have corrected this .. though probably not as it was intend. Take care....
22018-02-06 20:50:49 UTCderyadilmen thank you very much for the correction, I tried to not mess up with relations. I have missed this one.
12018-02-04 03:42:23 UTCkeithonearth Hi Warin61, are you familiar with the area that had been tagged area=yes? Because it seems to me that it is more accurate to tag it as an area.

While the entire area isn't accessible due to the vegetable hawkers' stalls, it's not just the periphery that is publicly accessible.

As such I'm ad...
22018-02-04 05:08:59 UTCWarin61 Hi,
That is a fair time ago. Thanks for the comment!

2 issues.

First. The added tag of amenity=marketplace .. the OSM guide is one feature one OSM element .. as either this way is a foot path or a market place.. as it was originally tagged a footpath I'd use a separate OSM entry for the mar...
32018-02-05 04:08:57 UTCkeithonearth Hi Warin, thanks for your quick reply. I hope my initial message didn't come across as rude. After sending it I was thinking I could have been more polite. Sorry about that.

You make some good points. And I agree, that the way I've done it is not ideal, but I do think it is an improvement.

To...
12018-02-02 22:44:40 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Way 552423085 you have tagged as 'unclassified'. If you look on the LPI Base Map you can see it is of lesser class that the other roads .. so I take it as a 'track'. Further you can see it has no name, so I have changed it to highway=track and added noname=yes, source=LPI Base Map for track and...
22018-02-02 23:21:50 UTCspjaquish Hi Warin61,
Thank you for your comment, and for reviewing my edits to the map! At times it can be tricky to determine the highway tags, especially in forested regions close to towns. But I see now why "track" would have been a better suited tag for this road segment.
Also, thank you fo...
12018-01-31 20:12:33 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Welcome to OSM. I agree that the playground is part of the park and should not be excluded, some mappers think they should be excluded for some reason...

But the outer way 141188773 was removed from the relation too. I have put it back, so the relation is now closed.
12018-01-30 04:27:08 UTCWarin61 Hi,
I have deleted your added Way: Phoebe Court (510892796) that is a duplication of preexisting Way: Phoebe Court (30705255).

Your addition has more resolution, but no turning circle. You may also like y=to reference strava for location accuracy .. and reference something for the road name.. \...
12018-01-22 20:01:31 UTCWarin61 HI,

There are more than roads here. This has broken a relationship here for the suburb boundary of Evanston. Be carefull.
12018-01-21 21:20:28 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Red Hill railway station (node 2522880885) - Is there actually anything left of this railway station left on the ground?
22018-01-22 10:20:50 UTCstevage No station building, think there might be an information board.
12018-01-21 21:18:35 UTCWarin61 Is there actually anything left of this railway station left on the ground?
22018-03-02 23:19:19 UTCEwen Hill Happy to have it set to abandoned (I didn't really understand the reason for it not showing 4 yrs ago)
12018-01-20 08:51:37 UTCaharvey It's marked as a shared zone on the ground. When the markets are on it's more like a pedestrian, when it's weekday it's probably more like service or residential.
22018-01-20 20:26:33 UTCWarin61 'It' being Argyle St?
This tagging is from Changeset: 13654452 by Ebenezer some 5 years ago.I did not notice it...
All 3 sat imagery show it as a market place with bollards top and bottom - the LPI is clearest.
Could it be tagged as residential with opening hours and pedestrian with the market...
12017-12-10 03:55:06 UTCWarin61 Hi,
1) The change set comment "change" does not describe what you are doing. This has been noted before yet you continue to use it.
2) You look to be ignoring the problems you have made through the changes you have made on existing OSM data. Please make corrections to fix these errors t...
22017-12-10 04:01:45 UTCWarin61 Note: Any messages you send me concerning this will be copied here, so others can see you response.
32018-01-19 18:19:02 UTCVitru As Bardaster continues to map thoughtlessly: What do you think about reverting his changes?
42018-01-19 19:47:30 UTCWarin61 The few changes I have looked at have some justification. The problem I find is the conflict with previous mapping.
Perhaps a block?
12018-01-18 20:34:29 UTCWarin61 Hi,
The relation for Red Cliffs Primary School (7910556, v1) shares segments of outer ways. That is not good. It is also tagged as a school and a park.. it cannot be both! OSM like the have one entry for one feature.

I have made the southern way the school and the northern way a park .. as that...
22018-01-18 21:08:42 UTCGlenhope1 Yeah someone originally added it as two parts, ie, the school oval was incorrectly marked as a separate park. I merged the areas. You're right, It should not have the park tag.
12018-01-14 22:01:18 UTCaharvey here you added the opening hours of the royal botanic gardens as closing at sunset, however the signs at the gates actually list an exact time for each month of the year which coincides with sunset. While I'm not too fussed but would prefer to map the signposted monthly times, what do you think?
22018-01-14 23:19:24 UTCWarin61 Fine, that info must have came off a sign at one of the gates .. update it.
12018-01-14 20:10:18 UTCWarin61 Hi,
This boundary is not closed (it does not form a loop to enclose an area). Are you going to finish it? Or should it just be deleted?
22018-01-14 22:22:47 UTCTuanIfan I'll do it tonight
32018-01-14 23:53:22 UTCTheSwavu And while you're at it: what is the source of this data?
42018-01-15 04:33:59 UTCTuanIfan @TheSwavu: it is based on the Interactive Mapping site of the Brisbane City council. I'll add the source later in my future edits.
52018-01-15 09:41:50 UTCTheSwavu OK, so that explains the Brisbane ones. Where did the ones around Bundaberg, that you put in, come from? And how about dropping a message on talk-au (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au) to let other mappers know that you are planning an import (which is step two of the guidelines https...
62018-01-15 10:00:56 UTCTuanIfan Hi Swavu,

Bundaberg boundaries were drawn quite a few years ago, during a few months i was in hospital. I drew them on JOSM everyday based on Bundaberg Regional council's mapping site as well.

That's great to know all the steps. I haven't read the guidelines until now.

Just a small questio...
72018-01-15 10:08:37 UTCTheSwavu It applies to anything you copy from another map or dataset.

It also means we have a problem with the Bundaberg boundaries because we don't have permission to use them in OSM.
82018-01-15 10:16:08 UTCTuanIfan Thanks for your clear explanation.
12018-01-14 19:36:53 UTCWarin61 Your changeset comment says nothing...
Please read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

What is the source of this information??

12018-01-11 20:18:14 UTCTheSwavu This changeset has been reverted.

These boundaries were imported from the NSW LPI dataset and are therefore what the owner of this reserve thinks are correct.

You will find many examples where the existing road does not fit within the original road reserve. This just represents the facts on ...
22018-01-11 20:18:30 UTCTheSwavu 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...
32018-01-11 21:51:40 UTCFreshwaterBeach No worries, my mistake. Thanks for clarifying!
42018-01-12 22:38:17 UTCWarin61 HI,
Welcome to OSM.
You will find there are a variety of views here. The boundary you changed was from the NSW Land And Property Information department - they are supposed to keep the property boundaries. I think the ones you changed are legal easements .. possibly for roads or even electricity s...
12018-01-09 21:55:06 UTCWarin61 Hi,
The relation added relation for the Long Reef SLSC is not correct. Relations cannot have outer that share the same ways.

From the satellite look of it, it is one building with several parts - this should be tagged with a single outer way. then if you want add ways for each part and tag them...
12018-01-02 13:04:16 UTCmueschel Hi,
you used the key "gone:railway" for this railway. 'gone' is none of the usual lifecycle prefixes - If the rails have been removed, it should be "railway = razed", see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Demolished_Railway

Jan
22018-01-02 22:20:21 UTCWarin61 I agree 'gone: is not 'usual' - still thinking about it. I used this as a temporary hold for transfer of data to Open Historical Map (I hope).

'railway=razed' may only apply to track, not stations and other railway things. I think it is a poor tag! I would much rather have something like 'gone:'...
32018-01-02 22:24:48 UTCmueschel "razed:" is also quite common: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/razed%3Arailway#values

For these long-gone objects it might indeed be better to remove them completly, but others might disagree.
42018-01-02 22:47:16 UTCWarin61 "others might disagree" ... Yes .. 'they' will disagree! However if a good alternative is offered (such as OHM) then 'we' might get agreement, at least the vast majority? Fingers crossed.

razed: is not on the wiki .. probably because the vast majority would 'disagree' with it :)
52018-01-03 23:50:41 UTCWarin61 I have now copied this railway line to OHM .. and it is there nicely.

Sections of this line I have tagged 'ruined:' other sections 'nonexistent:' and the southern platform/station abandoned:

Not firm on the ruined: nor nonexistent: ... see how discussions on the tagging list go. Then I may ma...
62018-01-04 20:20:28 UTCmueschel ruins: is used more often than ruined: and nonexistent: is not used anywhere else.

Why not add razed: to the lifecycle prefixes? This should not be a problem, the page is just a plain list of used tags, not proposing any. Used already >>1000 times and would be a good fit, also because xzy=...
72018-01-04 21:58:37 UTCWarin61 Tags at present;

razed means the same as demolished.
removed means something different from razed, both of these say something about the method used to gain the absence of the feature. Yet the on the ground result is the same - the feature is no longer there. As a mapper I may not be able to de...
12017-12-31 03:29:57 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Looks to be little left of this line (former Buninyong line). The associated stations too have disappeared. Should this be removed from OSM and put on OHM?
22018-01-03 22:56:10 UTCWarin61 I have now copied this railway line to OHM .. and it is there nicely.

Sections of this line I have tagged 'ruined:' other sections 'nonexistent:' and the southern platform/station abandoned:

I think that truly represents what is there. And, for those that want the history .. they can use OHM, ...
12017-12-31 03:30:21 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Looks to be little left of this line (former Buninyong line). The associated stations too have disappeared. Should this be removed from OSM and put on OHM?
22017-12-31 03:35:27 UTCLeon K Yes, there is nothing except a platform at the southern end.

I gave up trying to fix abandoned lines in Vic, there are one or two users who insist on putting long gone tracks in as disused.
After enough edit wars i've given up :-)
32018-01-03 22:54:32 UTCWarin61 I have now copied this railway line to OHM .. and it is there nicely.

Sections of this line I have tagged 'ruined:' other sections 'nonexistent:' and the southern platform/station abandoned:

I think that truly represents what is there. And, for those that want the history .. they can use OHM,...
12018-01-01 20:20:52 UTCWarin61 Hi,
you entered 2 relations for groups of 3 houses.
1) The 'relationship' is unnecessary. All the buildings can be tagged as building=house on their ways, the relationship adds nothing to the information.
2) Relationships should not have touching or crossing outer ways. These do.

I have remov...
12018-01-01 00:10:08 UTCWarin61 Hi,
As the Buninyony line is mostly gone now I believe it should be moved to Open Historic Map. Once that is done, most of it should be removed from OSM as it is not present on the ground.

Yet to achieve the movement of the data. Once I have gained that knowledge I think there are many more lin...
22018-03-02 23:20:58 UTCEwen Hill Happy to have it set this one to abandoned (I didn't really understand the reason for it not showing 4 yrs ago). The Old Ghan is a separate issue
12017-12-30 20:58:40 UTCWarin61 Hi.
I'll use Goodwin Retirement Village as an example.
Here you have a relation that has declared every building an inner of the 'village'. This means that every building is not part of the retirement village. I think that every building inside the outer way IS part of the retirement village! So e...
22018-01-04 02:41:41 UTCTravelTrog Thanks for the clarification. Much appreciated!
12017-12-28 03:59:22 UTCWarin61 Hi,
If you use JOSM for your edits ... then you can save your work to your local hard drive .. and work on it there. This saves loading up things that need further work .. like this path.

At the moment this renders .. as a path ..
It also generates error messages on OSMinspector. You could ch...
12017-12-27 21:30:06 UTCWarin61 Hi,
I think Macpherson Street may now be open?
12017-12-26 20:38:38 UTCWarin61 HI,
Question. You have the service lane with the same name as the lead in street. Is this true? Usually service lanes around me have a different name. Both are now named Minno Street.
22017-12-26 20:52:36 UTCWarin61 HI again,
Just looked and your a 'new' editor. Welcome!

I have some more questions on the service lane - you have it tagged as a driveway.. And no horses?
As a driveway - they don't usually have names.. at least around me. There is usually no restriction on horses .. are there really signs up...
12017-12-26 20:15:37 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Way 7839620 has a duplicate_segment from node 5302648261 to node 5302648250. The usual mthod of doing voids in buildings is make a relation with an outer way and an inner way.. However you look to be making a building consisting of parts - see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:pa...
12017-12-24 22:47:33 UTCWarin61 HI,

I have changed the OVO building ... it may not be the way you intended but it now matches what OSM 3D wants ... in particular building:part and a building relationship have been added along with a height estimation based on 3m per floor. Please take a look at it and make changes to suit.
12017-12-23 20:51:08 UTCWarin61 Hi,

This broke a boundary relation for Burwood Council.

-----------------------------------------
More care needed?
22018-01-04 00:41:12 UTCspjaquish Hi @Warin61
Thank you for your comment, and for identifying this issue. I will exercise greater caution when handling boundaries in the future.
12017-12-23 20:47:51 UTCWarin61 Hi,

This broke a boundary relation for Milsons Point.
12017-12-23 20:47:06 UTCWarin61 Hi,

This broke a boundary relation for St Ives.
12017-12-21 21:50:27 UTCWarin61 Hi,

Some of these highways are not 'connected' - that is they don't link up with other highways. This means it is impossibly for a router to use them to form a route. If they are closed to the public (motor vehicle/foot etc) then use access tags to specify that, don't leave them disconnected. If ...
12017-12-19 19:21:41 UTCWarin61 Welcome to OSM.

You have created a relation for the Mount Stromlo Water Treatment Plant. As part of that relation ship you have excluded various things from that relationship ... and therefore from the Mount Stromlo Water Treatment Plant. Yet at least some of these are defiantly part and parcel ...
22017-12-30 01:33:44 UTCTravelTrog Thanks for the tip.

I was attempting to update the plant's boundary which has a double security fence. Part of the outer fence had already been used as part of the Stromlo Forest boundary and the remainder not yet added as a separate entity. Part of the inner fence was joined incorrectly to the o...
12017-12-16 19:49:48 UTCWarin61 Hi,
In the relationship 7814228 for this retirement village ... why are some buildings excluded from the village? I suppose what I am getting at is .. is the relationship really required?
22017-12-30 01:16:18 UTCTravelTrog Thanks for getting in touch

I've been away for a couple of weeks and only catching-up with email now.

I'm a novice so I may be overlooking some basic things. I've had another look at the Goodwin Retirement Village and all the buildings seem to be in the relationship. Some inner paths weren't i...
12017-12-13 05:19:57 UTCSunfishtommy In this changeset you outlined areas that seem to be a town and labeled them as airdrome=airport. The town of Balimo. I am going to fix it, but double check your changes residential areas should really be landuse=residential.
22017-12-13 05:25:27 UTCSunfishtommy Also I just double checked the place where you put the Balimo airport in this changeset is not where it is actually located.
32017-12-13 07:51:49 UTCWarin61 Thanks for spotting this error! I wonder how I made it... I certainly would not have added all that wikipedia and other detailed tags .. I'll add those to the correct airport .. but my error.
12017-12-04 00:36:01 UTCtonyf1 Hi. Welcome to OSM. You have changed relation 7125879, which extends 2km south of your new subdivision road all the way to the Peter Murrel State Reserve from natural=wood to landuse=residential. Is this what you intended?
22017-12-07 01:18:15 UTCWarin61 Hi,
I have changed this back to trees .. that is what is observable in bing. Newton3 .. you need to say what you are using for this change - it could be 'local knowledge' - that is very good and will trump any satellite imagery! However the relation, as ronyf1, says covers some areas that are desig...
32017-12-07 02:25:51 UTCtonyf1 Thanks Warin61
42017-12-10 23:28:49 UTCWarin61 Hi,
I have separated the relation into 2 relations. The northern one could be a residential development Relation: 7798537. I have left it as trees, but it could be come landuse=brownfield with things are being built then landuse=residential .. but it needs local input to be certain.
Over to you ...
12017-12-09 02:20:44 UTCWarin61 Hi,
removal of way 4754106 has destroyed relation 7780209 as this was the outer for the relation. Did you really mean to remove the relation?
22017-12-10 15:17:32 UTCOSM_Ravage Howdy Warin61,
I do believe this was intentional, it's possible that I've misunderstood how to properly use the merge function when I added the parks inside the landuse boundary. This is, and was a temporary solution until I completely unhook the parks from the residential boundaries, and/or parcel...
32017-12-10 20:25:16 UTCWarin61 Ok,
I have deleted the relation.
landuse=residential is not intended to mark individual properties. Accepted practice is to mark a block, suburb, village, town or city. Having small areas of other landuse inside landuse=residential is accepted practice. So I don't think that this will improve the...
42017-12-11 03:36:46 UTCOSM_Ravage Yes, once the houses get parceled in, I'll be adding in the numbers, it's a work in progress.
12017-11-29 20:46:01 UTCWarin61 Hi,
You changes have generated a number of problems.
Take a look at
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=146.6&lat=-38.7&zoom=11
You need to realize there is already stuff there, moving nodes around makes the old stuff wrong.
I'm not an Id user so cannot help you there....
22017-11-29 21:02:12 UTCWarin61 Please respond to this message.
32017-11-30 01:40:09 UTCWarin61 You have approximately 23 errors on http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=146.6&lat=-38.7&zoom=11. I am not going through your multiple edits to determine which error goes exactly with what change set.
Please correct the errors.
12017-11-28 21:53:04 UTCWarin61 Hi,
relation 7676161 (farmland) has had it only outer way removed - now consists only of inner ... should this relation be removed???
22018-03-02 23:22:44 UTCEwen Hill Sorry, just saw this. If you think it needs rectifying, please do.
12017-11-28 21:44:05 UTCWarin61 Hi, welcome to OSM.

You have removed the name 'Manns Beach' from an administrative area ... Why? Note this is the name of an area .. it may take its name from a beach ... so it may be larger than the beach itself.

Your changes may have made the ways 'self intersect' .. but some one has correc...
12017-11-25 20:53:18 UTCWarin61 HI,
Welcome to OSM.

The way 540628661 tagged 'landuse=residential' has some problems.
First I cannot see it with the source you have of LIP Imagery .. but it does show up with bing - so I'll add the source tag to the way 540628661 - that will make it clear to anyone else who comes along. Err ....
12017-11-21 21:36:05 UTCWarin61 Hi,
These wetlands would be better mapped as a relation.
Using relations would allow the use of the river bank as part of the outer way.

At present these generate errors on OSMinspector - ways with shared segments.
22017-11-22 15:44:42 UTCArietigue Hi,
Thanks, I'll look into that.
Regards.
12017-11-19 22:45:25 UTCaharvey With the survey marks you've added like https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3245917272

How about:
* use the ref tag for the number so it's machine readable
* use survey_point=mark or something like that to distinguish from trig stations with a pillar
* what's the value of repeating the coordina...
22017-11-19 23:20:38 UTCWarin61 Hi,
I used the note to preserve the location .. if someone moved it (for what ever reason) I would have a reference for moving it back without going through my sources.

Source ... umm will have to think on it. ?LPI ...
I used these for minor alignment with LPI base map, my gpx files
Yes to ...
12017-11-19 20:04:36 UTCWarin61 Hi,
The name key should not be used to describe the function. Use the description key if you must. E.G. 'Pit Lane' way 116586618.
12017-11-13 21:37:16 UTCWarin61 Hi,
The relation 7723473 - building=house has 3 outers that touch. This is flagged as an error in OSMinspector. They do look like all one building - so a single way rather than a relation?
22017-11-14 05:29:36 UTCJoel Hansen Yeah this is probably due to the way the iD editor handles merging.

Anyway I fixed it.
12017-11-13 02:04:02 UTCWarin61 Hi
In Australia the default language is English. OSM tag the name=* tag to be the same as the name:en=* to be the same (in Australia). Yet you have them as different. Just use the name=* tag. If there is a local name or alt name then use the tags loc_name=* or alt_name=*
12017-11-12 21:50:35 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Relations don't like touching outer - you have 2 touching buildings... in this relation 7722753.
Do they really touch?
If so is there is 'knock through' to provide passage between the two? Then they would be considered one building.
Or if they don't touch at the walls then separate them - ...
22017-11-13 04:11:32 UTCJoel Hansen No it's all one building, Just a different roof.

I've fixed it now.
12017-11-12 21:44:38 UTCWarin61 Hi,
The Lalor Library relation 7725472 has 2 building that touch one another, there roles are 'outer' in the relation. Relations don't like touching outers.
So .. do the buildings really touch? If so is there not a 'knock through' to provide passage between the two - thus making one building? O...
22017-11-13 12:43:03 UTCTuanIfan Well it seems the two buildings are interconnected and there is a path between the two. The eastern building is older and is retained, while the left side one was built later as part of the enlargement of the Library.
I also wanted to "build" a single building=yes for the whole thing, bu...
12017-11-10 08:48:53 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Happy to see someone else mapping bus routes!
The later public transport method is not too hard to use in OSM ... I did Relation: 686 (7258397) with some help ... see http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7258397#map=15/-33.7219/150.3061 This too does not have all the stops nor the stop refe...
22017-11-10 09:33:00 UTCSam Wilson Thanks!

I've only just discovered route relations, and that each direction is a separate relation. Have to go back and re-do some I did a couple of years ago.

I wrote a diary entry about the 158, with pics: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Sam%20Wilson/diary/42690
32017-11-10 09:35:08 UTCSam Wilson Oh, and I just noticed that you're doing highway=bus_stop as well as public_transport=platform... oops. I'll fix mine up.
12017-11-08 21:01:53 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Relation 7712903 - highway=service ... does not need to be a relation. It is a simple area that continues under the roof (so the roof is not an inner). It does not need a label .. and the star mart has no role in the relationship. Deleted the relationship and put highway=service on the way. Fix...
22017-11-10 13:19:15 UTCTuanIfan Hi Warin 61,

Thanks for your explanation. Greatly appreciate your help and review of those edits :)
12017-11-01 21:16:53 UTCWarin61 These 'lakes' cannot be relied on to have water .. so the tag intermittent=yes should be used.
12017-11-01 21:09:34 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Way: 537154004 (building=roof) that you added here crosses it self... that is rather confusing and does not really happen in the real world.
Take a look at it.
22017-11-01 21:18:22 UTCTuanIfan Hi Warin61, you're right. I was thinking if it was a footpath connecting two buildings or it was an extension of the church itself. Anw, i'll visit the place again to find out .
12017-10-31 05:19:47 UTCtonyf1 Hi. I don't know if it is a town or a suburb but I suspect that this is a controversial change that may require consultation with the mapping community.
22017-10-31 07:02:58 UTCWarin61 Take a look at the Sydney relation:(5729534) .. that is a suburb.

If you want Parramatta as a city/town etc then maybe look at what has been done for Sydney as a city?

But I'd recommend contact on the Australian mailing list first.. talk-au@openstreetmap.org

In the mean time I have chan...
32017-11-02 06:05:17 UTCaharvey +1 with discussing this change.

I tried to document the current situation at
https://gist.github.com/andrewharvey/6c55bff57b96481528cc4da974e69e35

In summary, I'm okay with how it is currently, but still think we should distinguish certain suburbs as higher ranking (eg. Parramatta vs Harris ...
42017-11-02 07:05:42 UTCtonyf1 Interestingly, closer to home for me, Dandenong is a town - Node: Dandenong (67340420) and Node: Berwick (2166885522) is a suburb despite being further out. Both were towns before greater Melbourne absorbed them.
12017-10-26 20:47:35 UTCWarin61 Hi,
This moves coastline to back of beach ...
22017-10-29 22:14:39 UTCRichardA Thanks, feel free to fix it. The beach wasn't there at all when I started, nor was the track to get down to it. The polygons got messy with 'trees on the beach' and I did the best I could.
Cheers.
12017-10-19 22:45:29 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Relation \t7660949 - highway=pedestrian .... with one member as an inner ... is wrong!

I think the area is a tree area .. and should be simply tagged on the way 533296035 as natural=wood and landcover=trees. The relation 7660949 can be deleted.

The relation 7660948 highway=pedestrian ....
22017-10-20 00:28:00 UTCaharvey PS. maybe also try editing in JOSM, personally I find it easier to deal with relations compared with the iD editor.
32017-10-22 10:14:16 UTCJoel Hansen OK, I tried the changes you suggested. Not sure if it's what you wanted exact to how you said.

I have tried JOSM, but find it a bit too complex, that's why I used iD.
42017-10-22 21:31:14 UTCWarin61 Some comments;

The tag "area=yes" is not required.

The Relation: 7670619 has one member Way: 533296035 as "inner". But an inner of what??? Water Park Wet 'n' Wild Gold Coast? Retail Movie World? Village Boundary Oxenford? County Boundary Gold Coast City? State Boundary Que...
52017-10-25 02:33:04 UTCJoel Hansen Yeah ID is a bit different. But I think I got it!
62017-10-25 09:38:06 UTCWarin61 Good Luck - keep mapping.
12017-10-22 01:05:13 UTCWarin61 Hi
Name of Way: Gravesend-Gineroi Road (104487552) looks wrong. I have added alt_name from LPI Base Map of Elcombe Road .. but I think it should be name=Elcombe Road .. as it is on the southern end.
12017-10-21 22:57:14 UTCWarin61 Hi,

What 'alignment' were you trying to fix?

By moving node 4067681594 you have caused the administration boundary of Coffs Harbour to cross itself and not be in the correct place.
I have fixed the admin boundary and done my best around that node to the coast line and the beach relations.
22017-10-22 00:21:43 UTCxdiamondx The previous alignment of the beach was not correct. It crossed itself and I assume someone that worked on it previously did not notice the beach was connected to it which resulted in a pointy (unnatural) section of beach.
12017-10-19 22:35:49 UTCWarin61 Hi
The way 533298379 - farmland that you added crosses it self - along Fogarty's Gap Road. Generates an error in OSMinspector of 'shared segment'. In this instance I thing you can safely remove the appropriate nodes from the way without any impact on what you are mapping.
12017-10-16 22:02:12 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Why do you need to store on the data base where bing hi res imagery is? Looking at way 309325239. The do not contribute any usefull features. And the presence of hi res imagery changes over time.
12017-10-16 21:31:08 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Why do you need to store on the data base where bing hi res imagery is? Looking at way 309325239. Should not you remove these rather than clutter the data base?
22017-10-16 21:53:40 UTCde vries Don't know exactly. But I can think of a few use cases. Outlines like this are are very common around the world at places were you can't expect hires imagery everywhere.
Also note that I didn't add them, I just improved the geometry of them.

Happy mapping!
32017-10-16 21:58:49 UTCWarin61 The presence of hi res imagery changes from time to time .. 'We' now have that 'Digital Globe Premium' imagery that looks to be good most places in png.
12017-10-16 01:47:34 UTCWarin61 Hi,
This changeset looks to have introduced the value 'airstrip'? LINZ defines these as runways. They do appear to be runways - well 4 out of 5 that I have looked at are .. the one missing is not there now, it is a watered field.
Did you introduce this tag 'airstrip' .. or someone else? If it was...
22017-10-16 10:46:22 UTCrcoup Hi Warin61,

Thought I'd submitted this, but either I didn't or it disappeared.

I think (it was a very long time ago), the existing tags caused the map to render with thousands of airplane icons at most zooms, and the renderer folks view was that it needed better tagging. In reality these airst...
12017-10-14 06:48:44 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Questions on way 473880525 - track, grade 4 ..
Firstly this looks to me like it connects some villages .. so it is not just used for forestry/farm things so might be better classified as 'unclassified'?
Grade 4 ? From Bing imagery.. would not think that the grade could be determined from bin...
12017-10-13 21:49:24 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Thanks for entering these while you were there. Some improvements for nest time, unless you have already changed the practice?
These names look like they are all in capitals, they should be lower case maybe with a leading capital letter.
The names should not be descriptive, but the real nam...
22017-10-14 14:41:13 UTCMSF-Fieldco Thanks for the tips. I moved out of Mt. Hagen in early 2016, so I won't be updating the area anymore. It seems that it is in good hands anyway, thanks for keeping the map up to date.
12017-10-12 21:19:08 UTCWarin61 No.

Part, and only part, of these streets are used as the boundaries of Parramatta and Westmead councils. So they have to be, at least, in 2 bits.

Use the LPI Base Map to view this information - the pail dotted lines.

22017-10-13 22:16:47 UTCaharvey @Daryl Radivokevic Unfortuantly the iD editor doesn't warn you when your changes affect a relation, so just try to watch out for how changes will affect relations too. When you go to save your changes in iD it will list what's changed and if it lists relations that you didn't intend to change you ca...
12017-10-05 23:45:33 UTCWarin61 Hi
you have tagged way 489615722 as an abandoned. track. Yet it connects to a village and may be used by the locals as a walking track. I have added a new Way: 530426654 that is close to your abandoned track. See what you think.
12017-10-02 21:29:28 UTCWarin61 Hi,
The changes to
Alfred Cove Marine Park
Alfred Cove Nature Reserve
Milyn Nature Reserve
Pelican Point Nature reserve

conflict with the relation 7619687 Swan Estuary Marin Park by having shared tags.
Humm ... are these part of the Swan Estuary Marin Park? If so then possibly s site rela...
22017-10-03 15:49:54 UTCaaronsta Hi Warin61,
Cheers for your feedback :)
Each individual area has its own individual name, and together these six areas form the Swan Estuary Marine Park.
I tried having a look earlier for a common and approved way tag, but found none. Maybe you know of one and can update the tagging accordingly.\...
32017-10-04 21:32:44 UTCWarin61 Umm I have applied the site relation ... see how that goes?
12017-10-04 21:28:51 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Way: 528707198 is self intersecting. That then causes relation 7622059 to have an intersecting segment.
You should separate the way into 2 ways - an inner and an outer.
22018-03-02 23:25:17 UTCEwen Hill I beleive this is no longer an issue
12017-10-04 21:24:42 UTCWarin61 The relation 7618908... has an inner touch the outer at node 5140696134.

This should not be done. Suggest that the node be removed from the outer way.
22017-10-05 00:08:08 UTCTheSwavu Inner way only touches outer way a one point. This is a valid multipolygon, no need to edit.
12017-09-26 22:16:20 UTCWarin61 Way 511474998 - named "Vacant'. Surely that is a description? Not a name.
12017-09-26 14:25:04 UTCHarald Hartmann Hello Warin61. At http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/358531099 you have tagged `dissused:highway` instead of `disused:highway`, right? #typo
22017-09-26 22:04:56 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Thanks, yes typo.
12017-09-24 11:08:54 UTCaharvey I strongly disagree with this edit.

A feature tagged as source=survey should take precedence over the LPI Base Map and where they differ the ground survey should be what is in OSM.

Take https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/222408585/history as a concrete example, it was carefully mapped out via s...
22017-09-24 21:57:46 UTCWarin61 Looking at Bunyan Lookout Trail (222408586) (using LPI Imagery) which I also changed from path to track I can clearly see 2 wheel tracks - thus it is clearly a trail, not a path.

The Lost World Trail (222408585) is harder to see with the imagery .. it may be wide enough for a vehicle .. but is ...
32017-09-25 00:19:09 UTCaharvey I've gone ahead and fixed this up in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52341567 based on my survey of the area yesterday.

Only part of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/222408586 is track, the other part is path.

Even if these were tracks used by vehicles or planned as such, the current ...
12017-09-24 02:45:14 UTCWarin61 Hi,
I have added a few more buss stops in Port Moresby. These are base on satellite imagery only and may need correction!!! You look to be more local than me, if so please edit them.
See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52318812#map=14/-9.4500/147.1949

It would be nice to have the buss...
12017-09-23 05:07:10 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Way 350304629 is tagged as both a water way and a highway. You say that the 'trek' goes on top of the river. So physically this way is a river.
If you want to mark a 'trek' then perhaps a route relation can be used in OSM. Or if it is a ferry (or what passes for a ferry) then a ferry route? ...
22017-09-23 19:58:24 UTCMSF-Fieldco Hello. Yes, the road at a certain moment gets into the river for a while. I guess your comment is correct. Please feel free to correct as needed!
12017-09-21 22:25:41 UTCWarin61 HI,
Way 526327518 -landuse=forest

It shares segments. This is not on for simple ways - you have to use a relationship - this one needs one outer way and two inner ways.

LandUSE=forest??? Is it really used for harvesting trees? Or simply covered by trees? If simply covered by trees then landco...
12017-09-20 23:20:26 UTCWarin61 Is the area (way 57745482) really named kunai patch .. or is this a description?
Does it have any historic significance other than being on/near the Kokoda Trail?
12017-09-19 22:36:57 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Welcome to OSM. Some comments?

Moving node 2616016520 has distorted the cemetery - not good. I have fixed this but you might check your other changes?

22017-09-20 00:04:19 UTCTravo656 I am sorry I am only new and have no idea what a node is, I live in Proserpine and was just trying to improve the map in my town. It was missing many things such as the fact that there are two cemeteries one old and one new. If I changed something on the map that I shouldn't have whilst implementing...
32017-09-20 00:58:37 UTCWarin61 1) no need to 'feel sorry'. We all make errors.
2) OSM most elemental thing is a 'node' .. that is a dot, point .. it can be by itself to make a shop/office/monument/ or any simple thing consisting of a 'node'.
A line consist of at least 2 'nodes' that make, in OSM terms, a 'way'.
There are a ...
12017-09-19 22:26:12 UTCWarin61 Framland does not extend to the center of the road?
Again relations - inners should not cross nor share ways with outers.
12017-09-19 02:26:42 UTCWarin61 node 5105512962 - has tag 'ip=ip66' .. what doe that mean? Is it a reference?
22017-09-19 02:43:14 UTCsamuelrussell Ingress protection, an international standard, https://www.mpl.ch/info/IPratings.html
12017-09-18 22:14:19 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Relation 7580789 - farmland;
... has
4 members with the role 'outer'. As 3 of these are within one there is no need for these 3.
Has at least one member with the role inner that shares a segment with the role outer - this is not allowed. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:mult...
12017-09-13 22:08:36 UTCWarin61 Hi,
The relation 7570358 (residential) has 2 outer ways that coincide. That is not allowed - I have combined them into a simple way
12017-09-11 22:29:38 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Relation 7560478 - for your aerial imagery reference... ?

1) What aerial reference? Copyright free? Or specific permission given?

2) You could keep these off the data base by storing them locally as a JOSM layer ...

3) They generate error indication on OSM inspector ... thus my atten...
22017-09-12 00:08:24 UTCaharvey Agree with Warin61 here, a feature in OSM should represent something physically on the ground (I know this isn't always the case, but generally should apply). So if something exists, like the roundabout, map that, but if nothing exists on the ground, that's not suitable for OSM.

I'd suggest use ...
32017-09-12 05:01:01 UTCaaronsta Hi Warin61 and aharvey, this changeset is in response to a message from OSM user hadry. Below is a copy of correspondence between myself and OSM user hadry: Hi Hadry, Thanks for your message, yes these were tagged for the renderer, as barrier=fence makes a clearly visible straight line on Mapnik. ...
42017-09-12 05:09:10 UTCaaronsta Following up from this, originally these were created as the roundabouts themselves formed good starting points, but are way to inaccurate to align the images. It was not put in a local dataset as the images were rectified outside JOSM, where wms tiles were supported but any vector data (such as osm...
52017-09-12 05:13:15 UTCaaronsta It may be appropriate to remove these lines, as I am yet to complete mapping the area and may need to use them again it could be useful to retain. The lines now have no tagged attributes aside from the note=*
62017-09-12 05:20:31 UTCaharvey The issue is you're using OSM to save data really only useful/specific to you. As you can imagine if everyone started using OSM to tag their personal bookmarks it would clutter the database and make editing real map data more difficult.

So I'd like to see these deleted as they don't correspond to...
72017-09-13 14:47:12 UTCaaronsta Thanks for your message aharvey.
The nodes have now been removed.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52009366
Uploading it to the live server remained the only efficient way to rectify the images which I am aware of. As I required a free and open wms tile service, which included relatively u...
12017-09-10 21:53:30 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Not well done every where...
Ways 208505436 361107918 422926793 432708439 show up in OSMinspector .with elf intersections. There maybe others of this changeset that need looking at. I have done one, but leave the rest so you can see what has occurred.
22017-09-10 22:32:40 UTCtastrax Hi Warin61 - I am not seeing any issues in OSM Inspector?
32017-09-10 22:47:11 UTCtastrax Actually just my dodgey connection - I think they are all fixed now
12017-09-08 08:41:57 UTCGerdP Hi!
Please check typo oneway=ANZAC Hall
on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/520206135
22017-09-08 09:28:14 UTCWarin61 Opps !!!
Thanks.
12017-09-07 21:27:17 UTCWarin61 Hi,
The building (way521899882) that you have added ... you have included in relation Elizabeth Hills (5538037). There is no need to include it separately as it is already surrounded, and therefore included, by this relation.
12017-09-02 22:35:18 UTCWarin61 Hi,
The 'rules' are that multipolygons outer ways cannot touch their inner ways. So these buildings multipolygons generate error messages. Looking at them closely in bing I see that the corners don't quite touch, so I have made them into simple ways. See what you think.
22017-09-03 04:42:17 UTCMartini097 ah okay - my bad. thanks for fixing them :)
12017-08-30 08:36:23 UTCTheSwavu Reverted changesets:

#51494378
#51494538
#51494847
#51502981
#51504343
#51558785

So as to revert change set #51492776, which was a unsuccessful revert that left the data in a bad way.

The above changesets were from mappers trying to fix these errors.
22017-08-30 10:06:50 UTCWarin61 It is a mess. Err still. Probably matches the process that take place inside it! :)

I have changed relation 7112517 from building to a site - as it is a collection of buildings.

I have made some 'buildings' into building:part as they are inside other buildings ... so should be part of them? \...
32017-08-30 22:53:59 UTCSanityChek Warin61
Could you leave it for the moment. I'm in the process of doing a sequence of changes to get it to a target state, and many of the area you identify are on the list, pre-existing from the original model (eg getting rid of the 'pedestrian street at the front). In particular, don't changethe b...
42017-08-31 01:40:51 UTCWarin61 Done. I have added highway pedestrian to the forecourt graveled area this morning.

And I wish you the very best of luck with it!
12017-08-15 23:30:18 UTCWarin61 It is WRONG.

The admin boundary comes the NSW Government LPI. If you want to change the coast line then change that .. not the admin boundary!!!!

22017-08-15 23:39:12 UTCxdiamondx I looked up the "OSM Example" for Harbors - http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=16/53.3889/-6.0644 Howth port and it comes with the administrative boundary attached to the coastline.

Do you want me to change it back?
32017-08-15 23:52:30 UTCxdiamondx @Warin61 I fixed the boundary. Sorry for the problem
42017-08-16 00:00:16 UTCWarin61 Thanks
The Admin boundary would be correct. It could be the high tide mark .. in a certain year? Would have to read the legal papers to see. I am against having the admin boundaries use physical features - leads to this kind of problem.

Where the coast line is ... could well be different from t...
52017-08-16 00:43:35 UTCxdiamondx Here's the local government area map - http://www.coffsharbour.nsw.gov.au/coffs-and-council/running-council/PublishingImages/Coffs_LGA_Localities-Map1.jpg

If you zoom in you can see coffs harbour and it goes north from the breakwater - not following the coastline.
62017-08-29 12:13:00 UTCaharvey I think we need to have a bit more of a discussion on this. If people want the LPI Admin Boundaries they can go to LPI and get it. The LPI boundaries aren't the official legal definition of these boundaries, they are just the LPIs representation.

I think we should do what makes sense for OSM and ...
72017-08-29 23:31:27 UTCWarin61 Coastlines and rivers change over time. And so too do some roads. I'd think a legal boundary that uses a feature will specify a date? Or maybe the date is taken from when the document was made?
By separating an admin boundary from other things in OSM it allows these other things to be altered by m...
12017-08-15 23:45:27 UTCWarin61 How did you come to tag these as "landuse=residential" ?

They are buildings! Tag them building=house in these cases.
22017-08-29 12:06:27 UTCaharvey @Warin61, this is just my opionion here but this is @Nhadaya's first edit to OSM and I feel your comment could have been worded in a slightly more welcoming way.

@Nhadaya welcome to OSM and thanks for contributing, you can check out the beginners guide at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Begin...
32017-08-29 23:22:04 UTCWarin61 Did not mean to put you off Nhadaya. But this is the second instance I found of this kind of thing occurring .. so I would like to know how you came to tag them as landuse=residential. That may help avoid further confusion?
12017-08-29 22:51:51 UTCWarin61 Hi,
When you do a relationship .. don't put the same tags on the ways making up the relationship.

In this case you have the tags leisure=track and sport=horse_racing on all the ways in the relationship and on the relationship itself. In this case the tags are only needed on the relationship.
\...
12017-08-29 22:35:07 UTCWarin61 The relation 7516802 has overlapping ways. And it looks like other relationships too use these overlapping ways.

Would it not be simpler to revert the relevant changeset? .

I'll revert this one and see what it was like before you changed it.

Ok .. done. Outline is doubled up - fixed. The...
22017-08-30 08:36:14 UTCTheSwavu Reverted changesets:

#51494378
#51494538
#51494847
#51502981
#51504343
#51558785

So as to revert change set #51492776, which was a unsuccessful revert that left the data in a bad way.

The above changesets were from mappers trying to fix these errors.
12017-08-26 22:36:39 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Relation \t7504613 - Abo station ... not evident in LPI imagery ... umm
Arr there it is - Digital Globe Standard...
OSMinspector says 'touching rings' .. as this is roof outlines I'll just reduce the footprint so they don't quite touch.
12017-08-23 22:14:26 UTCWarin61 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 05:13:31 UTCCloCkWeRX Maybe its confused with Southbank Zone Substation; which is nearby?
12017-08-18 23:47:35 UTCWarin61 The relationship inner way touches the outer way ... that is not allowed.

Is the wood not part of the park?
Yes.. That would mean that it is not an 'inner' in the relationship and the relationship becomes a one member relationship that can be replaced by putting the tags on the outer way.
...
22017-08-19 07:09:44 UTCjonorossi Thanks Warin61, I spent a good 30mins reading the wiki because I wasn't sure I was doing things right but couldn't really find the info I was after, I then came across OSMI to see if it reported anything and I realised it is batch updated, so fixed some other local problems.

Sorry I don't quite f...
32017-08-19 14:47:35 UTCjonorossi I've resolved the problem. I missed the sign naming the bushland Windemere Road Bushland Refuge, so have now separated the two areas.

I'd still be interested to get a response for my previous question for next time.
42017-08-20 00:22:53 UTCWarin61 In a relation ;

An outer way cannot touch nor cross any other way in the relation.

An inner way can touch another inner way (sometimes OSMi reports this as an error .. but it is technically allowed).

That help?
If you can avoid using a relation - that makes things easier/simpler.
52017-08-20 10:28:26 UTCjonorossi Apoligies for not being clearer, I understand the inner way not touching the outer now, I saw this one reported in OSMi. I was confused earlier because you said "...by putting the tags on the outer way" for both, however natural=wood needs to be on the inner way.
62017-08-20 11:13:40 UTCWarin61 No need for apologies. Some, at least, is my fault! Much easier over a beer.

What I meant was if the relationship is deleted leaving simple ways, then the remaining way/s get the relevant tags from the old relationship.

If the wood is part of the park then it gets included in the park - it w...
72017-08-20 11:44:39 UTCjonorossi Cheers (with a virtual beer), I think I understand now. For example, you'd use an inner relationship if there was a residential area in the middle of a national park, since it wouldn't actually be national park. All those multiploygon nature reserves with relationships that were automatically import...
82017-08-21 13:21:15 UTCnevw There is a lot to learn about relations and after getting a good understanding of those, you will find most of the rest is much easier.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon/validity
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mul...
92017-08-21 14:02:23 UTCjonorossi Thanks nevw, I've seen your username on those complex multipolygons at Nerang Forest before.
102017-08-21 16:39:11 UTCnevw Yes, guilty :)
Most are from CAPAD data and I prefer to add in the form they are gazetted. The parts where they share segments with nearby areas can be difficult to sort out.
12017-08-17 00:16:39 UTCWarin61 Looks like I will have to get the admin boundary from The LPI and reenter it ...

Please .. where you find a way with source LPI that has been simplified using JOSM to an error of <3m ... leave it alone .. unless you have more accurate data.
12017-08-15 23:37:27 UTCWarin61 The building boundary (way in OSM terms) crosses itself ... that is an outside wall crosses over another outside wall ...
I have fixed this - try not to do it again?
12017-08-10 22:58:04 UTCWarin61 Hi again.
Shared ways. Fixed into relation.
The mapping is of the building - not the way it is constructed, nor the configuration of the roof.

Any links to why you don't use a relationship to map building voids?

My reference
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Buildings#How_to_map
"...
22017-08-11 22:46:34 UTCSanityChek Multipolygons can cause issues with particular roofs, etc. Whereas coincident, but non re-entrant, nodes should be OK in most practical usages. And as far as 'levels' is concerned, they could do with some consistency - since building:height is to be avoided, In this instance I was only interested in...
12017-08-09 23:11:57 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Way 513763820 - building part level=3 ... generates errors - "duplicate_segment" where you go to make the inner. This should be done as a relation - with inner and outer ways ...
Fixed.
22017-08-10 00:10:14 UTCSanityChek Multipolygon seems to cause more problems than it solves, and particularly when the shape of the building pushes towards the representation used (eg the 'seam' is there in the roof) practicality should win over semantic navel gazing.
12017-08-07 22:45:26 UTCWarin61 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 03:55:37 UTCCloCkWeRX 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 'House' into the search box on th...
12017-08-02 22:56:36 UTCWarin61 Deleting way38931904 has made relations 3898648 and 3935888 open. Did you really mean to do that?
12017-07-28 23:11:30 UTCWarin61 Question:
Do you have permission to use the original image?? Permission compatible with OSM requirements?

OSMinspector reports on relation 7415697 (landuse=residential) that there is duplicate segments. This needs correction. .. see http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=145.12&...
22017-07-28 23:30:05 UTC93ben Is it fine to use data from Vic Maps (http://www.land.vic.gov.au)? That's where I have been sourcing it from. HERE Maps already has some of this data. I thought it was OK, but if not I'm happy to remove. Just wanted to keep people updated on what the estate will look like.
32017-07-29 03:40:36 UTCWarin61 That site says " only for your personal use and you may not without our written permission on-sell " .. OSM gives permission to 'on sell' so their terms do not meet OSMs.
Delete all the data that you have entered from it. Sorry.
Best to use the imagery that OSM provides without furthe...
42017-07-29 05:32:05 UTC93ben Ok what I have done is removed everything but the streets that show up on DigitalGlobe. I've left the street names though. Should that be fine? Thanks
52017-07-29 05:38:00 UTC93ben You can see the changes here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=50492358#map=16/-37.7860/145.1170
62017-07-29 23:17:44 UTCWarin61 If the names came from Vic Maps then it has to come out.
You can use street signs to get the names .. tedious! I have spent a few days getting them. Mapillary may help ...
12017-07-18 05:32:12 UTCWarin61 Hi
Relation: Norfolk Falls Picnic Area (7285980) will not render as it is only a name.
I have added the tag tourism=picnic_site. I have removed elements with the role 'inner' as these are actually part of the picnic site.

The LPI Base Map is available for coping into OSM, nothing wrong with th...
12017-07-13 23:12:20 UTCWarin61 Hi,
More feed back.
OSMinspector says for relation 6629267;
duplicate_segment
intersecting_segments

JOSM validator says ;
non way in multipolygon (5) [the benches I think]
role verification problem -empty role [building?]
intersection between multipolygon ways [foot paths ?]

I say;
th...
12017-07-12 23:20:01 UTCWarin61 Hi,
These ways have the tag area=yes. But that does not say what it is. So ... tag what they are. You might also include additional information - surface?, bicycle?

Way 506012547 has a trace out and back along the same way ... that does not make sense. It goes to Node: 4958070976. I'd remove the...
12017-07-12 23:12:31 UTCWarin61 I'm confused..
The relation 6629267 for Artarmon station has

the tag platform - yep ok
level=1 ... ummm don't think so.
Includes a way as outer .. and that looks to me to be the platform.

And then includes the roof .. which goes outside the outer (this is an error) AND the roof is at leve...
22017-07-13 03:39:39 UTCrpy @Warin61 thanks for the feedback. This changeset was primarily intended to define the relations between existing nodes/ways but agree it's a good opportunity to get it right.

The platform is above ground level (the access tunnel to the west is at ground level) so it's mapped as level=1. I've put ...
12017-07-12 22:13:30 UTCWarin61 HI,
In doing this the relation 2425110 was broken. The following relations also look to be in trouble
5295065)
2425468)
there maybe others...
12017-07-11 03:22:25 UTCWarin61 Hi,
I've been working on this treed area.
The Barrington Top NP is not all trees .. nor do the trees stop at its boundaries.
I have added a new relationship 7387469 for this treed area. I will work on it - expand and add holes.
12017-07-07 10:14:44 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Is the way 494067322 you added part of the relation 1530651 - Greenfields Wetlands... or is it simply an adjoining wetland?
As both now carry the same name it is confusing. If it is part of Greenfields Wetlands then way 494067322 should simply be addedto the relation 1530651 (removing the tag...
12017-07-05 22:23:03 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Relation 7374580 will not render as you have not declared a physical object like building=hospital. Also this relation generates errors - you cannot have crossing outer ways.
Either
map each individual building and neglect the connecting corridors
OR
map it as one building?
OR
do a lot ...
12017-07-05 22:12:36 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Way 489761129 - wood. has 'duplicate segments' - from OSMinspector. It also contains areas that are not covered in trees - so not a wood. If it must be mapped then I suggest -
smaller areas.
Or a relation - so that 'holes' can be created inside the outer edge.

I would rather have each va...
12017-06-28 22:20:59 UTCWarin61 Hi
This has broken both relations Black Creek and Swans Crossing.

No professional here ... I pick these errors up on OMSinspector
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=151.04&lat=-31.6&zoom=8

Think you really need to stop deleting stuff?

22017-06-28 22:40:47 UTCWarin61 Arr I see!
When you joined blackbutt rd together .. you should not have ... a section of it is used by those relations, joining the rd together means long sections of the rd lead these relations off into nowhere.
I have corrected it by separating balckbutt rd back into the required sections.
32017-06-29 00:06:26 UTCLHBfans Thank very much Warin61 for this and also for the link to OSMInspector. It has helped my learning a lot. A couple of questions if you're willing to answer. (1) when you re-separated Blackbutt Rd into 3 constituent parts, there is a longer section from the west 503882407 and a very short middle se...
42017-06-29 10:10:22 UTCWarin61 Humm 'a passion'? Well it was pointed out to me that I had made a few errors. So I fixed them .. since then I have realized the work involved .. so have contributed there where my knowledge/skills permit. I do like to see stuff that is in the data base being rendered - for that to happen well the da...
52017-07-03 00:09:19 UTCLHBfans Thanks very much for that background and extra information. Regards, John
12017-06-27 00:32:00 UTCWarin61 Humm
Relation for Boondall Wetlands;

has no tag for what it physically is ... say natural=wetland
includes an area leisure=common ..

?? is the leisure=common part of this wetland ... then move the tag natural=wetland off the larger outer way on to the relation.
22017-06-27 00:38:33 UTCWarin61 There is also a shared segment in the relation. That needs to be addressed.
32017-06-29 03:20:47 UTCreubot Thank for informing me, I have fixed this in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/49906364
12017-06-22 01:50:34 UTCWarin61 Relation \t7139156 shares some outer segments - this is a no no.

This is all one building? then each bit is a building:part thing.

Take a look at what I have done here. Deleted the relation. Added a Way: Sofia Restaurant Camberwell (502510513) that is the entire outer of the building and in...
22017-06-26 12:39:34 UTCsixsigmamaps Ok but I have been to this restaurant, several years ago and it not just the one building. As they have got bigger, acquires next door premises and just knocks through a doorway through the wall. Have done that several times. So, whats the deal in this case? Thanks for the help
32017-06-26 23:06:30 UTCWarin61 I have already made the changes.

The buildings were 'semidetached' sharing a common wall between each pair. By knocking through the common wall they become one building. So I have mapped them as one building. Each part of the building can be mapped using the tag building:part=yes if required.
12017-06-26 07:39:48 UTCWarin61 sport=football ???
soccer?
rugby?
or australian_football?!
12017-06-26 01:14:44 UTCWarin61 highway=road is meant to be temporary .. as in unknown type of road.
The LPI base Map can be used to determine road types .. these would be tracks/unclassified. Edited. They might be service, service=driveway if you see then that way too.
12017-06-23 03:54:43 UTCaharvey Looks like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6393754 already existed before, we should keep that way and just update the geometry. Or at the very least delete the old way when adding one with geometry not snapped to the road.
22017-06-23 04:51:37 UTCWarin61 Thanks for finding that. Fixed.
What was I thinking back then?
32017-06-23 07:50:55 UTCaharvey also for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45646092
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/438360193

I think it's better to tag a multiuse pitch as sport=netball;basketball than having two overlapping ways, after all there is only one pitch, it just happens to serve two different sports.
42017-06-23 08:32:36 UTCWarin61 Netball and basketball have slight different sizes of court. And where they share a surface they have different line colours too. The line colours can be tagged correctly if they are separate ways ... but not if they are ; separated sports.

I have done one where there are tennis, netball and bas...
12017-06-16 01:43:40 UTCWarin61 hi,
relation 7109264 - building has touching segments. This is better as 2 simple ways ... edited. Note that imagery shows the roof outline, the building walls will be inside those
22017-06-22 23:12:35 UTCWarin61 Relation 7109263 the same comment.

Why are you using relations for these things? KISS.
12017-06-22 01:56:51 UTCWarin61 Relations don't share outer segments. See OSMinspector

These houses look to be separate buildings.
level cannot be both 1 and 2 ..

Needs fixing.
12017-06-21 23:24:13 UTCWarin61 Multipolygons don't do shared ways on outers..
So these might be best as simple separate ways.
Doing this generates a warning - overlapping railways. I think that is ok - platforms do share segments.
22017-06-23 07:44:15 UTCaharvey I'm okay with them being separate ways.

Physically the whole area is one platform, but logically (in terms of the network and naming) each side is a different platform.

So for simplicity, I'm happy with these being separate ways, without the relation with a shared border that way we have tags ...
12017-06-21 22:46:37 UTCWarin61 The 'Slips' ... umm
This is part of a relation - relations don't like shared segments .. so how to 'fix' this?

So what is the 'slips'? What is the source of this name .. and to what does it refer?
22017-06-22 07:41:41 UTCAngyork "The slips" is a historical slip not in use now. That area is called the slips
12017-06-21 22:27:51 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Relation 7246859 - building=yes;roof ???
Umm is it a roof ...or a building with a roof?

Roof only then building=roof is fine.
If it is a building with roof then building=yes is fine. But no ; for building.

The relation also shares an outer segment. That is a no no, throws error in O...
12017-06-20 23:08:45 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Multipolygon relation 6664382 - the Westfield building. Multiplygons don't like shared segments, I think this would be better as a key building:part.
The landuse declaration would be better as the larger area of Chatswood - on the basis of one feature one element in OSM.
So I have changed th...
22017-06-21 01:35:54 UTCaharvey This looks okay. I'm happy to have landuse=retail a little wider, but I favour keeping landuse polygons no larger than 1 block to avoid overlapping roads etc.
12017-06-20 09:11:50 UTCWarin61 HI
Relation multiploygon 6981082 (a building) shares segments - multiploygons don't do this (unless it is an inner).
Looks like a single building of 3 parts .. so I will delete the relation, and add the 3 parts.
12017-06-20 09:01:32 UTCWarin61 Hi,
The hospital is not just the buildings, but also the grounds - parking etc.
OSM relations object to sharing ways too.
12017-06-20 08:35:48 UTCWarin61 Hi
Deleted Relation: 7338125
It had one member .. another relation .. with the same tags. redundant.
12017-06-18 23:55:49 UTCWarin61 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 02:56:37 UTCCloCkWeRX Yeah, happy with that, just don't ask me to ride out and survey it again!
12017-06-18 23:28:20 UTCWarin61 Relation 6759112 was better off as 2 separate buildings .. the height details are better that way and relations don't like shared segments.
22017-06-18 23:35:56 UTCWarin61 Arr .. it is one building - 2 heights.
use http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:part
12017-06-18 23:00:22 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Why is this relation 6543467 required?

It is simply 3 areas - that can be 3 individual ways. Easy. And then you have no shared segments in the relation/way.
12017-06-17 04:45:08 UTCWarin61 Hi
Way 54844658 - Rockley Pub Sch .. OSM inspector said duplicate_node. Best to use the LPI base map - that has the legal boundaries. The School does not extend to the middle of the road. I have edited it ..
12017-06-16 01:34:38 UTCWarin61 hi
Relationship 6784124 - wood;
shares segments - would be better as a simple single way?
looks more like scrub to me, some scattered trees and shrubs, a few rocks ...
12017-06-16 00:58:10 UTCWarin61 Hi
Relation 7323994 (wood) has quite a few areas that have no trees. I think that much of these areas will be landuse=forest and would be best tagged that way to indicate that the cover will be trees most of the time with harvesting taking place from time to time. The relation also has ways that s...
22017-06-18 05:13:13 UTCMulti Pass Hi, I am deliberately not marking these areas for a number of reasons:

1) My aim is to complete the traced "outlines" of vegetation area in Tasmania, details such as landuse=forest add more complexity and can be completed at a latter date

2) A lot of these areas are plantations, but ...
12017-06-14 00:24:04 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Node: 4138135421 "man_made"="windmill" "source"="LPI NSW Topographic Map"

Not visible in bing .. labeled 'bore' on topo map .. possibly not a windmill/windpump but a bore? In OSM terms man_made=water_well
12017-06-13 23:44:25 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Node: 2896942815 "man_made"="windmill" does not appear in bing imagery. Is this still here? I have retagged it as windpump to match current OSM tagging. But .. has it been removed?
12017-06-13 03:24:59 UTCWarin61 The name=* should not be used to describe something! Use description=* if you must.

I refer to a couple of 'windmills' .. that should be tagged man_made=windpump.
12017-06-12 09:38:28 UTCWarin61 Lake? Way 373247065 looks like it is a flood plain .. not much water in it most of the time!

Deleted! Entered new smaller way that has water in bing + digital globe. Modified another of your entries - smaller area. Added river between the two.
22017-06-12 09:44:32 UTCmdomnita Thanks for the up. The data was extracted through remote sensing from the Landsat images I had available at that time. Most of the forests and lakes I added in 2015 are extracted with the same methods. I am aware that more recent data is available now and the resolution is higher. Also, I only added...
12017-06-12 09:22:41 UTCWarin61 Looks more like south America...

You are not taking much care with your mapping?
12016-06-26 12:15:12 UTCkrealm All the nodes in this changeset are tagged tourism=campsite but in many cases they rest areas only (no camping is allowed). It also looks like this change set was automated (a practice frequently discouraged by OSM)
22017-05-13 10:40:08 UTCWarin61 The other problem is the unknown source of this changeset.
32017-06-12 02:52:28 UTCWarin61 Node Wanora Downs Rest Area (1811202378) Deleted. Another mapper on the ground has a different name. So what ever the source is, it is questionable.
12017-06-10 03:00:45 UTCWarin61 This changeset has broken the Middle Brother State Forest and Middle Brother National Park relationships.

What was the purpose of this changeset?
What is the source of this changeset?

Make some comment on your changesets??

Removing way 423537725 is what has broken these relationships.
Loo...
22017-06-25 05:18:04 UTCLHBfans Hello Warin61 & thanks for your message.
I have been away and only got your message a couple of days ago. I am trying to work out what's happened. I had added a couple of tracks in this area. I can see from history that removal of 423537725 seems to be me but I don't know how to pull it up t...
12017-05-28 22:59:00 UTCtonyf1 Hi. It appears you accidentally dragged a node of Mark Place. I have fixed it.
22017-05-29 22:40:56 UTCWarin61 Way 496461665 - wood crosses itself ... this is not good. Ways forming areas should have a clear inner and outer .. when they cross it becomes difficult to determine which bits are inner and outer.
Suggest you 'fix it' so you learn what to do?

Use http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&...
32017-06-07 23:11:25 UTCWarin61 I see you have not fixed this.

So i did it myself.

Several things that .. the wood used

nodes on a street -- the wood does not extent this far - they should be separate nodes off the street/footpath!.
The wood includes several swimming pools, backyards...

Deleted. If you want that l...
12017-06-04 09:33:21 UTCWarin61 Looking on Bing imagery most of way 18040883 is used for forestry. Meaning that as some time the trees will be cut down leaving bear earth - so there will be no natural=wood there at all. I suggest that the area is more correctly tagged with landuse=forest?
12017-05-07 09:59:38 UTCWarin61 This source does not give you;
fee
toilet
drinking water
hgv

information.

You have also used the name to give a function. As some of these areas have a name (LPI Base Map) there is a problem here.

Another problem .. are these parking areas? that is what the renders are picking up on. OS...
22017-05-07 13:44:34 UTCRhubarb I drive up and down the Hume Highway a few times a year. I use aerial imagery (in this case LPI NSW from 2016/07/13) to draw the geometry, and my own notes and photos for other details.
In this case, fee, toilet, drinking water, hgv access, and other information was from survey / local knowledge (s...
32017-05-07 13:47:11 UTCRhubarb * I've given the name to give a function to more identify which area is for cars, and which is for caravans / hgv - as many rest areas here have separate parking areas adjacent to each other. But I can see how this could be in error.
42017-05-07 22:37:05 UTCWarin61 Three things;
1) HGV/caravan .. this in present OSM terms should be done using the access tags .. IIRC you have hgv=yes .. but nothing banning other things .. so should add access=no to ban everything else. I'd be tempted put this on the road/parking? This should then work for GPS navigation maps. ...
52017-05-25 06:29:12 UTCRhubarb Sorry for the late reply, have been busy.
1) The truck parking areas in most of these rest areas are built for trucks (solid long road, lots of bins, nothing else), however there are no signs restricting access to other vehicles. Cars often use truck parking areas for quick power naps, etc.
2) I'v...
62017-05-28 00:53:43 UTCWarin61 OK... found a method for the parking areas ... http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/More_Parking_Spaces

So on a parking feature add
capacity:long=yes/no/number for long cars or cars with trailers

capacity:hgv=yes/no/number for heavy goods vehicles (long and wide)

capacity:...
72017-06-03 23:15:53 UTCWarin61 Hi, some more details for 'truck parking' things..

There is a description tag .. description=truck parking ? Might be better than using the name tag?

The areas that cannot be used by trucks might be better to target with hgv=no .. and then assume all the others are usable by trucks?

12017-05-29 22:48:42 UTCWarin61 Way 496413674 crosses itself..

You have a small number of 'issues' that should be fixed ... see

http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/byuser/?username=SleazeGypsy#
12017-05-29 22:42:23 UTCWarin61 Way 496396375 .. crosses itself.
22017-05-30 05:47:54 UTCWoodWoseWulf You've marked The Willow's entire grounds as a building.
12017-05-29 07:41:22 UTCWarin61 Way 338457447 ... entered as a 'cycleway'.
Cycleways are not appropriate here - it is a path used by mtbs .. so highway=path, bicycle=yes. If you want you could add a mtb route. Part of this path is used by walkers and horse riders.
12017-05-25 10:50:03 UTCWarin61 If you add a route declaration of mtb to these they will show up on https://mtb.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=15!-34.4744!147.5406

With profile data ...
12017-05-25 06:55:18 UTCWarin61 Nup.. OSM Inspector reports \tintersecting segments ... where the way crosses itself.
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=highways&lon=138.72006&lat=-34.78148&zoom=16
12017-05-25 06:43:41 UTCWarin61 Relation 5626761 - beach ..not closed, duplicated segments..
12015-09-01 10:49:48 UTCaharvey I'm removing http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/316587786 because I'm fairly certain there is no picnic_site at the exact location of the node, and there is a better positioned picnic_site nearby which is probably what this node was meant to map.
22017-05-20 09:08:55 UTCWarin61 tagged created_by=www.campsaustraliawide.com they have a copyright message on their web site ... do you have permission to use their data??

Node: Gunnedah South RA (316587591) is far off the highway .. and well away from anything like a campsite .. deleted.
12017-05-20 00:15:08 UTCWarin61 Names should not contain the agent details.
12017-05-20 00:10:58 UTCWarin61 name= should be in the local language ONLY
Other languages can be added using name:ru=* where ru is a 2 letter language code for the language in use.
12017-05-18 07:50:16 UTCWarin61 Bus Stop Node: 4230081852 is located in the middle of a residential block ... no bus stop there. Moved it to a more appropriate location ... by my physical survey with GPS.
12017-05-16 08:46:25 UTCWarin61 Part of a river...

Moved - to discover already in OSM .. deleted.
12017-05-16 08:40:56 UTCWarin61 Looks like the front of someones yard!!

Source?
12017-05-11 22:14:05 UTCtonyf1 Hi. Welcome to OSM. I am surprised that there is really a Reserved forest and a standing stone here. Can you provide more information? Map features which are unverifiable are at risk of deletion.
22017-05-11 22:57:43 UTCAnnabelle Daniel Hi Tony,

The standing stone is there because I put it there with a crane. It's at the very end of my backyard. The triangular forest is fenced off, quarantined as Sydney Rail corridor property and filled with native vegetation. There is significant local wildlife living there, including bird and ...
32017-05-13 00:22:04 UTCtonyf1 Thanks for the reply. I think that there are problems with the Reserved forest. You have mapped it as a complex re-entrant polygon. The map rendering software has difficulty rendering this and shows a sliver of green little bigger than a car. Also, I think "Reserved forest" is a descriptio...
42017-05-13 05:51:48 UTCAnnabelle Daniel Thanks! I'll try and fix it as it is larger than a car - but oddly shaped. Like a wedge with a blunt end.
52017-05-13 07:14:51 UTCWarin61 The landuse tag is for the human use of the land, so a forest would be used to produce wood for example ... I think you want to tag it natural=wood ... (as close as OSM gets to landcover=trees).
If you want to add 'information' to the feature .. then possibly use comment=reserved forest ... and I'...
12017-05-13 07:06:33 UTCWarin61 Removal of ways 465064159 and 377683089 has left relation 5626761 - beach- unclosed... would you like to fix this?
12017-05-11 23:12:17 UTCWarin61 Altered relation 7165413 - residential. Removed crossing ways.
I used the LPI base map that has the legal boundaries of the residential properties. There has been talk of better mapping by mapping residential areas by blocks... the road ways are landuse=highway.... I'm not going that far .. but I...
12017-05-10 01:10:06 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Relation 5333614 - swimming pool ... that looks to be 2 pools - one for sport - marked lanes. The other for ? wading? depth might be a good indicator here. I have made this into 2 separate ways - both pools but one sport .. and left the other.
The 'other' looks to have a circular roof .. a su...
12017-05-06 23:25:49 UTCWarin61 relation \t6760414 residential .. shares a segment. I have removed the shared segment, combined the two remaining ways - thus making a simple single way .. and now deleted the relation!
Try to keep things simple?
12017-04-22 22:29:39 UTCWarin61 This relation/polygon 7170268 (beach) is not closed.
22017-05-06 23:16:33 UTCWarin61 Still not closed .. deleting.
12017-05-06 01:40:39 UTCWarin61 Error - duplicated node in way 491460496 - building.

Is it id that makes these errors so easy to do? Or is it something you are doing?
I'm a JOSM user so i don't know.
These 'errors' appear on OSMinspector so you can find and fix your 'own' 'errors'
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=are...
22018-03-02 23:36:22 UTCEwen Hill ID doesn't validate all that well - if at all so what I do is a batch and wait for Osmose and keepright and then fix any issues.
12017-05-03 06:14:58 UTCWarin61 Did you real mean to add 4 ways to the admin boundary for relationship 6246037 - suburb of Macgregor?
22017-05-03 09:58:53 UTCAlexOnTheBus Oops - that would have been me not paying attention when using Shift-R to copy bus route relation tags. Apologies for that (and thanks to TheSwavu for fixing up my blunder).
12017-05-02 04:02:36 UTCWarin61 Quite some time ago I sent Jeffery a message on one of his changesets about adding fictitious bicycle infrastructure. Apparently he wants to indicate a bicycle route .. I did inform him of how to do that.
He has not made any recent edits.
12017-05-02 02:51:28 UTCWarin61 Imagery can be used to add surfaces, structures.
Parks may not be easily detected from imagery unless you have additional information

The LPI Base Map has additional information .. particular regarding legal boundaries, parks etc.
12017-05-02 02:41:00 UTCWarin61 Welcome to OSM.
You moved node 3985397985 by over 100 meters, this has removed a section of the LCR National park.

I have moved it back and disconnected it from the 'wood'.

Will need some time to check your removal of node 3993045108.
12017-04-20 22:58:22 UTCWarin61 Removed crossover and connection to roundabout.

Don't know that this is an official 'park'.
12017-04-19 23:06:46 UTCWarin61 Removed duplicate segment from relationship 7166553 wood. This shares boundaries with the Jilliby State conservation Area .. why? I would remove the tagging of wood on the conservation area as the wood would not stop at its boundaries ...
22017-04-26 02:39:24 UTCWoodWoseWulf Cheers, I don't know how I missed that. I'll come back and further refine this area as per your feedback later :).
12017-04-19 23:00:19 UTCWarin61 Relationship 7165413 residential has touching rings ... if you look at the LPI Base map you can remove the touching.
12017-04-19 22:55:39 UTCWarin61 Your way 487677999 grassland crosses it self. It should b+e corrected.
See http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=highways&lon=151.04&lat=-33.8&zoom=11
12017-04-18 22:04:11 UTCWarin61 Way 475592320 crosses over itself. So it does not render well ... OSM inspector calls it a 'self intersection'.
22017-04-18 22:46:38 UTCaharvey Thanks for noting this, it looks like it's happened as a result of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47860192 I'll move the discussion over there.
12017-04-17 06:18:23 UTCWarin61 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 04:12:29 UTCCloCkWeRX Fixed
12017-04-17 06:08:49 UTCWarin61 HI,
Way 487105547 - residential has a shared segment where you go to/from a section of Harrison Reserve.
Shared segments are not good in OSM.. some renders get confused by them.
It is not necessary to exclude other landuses inside residential areas ... one of the few less picky things in OSM.
...
12017-04-15 23:03:08 UTCWarin61 A better way of mapping inner voids is to make a relation. Using a single way can confuse renders as two sections of the way occupy the same space. Made into relation 7160595
12017-04-14 21:46:02 UTCWarin61 Way 330452626 - residential ...
is
2 areas that you have joined together by a line of 0 width.
This confuses renders ....
It should be drawn as 2 separate ways.
I have split it .. and made a new way 486873385 to solve this problem. Where ever you make a line of 0 width .. it should not be p...
12017-04-13 22:18:58 UTCWarin61 Changing way 486401910 has resulted in braking relation 7154856.
See http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=highways&lon=151.04&lat=-33.8&zoom=11
12017-04-12 22:46:41 UTCWarin61 Way 485880145 Jasper State Forest is self intersecting. To make sens this needs to be a relation. I have changed it to relation 7154856

Question .. Is this area used for forestry? then it should be tagged as landuse=forest ... and if that is the case, as at some time the trees will be harvested t...
12017-04-12 22:33:12 UTCWarin61 Way \t485973852 is self intersecting... don't do this. Changed to relation 7154847
12017-04-12 22:27:55 UTCWarin61 Way 470864541 (Crocodile Park) has 3 nodes all in the same location. Corrected. In the past this way also had self intersection.
12017-04-11 21:49:06 UTCWarin61 Way 485847421 CBD North crosses itself.
Changed to Relation: CBD North (Proposed) (7152397) with 1 outer and 2 inners.
12017-04-10 00:05:32 UTCWarin61 You moved Tom's entry of Node: Malaita Point (856589030) to a more appropriate place behind the lifeline. However, now with the LPI basemap, I think this should be more to the west. And the present location of this node could be retained as Eagle Hawk Lookout.
22017-04-10 00:15:26 UTCWarin61 cliff line .. not lifeline!
32017-04-10 08:16:17 UTCmrpulley If you stay behind the cliff then it is a lifeline!
These nodes were positioned from GPS, with names from the nearby signs. The positions of Malaita Point and Eagle Hawk Lookout on the LPI map are incorrect. (If you look at the LPI imagery, you can just make out the car park for the actual location...
12017-04-08 21:44:52 UTCWarin61 This has removed the outer way for your past relation 6099322 -wetlands.
I am deleting relation 6099322.
12017-04-08 02:16:18 UTCWarin61 Hi
The sunbath track has a landslip + numerous tree falls > .3m dia. I have tagged it disused and broken it around the landslip. Not safe now, and vanishing in the future :(

I have also added some details to Medlow Bath + the hydro. The hydro to me looks very unfriendly to walkers that come ...
12017-04-06 00:53:03 UTCWarin61 Relation 7072610 has 2 ways with role outer. OSM indicated errors?
One of these ways is inside the other.
Both ways share segments with each other.
Suggest remove the smaller way from the relation. If the smaller way is not part of the farm land then still remove it and rerun the relation outer...
12017-04-04 09:43:53 UTCWarin61 The members of the relation 6574556 for Redbank Plains have no role ... same for a few of your other relations...

I have added roles to this and a few other of your entered relations.

-------------
Side note A boundary cannot come from bing...
12017-04-03 02:23:10 UTCWarin61 Hi,
The LPI Base Map has West Tipla Rd as tertiary ... and the East Tipla Rd as secondary .. any objections to changing this?
Note .. have to add East Tipla Rd to OSM! ...
22017-04-03 04:14:41 UTCcleary I think it is probably outdated information in LPI map. I haven't driven all the way on the west road but the east road is very average in standard. Central Darling Shire Council rates the west side as a main road (MR) for which it would get State funding (therefore possibly a secondary in OSM) and...
32017-04-03 04:17:32 UTCWarin61 P.S A relevant doc
http://www.centraldarling.nsw.gov.au/about-the-shire/road-condition-report.aspx

Note the 'road description' not road name.
42017-04-03 04:25:27 UTCWarin61 Ha crossing info ... both on to the same view though.
12017-03-26 03:43:40 UTCWarin61 Relation 5748513 has no outer way .. one inner way .. but no outer boundary.
22017-04-02 22:34:57 UTCWarin61 Deleted. relation 5748513 .. no feed back.
12017-03-24 00:24:55 UTCWarin61 Relation \t5607069 has no tags...
the inner looks like a residential area (bing)

But has the same tags as the outer - protected area ...

Possibly the relationship should have the protected tags, and the inner should be landuse=residential???
22017-04-02 22:29:52 UTCWarin61 No communication.
Changed to what I think it should be.
12017-04-01 23:02:53 UTCWarin61 Relation 7120549 - wood .. has touching rings.. the oval and the parking area.

Wot I'd do? make it a simple way .. include the oval and parking area and the road in like you have for the power station.. ?
22017-04-02 00:33:29 UTCWoodWoseWulf Well spotted and fixed now :)
32017-04-02 01:50:12 UTCWarin61 Spotting is easy as NSW is free of area errors.. use
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=151.04&lat=-33.5&zoom=10

Also use this to see other 'errors' of your own
http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#username=WoodWoseWulf

Good Luck
12017-04-01 23:27:27 UTCWarin61 The gate you added .. with closing at 4 pm (16:00 hours) .. when does it open????
12017-03-25 22:57:47 UTCWarin61 In removing way 238014906 you have made relation 3207606 (a beach area) into a simple way .. so it is no longer an area .. so the beach is effectively no longer there.

Did you really mean to do this?

22017-04-01 23:06:36 UTCWarin61 Removed relation ... no more beach.
12017-04-01 22:46:45 UTCWarin61 Deletion of ways 138545239 and 138545236 means relation 1865554 is now not closed.
So I have deleted the relation...
12017-04-01 22:42:16 UTCWarin61 Relation \t99328 has no tags... deleted.
12017-04-01 22:20:02 UTCWarin61 Crossing ways generates errors...
Way 7114395 - grassland crosses from inner to outer ways ..
I have changed it to a relation 7127339.
12017-04-01 01:17:36 UTCWarin61 This removed the from and too ways from the turn restriction relation 6896875.
This removed the from way from the turn restriction relation 6896877.
And possibly others at this intersection?
12017-03-31 03:06:05 UTCWarin61 You have removed from Relation 1676980 - forest the way 37523769 that forms its outer .. so the forest is no longer there. And that way no loner exists... so I am deleting the relation. No more forest.
12017-03-31 02:45:17 UTCWarin61 Opps deletion of way 98544635 has removed the outer for relation 1412923 wood.
So I have deleted the relation ...
12017-03-29 02:16:01 UTCWarin61 Hi,
Where did the name for Polia Road come from?
The LPI base map show this as 'Old Pooncarie Road'.
22017-03-29 02:18:59 UTCWarin61 Arr .. the southern section has that name while the northern section has OPR.. correcting.
12017-03-29 02:01:33 UTCWarin61 Hi,
You have way 322193363 tagged as a private track .. the LPI base map shows this as a tertiary road ... several other roads are shown out here on the LPI Base map too. I'll put those in.
Arr came to your way 259154081 - tagged as driveway private yet LPI shows it as tertiary. Similar for way 3...
22017-03-29 04:11:24 UTCcleary I have driven on many roads in far west there but not that one, nor the roads to Cymbric Vale and WIlandra. From the Barrier Highway, those roads look like private roads and I think they had gates or cattle grids and there were definitely no signs to suggest public roads. I traced the tracks from Bi...
32017-03-29 04:15:44 UTCcleary Further comment. I remember driving on Waterbag Road and I recall that the track to Cymbric Vale was just a track, didn't look anything like Waterbag Road (which I think was graded and reasonable gravel suface,) and there was no sign to indicate public access was permitted to Cymbric Vale.
12017-03-28 05:19:14 UTCWarin61 Fixed multipolygon 7102520. The ways should not touch ... Also added landcover=grass tag.
22017-03-28 08:40:35 UTCWoodWoseWulf Thank you as always for proofing :)
12017-03-24 06:43:28 UTCaharvey How did you check for duplicates?

eg. you added https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4333395907/ but it already existed as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6396344

I've been seeing a lot of duplicated features from your Base Map imports.
22017-03-24 08:24:39 UTCWarin61 I checked for duplicate nodes .. not certain that I did check ways (too long ago to recall) .. and probably not relations. This change set 3/8/16 so 'my' node would have been that date .. relationship dated 9/7/16 so ~ a month previous.

Humm I did a recheck some time ago on duplicates .. but aga...
32017-03-24 08:50:30 UTCWarin61 Humm scanning ... found 1 add the day before by you .. from Imagery .. deleted mine and add the name from the base map.
Another is displaced by 200 metres .. I'll do some more looking tomorrow (and think about the displacement).
42017-03-25 00:15:36 UTCWarin61 Ok .. found 7 that I have deleted. About half of those are mine.
Did not answer your question of how I checked for duplicates .. I think at that time I was using the OSM cycle map .. that appeared to have the best rendering of camp sites ... but it may have been slow to render new data .. thus I m...
52017-03-25 06:46:49 UTCWarin61 Over 187 camp sites manually scanned. 78 deletions .. not all camp sites but most of them. Not all 'mine'. 230 objects modified .. some 'camp_sites' to pitches as the camp site is already tagged .. again not all mine.
62017-03-27 01:20:46 UTCaharvey > So these duplicates you have noted ... were they only campsites? Or anything else?

I keep finding issues across all your LPI Base Map imports.

eg. I just deleted http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4380404863 since it was already mapped as http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/691125312

>...
72017-03-27 02:03:09 UTCWarin61 I have looked back at my lookout files (I did not bother with check my old campsite files .. but I'd not think I was consistent from one feature type to another .. hopefully improving all the time) .. and cannot find a duplicate for tuckers lookout ... so the checking was done. Did something else go...
82017-03-27 02:12:50 UTCWarin61 Looking back at my old files for lookouts ... each node carries a tag "fixme=check for duplictes and web links" .. and each node was manually checked against the osm map background for the duplicate.. then those were uploaded to OSM having deleted each fixme tag as they were done. However...
92017-03-27 03:25:12 UTCaharvey The existing node has been there for the past 4 years http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/691125312/history

Next time it would be great if you could post on the mailing list your intention to do an import and we can check the process to make sure things like this aren't missed.

Another one I jus...
102017-03-27 05:25:45 UTCWarin61 Arr .. I see now.
What you are deleting are displaced things.

My experience with LPI data suggest in many instances it is better than the data in OSM despite the mappers attribution of 'source=survey' or 'source=gps'. How do I know that ? In the instances of roads i have used the Strava heat ma...
112017-03-27 07:50:21 UTCaharvey Not all data is equal. Different types of features like roads vs lookouts could dramatically vary in accuracy, even within the same feature types, the accuracy in the LPI Base Map can and does vary.

Since we don't know the where each feature in the LPI Base Map came from, I don't think it should ...
12017-03-26 21:49:59 UTCWarin61 Are these 'cycleways'? I think these would be more of a mtb track .. and those would be better tagged as a 'path' 'unpaved' with a relation 'route' 'mtb'
If tagged as I suggest they would then appear on https://mtb.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=14!-32.5441!151.1371 as a route - highlighted with a rig...
22017-03-26 23:38:10 UTCGavinX Can't get to this right now. Can fix in a week or so, however feel free to amend.
12017-03-26 03:51:19 UTCWarin61 Removal of way 401738944 has made relation 6026831 multipolygon public land have no outer way... making the multipolygon wrong.

So why did you remove this way?
22017-03-26 05:27:48 UTCWarin61 1)
You can respond to this comment on your changset by;

a) Going to the changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45185296#map=9/-37.1910/146.9916

b) loging in - use your OSM password.

2) I don't know how you edit .. I use JOSM and there I can download any OSM feature and look a...
32017-03-26 07:23:49 UTCneilmny This is my first comment via this method I hope I am doing it right.
I also use Josm and keep the version updated.
I don't recall altering the state forest boundary. I only realigned the ANP. Sections of the ANP were replaced by merging from boundary data imported from shape files but I checked th...
42017-03-26 07:37:15 UTCWarin61 It is very easy to miss things that have uses in multiple relationships. I think that is what happened here.
This particular relationship is puzzling .. I have left a note on their changeset.
As for the forest .. possibly that is obsolete? However, in Queensland some National Parks are also used...
12016-03-05 10:32:25 UTCEwen Hill That actually is the Alpine National Park uploaded from Data.vic apart from the top north due to size.
22017-03-26 06:01:13 UTCWarin61 This Relationship 6026831 - multipolygon does not have any tags that will make it render ...
I think it would be safe to delete, the outer way has been removed by someone else so restoring it will take some work .. and as it has no effect on the map probably not worth the effort?
12017-03-26 03:41:32 UTCWarin61 Relationship 6794412 taged breakwater;

only has inners. It should have at least one outer.

Ways touch one another .. not good in a multipolygon!

I have made this into a simple way.
12017-03-26 03:27:27 UTCWarin61 No roles on Goodna either .. could you check the rest?
12017-03-26 03:25:13 UTCWarin61 You forgot to add roles for the members of Redbank...
12017-03-26 03:23:25 UTCWarin61 You forgot to add roles to the members of relationship for Brookwater.
12017-03-23 22:49:14 UTCWarin61 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 23:01:33 UTCLeon K 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 car park.
32017-03-25 10:40:17 UTCCloCkWeRX 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 11:01:36 UTCWarin61 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 image...
52017-03-25 11:14:12 UTCLeon K 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 11:16:06 UTCLeon K 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 00:41:27 UTCWarin61 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.
12017-03-25 23:08:47 UTCWarin61 Relation 2420705 contains a way 181488836 with the same tags - adding nothing to the map. I have removed it from the relationship.
12017-03-25 03:33:37 UTCWarin61 Way 482161878 (wood) crosses itself .. a figure 8.
12017-03-25 00:08:41 UTCWarin61 I have made some changes to Camp Coutts Scout Camp. You have a number of nodes inside the area with similar tags. I assume the nodes are individual pitches so have retagged them camp_site=pitch as per a proposed tagging scheme. I have also add an alternate name Coutts Camp from the LPI Base Map.
12017-03-23 23:07:09 UTCWarin61 Relation 4246123 is now not closed ... it was closed yesterday.... Possibly the ways you deleted were used by this way? ?? History says you were the last to touch it.
22017-03-23 23:27:37 UTCFvGordon I have just sorted the members of this boundary relation (without removing or adding any members). The JOSM relation editor now shows a closed ring.
32017-03-23 23:53:10 UTCWarin61 OK. I'm using OSM Inspector to try and get the errors down.. easier than using the error files from making a map. Once those are down I'll try using the error files again.
12017-03-23 23:13:35 UTCWarin61 Hi,
By making a new node and moving the boundary by 0.2 m the OSM inspector error is removed .. very little effect in the real world. It dose create a 'gap' of 0.2 metres. .. cheating I know.
12017-03-23 02:34:12 UTCWarin61 Err multipolygon 5866031 has no tags to say what it is! ... Its members also cross one another. The ways that from the multipolygon are tagged area=yes .. redundant.

I have removed the area tags, resolved the ways into a simpler system and added the tag natural=scrub to the multipolygon.
22017-03-23 03:00:12 UTCGlenhope1 ok. good
12017-03-23 00:20:46 UTCWarin61 This 'meadow' incorporates buildings, and structures and trees .. not all a meadow. And the relationship is not closed now ... relationship 6287756. So I have deleted the relation.
12017-03-23 00:09:47 UTCWarin61 This building (way 481787267) crosses over it self ... and that is not right. I'll leave it to you to fix.
22017-03-24 01:39:15 UTCWoodWoseWulf 👍 fixed, cheers.
12016-12-01 00:51:16 UTCWarin61 Errr ... highway=cycleway is not correct.

Use hightway=path (or track if wide enough to take a car/4WD) and add mtb=yes and/or bicycle=yes. You could even use a route relation ..
However .. read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mountain_biking

Note: Best to respond to the questions you h...
22017-03-03 00:03:13 UTCWarin61 No response for 3 months ...no mapping activity to connect unconnected paths ... leaving it this way is not good.

So I may as well add things that were deleted ... unless you respond real soon?
32017-03-22 05:31:43 UTCWarin61 Ok. Corrections made -
removed highway=cycleway.
added relations for mtb routes.

Added paths from strava.
Added catch all for strava heat map trails - no names but a generic for the park as a whole.

These now display on
https://mtb.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=15!-35.1145!147.3048

Note ...
12017-03-21 00:05:52 UTCWarin61 Hi again
Relation: 2308145 tagged waterway=riverbank ... is not closed ... and looks to contain ways 172860359 and 172860350 that are both tagged (correctly I think) as wetlands.
I think the wetlands need to be made into relationship ... so that the ways can be cut up so they can be shared betwee...
22017-03-21 00:32:57 UTCTheOldMiner I agree with your comments. I made these additions back in 2013. My changesets appear to have been damaged around the areas of the wetlands. There are more problems all the way down to Mackay. I am not 100% why, as they were all mapped from bing using josm. There is another user fixing the problems...
32017-03-21 07:07:14 UTCWarin61 Finding out who did what .. err .. and then once found are they still around, and amenable to working on fixing it?
Rather it were fixed .. as time and inclination allows. This is not my area of vast knowledge in either OSM nor familiarity with the land .. I have been through a few times but not s...
42017-03-23 06:03:12 UTCnevw I am likely to be 'the other user' but have been unable to fix any due to not being familiar with the area and limited ability to interpret the Bing imagery for the wetland areas so I have abandoned my efforts to fix. There is the following data that could likely assist but as far as I know we don't...
52017-03-23 10:07:03 UTCTheOldMiner No problems. I will revist the area virtually other the next few weeks. Let you know when I am done. To see if all the errors have be rectified. I had the same issues around Mackay a little while back. Maybe when they did that big rework of the map
62017-03-23 11:21:41 UTCnevw Thanks to TheOldMiner
These are the main areas http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=148.11749&lat=-20.12145&zoom=9
12016-03-17 00:51:10 UTCPeter W34 The bridges on Marlborough Sarina Road or any other road, should not be changed to service or any thing different to what the rest of the road class is. This wrecks the routing for all the people who use OSM for in car navigation, also all roundabouts should have junction = roundabout tag.
22016-03-17 03:29:08 UTCTheOldMiner I am not sure who this is and what authority you have make such comments without a spread of manners, something I intend to raise with the mailing list, it may be a good idea to not only provide an example but discuss the issue. There maybe a litigimate reason.
32016-03-17 10:43:22 UTCPeter W34 I apologize for my bluntness, I am fixing many of the errors in the map using Osmose. I was disappointed to find someone had changed these two bridges on Marlborough Sarina Road to service road, if the bridge is narrow put lane=1 instead. If you look at the history of the Funnel Creek bridge you wil...
42017-03-20 23:38:04 UTCWarin61 Error .. confuses me!
Relation: Develin State Forest (1481424)
Relation: Goodedulla National Park (1481425)

Are both the same! The same area should not be a national park and a state forest? Could you look at this please (I hope you are more locale than me).
Reason why I am looking here is t...
52017-03-21 00:38:44 UTCTheOldMiner I would be careful with starting a conversation with the word Error. I worked for the Queensland Department of Natural Resources for 6 years in the land management area. Simply, it is possible to historically have state forest, natural park, land leases and many forms of tenure coexisting in a laye...
62017-03-21 06:59:41 UTCWarin61 As a NSWelshman I find the idea of an area being both a National Park and a State Forest strange in this country. However if that is the case then it should remain so in OSM. I have updated the web links for the Goodedulla_National_Park. Oh and the tag natural=forest to natural=wood as that is the p...
12017-03-20 23:18:24 UTCWarin61 Way 481460629 was crossing it self. I have removed the crossing and added detail from the LPI Imagery and added the source tag.
12017-03-17 22:21:29 UTCWarin61 Errors on relationship Lake Cakora;Cakora Lagoon (7017874, v1).

Multiple names ... the name tag should only carry one name. If there are other names .. then use alt_name,
See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name

Next .. the ways of this relationship intersect. It looks to me like you ...
22017-03-17 22:25:43 UTCWarin61 Humm looking at the history .. I would remove the relationship. The northern way I would tag as the lake, and I'd reapply the southern way as the lagoon.
12017-03-17 06:02:33 UTCWarin61 Congratulations.
You have removed a race track.
22017-03-17 17:10:51 UTCEdSS Hi Warin61,
The entire Skellatar Park area is tagged as sport horse_racing and all fences etc seem to be there. Is there something important missing from the map?
32017-03-17 21:55:38 UTCWarin61 The sport is on a race track .. where is the tack?
Relation: 6422036 is tagged as leisure=track.. had outers and inners .. now has one outer .. that is not closed. So the relationship is broken

Possibly this was broken before your changes? Don't know... but you certainly have not 'improved' it...
42017-03-18 15:14:47 UTCEdSS I appreciate the landcover comment. The original mapping was flagged as having a problem that would eventually prevented proper rendering. Skellatar Park and OSM are very lucky to have someone so concerned with excellent mapping. I look forward to your revised version that will be even better tha...
12017-03-17 05:48:33 UTCWarin61 2 relationships .. contain no information.
3rd relation has both buildings as roofs and shop convenience.
All relationships deleted.
One way is now tagged as the roof. The other way is tagged as building retail with sop convenience. Added node - amenity=fuel, operator Woolworths.
12017-03-16 04:32:12 UTCWarin61 Wetland relation 6955233 has errors... you have
2 ways tagged as outer ways .. that is the outside of the wet land ... yet one of them lies inside the other .. so which is the outer and which is the inner of the wet land ???

Or are they both wetland???? I don't know.
Way: 440320931 lies alon...
22017-03-16 20:38:46 UTCWoodWoseWulf Thank you so much for bringing this to my attention, I must have had a brain fluff or something while editing. I've fixed it now.
12017-03-15 21:47:21 UTCWarin61 Relation: Georges River Council (6205809) Not closed ... was closed before your change.
12017-03-15 21:37:09 UTCWarin61 And you have now unclosed the relationship area...fix it yourself . Getting tired of these!
12017-03-15 01:42:20 UTCWarin61 Not closed again... I have closed it. But not well matched to the actual boundaries!!!!

This boundary is not visible in the Base map .. you should use the Admin boundaries. Suggest you fix all the associated council boundaries as one changeset ... I would use JOSM.
12017-03-15 01:30:28 UTCWarin61 Opps "Slap Up Road" .. tagged a highway=stream ...corrected to highway=unclassified .. as per LPI base map.
12017-02-12 01:40:32 UTCWarin61 The 'Epping Station Concourse' begins and ends outside the 'building' .. so it is not a corridor. Retagged footway, tunnel=building_passage.


22017-03-13 09:24:17 UTCWarin61 Nodes 3281331663 and 3281331666 are highway=elevator ... and you should not use the name tag to state a function. Corrected.
12017-03-08 06:18:23 UTCWarin61 Frying Pan Road ..is not secondary!!!
At most it would be 'unclassified .. but on the LPI base map is is a track. Retagged as a track -
12017-03-08 03:26:44 UTCWarin61 1) The LPI Imagery cannot be the source of an administration boundary ... I think you mean the LPI Base Map ?
2) The relationship is not closed ... sothern end of Cooks Bridge. And has other problems according to the JOSM validator.
22017-03-08 04:04:41 UTCTheSwavu Need to also:

1. Remove old councils:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6201597
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6201591

2. Fix the tagging on your new relation.
12017-03-03 23:55:46 UTCWarin61 Relation: 6585065 is a simple way .. does not need to be a relation. And it carries no information as to what it is .. And it crosses over itself.
I have made it a single way 442374458, made the boundaries from the LPI Base Map and tagged it a park. Please review my work here and make any changes...
12017-02-27 03:08:53 UTCWarin61 You have a number of nodes at the ends of tracks with tower=power source=bing ...
I cannot see anything there .. not even with the better LPI Imagery. deleted these as I came across them. e.g. Node: 2555269081
22017-02-27 03:18:10 UTCstevage Weird - thanks for letting me know. If they're not connected to a power=line it was almost certainly a mistake - can't really imagine how that happened.
32017-02-27 03:46:09 UTCWarin61 I had a look for power lines ... they are very hard to see on imagery .. none in OSM itself. The LPI Imagery shows some of that area clear of trees .. and even then I cannot see them... Don't know how .. they don't stand out with the standard rendering so would be easy to miss that way. I only notic...
Warin61 has contributed to 500 changeset discussions(s) with a total of 1004 comment(s) (limit: 500 changesets)