| Changeset | No. | Date | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 46913942 by aharvey | 1 | 2017-07-05 07:56:36 UTC | TheSwavu | Is this:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/480950313a thing? Or a slip of the mouse? |
| 2 | 2017-07-05 23:28:40 UTC | aharvey | There is something visible in the imagery, but I don't know exactly what it is. Probably how they get the toboggans back up. | |
| 6404798 by aharvey | 1 | 2017-06-21 23:24:13 UTC | Warin61 | 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. |
| 2 | 2017-06-23 07:44:15 UTC | aharvey | 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 ... | |
| 43110299 by aharvey | 1 | 2017-06-20 23:08:45 UTC | Warin61 | 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... |
| 2 | 2017-06-21 01:35:54 UTC | aharvey | 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. | |
| 46997002 by aharvey | 1 | 2017-04-18 22:04:11 UTC | Warin61 | Way 475592320 crosses over itself. So it does not render well ... OSM inspector calls it a 'self intersection'. |
| 2 | 2017-04-18 22:46:38 UTC | aharvey | 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. | |
| 44994053 by aharvey | 1 | 2017-01-08 08:20:37 UTC | TheSwavu | Hey! Someone found a use for my good-ol friend Mainland Australia. |
| 25744404 by aharvey | 1 | 2016-11-04 01:00:41 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Do you know if the bridge (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/771693) is actually there still? |
| 2 | 2016-11-04 03:46:09 UTC | aharvey | The bride is there but it's a pipeline not a footbridge. I've fixed this up via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/43394284.Not sure why it was marked as a path in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/38993006 | |
| 40266451 by aharvey | 1 | 2016-06-25 02:35:51 UTC | Ewen Hill | Thanks for doing that. |
| 38610902 by aharvey | 1 | 2016-04-16 07:08:31 UTC | samuelrussell | Kudos! Do these sites have relationships? Could those relationships be mapped? |
| 2 | 2016-04-16 07:20:09 UTC | aharvey | They don't have relationships, they are all independent. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Darchaeological_site lists other kinds of sites but not middens so I've used site_type=shell_midden for these. I would say they names should be moved to the description key, but I didn't make th... | |
| 34204428 by aharvey | 1 | 2015-10-01 01:45:34 UTC | riblit | I would suggest that leisure=nature_reserve is incorrect as a Nature Reserve and a National Park are different gazetted entities with separate use restrictions. |
| 2 | 2015-10-01 05:34:38 UTC | aharvey | I'm tempted to agree with you. I think that boundary=national_park is sufficient. However at mostly in Australia I would have thought that National Park implies "protected area of importance for ildlife, flora, fauna or features of geological or other special interest, which is reserved and man... | |