| Changeset | No. | Date | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 58719644 by aharvey | 1 | 2018-05-06 02:28:36 UTC | aharvey | This reverts https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46913865 which as far as I can see, didn't move the railway=station anywhere and merges in the newer node which was added post-removal https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5124591624 |
| 30029747 by aharvey | 1 | 2018-01-30 14:40:41 UTC | MarkusHD | Access of way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/250087113 has been changed here, foot=no makes it impossible to route to the Top Station because a little segment here is affected: https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=-36.49295&mlon=148.28998#map=17/-36.49295/148.28998Was this really intended? |
| 2 | 2018-01-30 22:28:24 UTC | aharvey | Whoops. I added foot=no because there are signs saying that track is for bicycles only, no walkers. However you're right about that short segment. Unless anyone else has better knowledge I'm happer for you to change that small section to allow walkers. | |
| 3 | 2018-02-01 00:46:12 UTC | MarkusHD | I'm away from home for some time and using Vespucci is too complicated for me for non simple tasks, so I leave it to you :) I didn't walk this route anyway, so I don't have surveyed it myself, only tried routing this alternative track. | |
| 4 | 2018-02-13 11:27:25 UTC | MarkusHD | I got quite comfortable with Vespucci and have just changed it, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/56321245 | |
| 40258772 by aharvey | 1 | 2017-11-03 12:39:28 UTC | Evo_Evz | Hi Andrew, I'm new to editing but I wanted to delete this small part of Willarong Rd between the two Kingsways you seem to have created. The reason is because you cannot drive straight through Willarong Rd from North to South. Or would it be better to leave this small part of Willarong Rd there and ... |
| 2 | 2017-11-03 21:39:28 UTC | aharvey | If you check the history of the way you're talking about at https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/151022092 you can see it was actually created by inas. No worries though.Looking at the imagery, it doesn't look like there is a physical barrier and as you point out you can still make left and ... | |
| 3 | 2017-11-03 22:52:55 UTC | Evo_Evz | Thanks Andrew. I'm making some changes and had a few questions. First can you tell me how I modify a changeset comment? I made an error in the comment only and wanted to fix that first. It's changeset 53491460. Supposed to say, Left turn only, not Right turn only. Thanks. | |
| 4 | 2017-11-03 23:03:58 UTC | aharvey | You can't modify a changeset comment after you've saved it, but you can add a changeset comment like we are doing here. The changeset comment is helpful for others to understand what and why you changed something. | |
| 53393819 by aharvey | 1 | 2017-10-31 12:15:45 UTC | aharvey | The road and cycle/foot path are physically seperated on the single bridge. I've changed the access tags for each to reflect. (ie. no foot or bicycle on the road way, only on the cycle/foot way).Changed psv to bus as it's only busses allowed, not taxis (psv includes taxi).The access restrict... |
| 52295484 by aharvey | 1 | 2017-09-24 10:16:53 UTC | Harald Hartmann | Hello aharvey. At http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/10042473 you have tagged `bus:maxweight` instead of the more common `maxweight:...`. Please have a look at https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=maxweight |
| 2 | 2017-09-25 07:50:02 UTC | aharvey | Thanks! http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight didn't explain how to tag mode specific maxweights, but looking at taginfo maxweight:mode is much more common than mode:maxweight so I've swaped it over.Still not sure if maxweight=10 + maxweight:bus=no is the correct way to tag "10 t... | |
| 52172709 by aharvey | 1 | 2017-09-20 15:05:06 UTC | Harald Hartmann | Hello aharvey. You have add a lot new fitness_station subkeys. Had you looked on https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/fitness_station#values before? Have you documented this new subkeys in the wiki? ;-) #newkey |
| 2 | 2017-09-20 22:55:32 UTC | aharvey | Are you referring to the style "fitness_station:horizontal_bar=yes", I'm discussing this at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:leisure%3Dfitness_station#How_to_tag.2Fmap_types_of_equipment.3F and more input would be appreciated.The problem is I read and understand the wiki ar... | |
| 51705715 by aharvey | 1 | 2017-09-04 03:37:20 UTC | samuelrussell | Except they're not marked cycle laneshttp://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2014104/s153.html>4) A "bicycle lane" is a marked lane, or the part of a marked lane:>(a) beginning at a bicycle lane sign applying to the lane, or a road marking comp... |
| 2 | 2017-09-04 05:22:17 UTC | aharvey | There is a solid while painted line separating the traffic from the bike lane and a dotted white painted line separating the bike lane from the curb side parallel parking. These bike lanes have a painted white bike inside the lane which designates them as a bicycle lane. The bike lane can't be a sha... | |
| 3 | 2017-09-04 05:30:04 UTC | aharvey | If you'd like to be able to distinguish narrow cycle lanes from wide ones please use the cycleway:lane:width tag as described at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway#Supplementary_details | |
| 4 | 2017-09-04 05:45:41 UTC | samuelrussell | Can you add this to the wiki? We can use cycleway:lane:bicycle=designated & bicycle:no for legal bicycle lanes, and cycleway:lane:bicycle=yes & bicycle=yes for marked cycle shoulders to represent the legal restrictions that vary between marked shoulders and by the law cycle lanes. | |
| 5 | 2017-09-04 05:46:52 UTC | samuelrussell | I wish I had the mapping time to go back and measure the widths :) But I'll keep it in mind and find a "meter" rod somewhere on my body for future mapping. | |
| 6 | 2017-09-04 06:16:06 UTC | aharvey | Sorry I'm not sure what part you feel should be added to the wiki?You're saying that this isn't a legal (in NSW) cycle lane because it lacks the word "LANE" painted in white next to the white bicycle symbol painted in the bicycle lane? Maybe you want something like bicycle:lane:legal=y... | |
| 7 | 2017-09-04 06:21:33 UTC | samuelrussell | bicycle:yes means a legal reason to be able to ridebicycle:designated means a specific legal designationAll lanes are packed:yes. Bus lanes are pav:designated. It matters because you can't legally climb Williams street to park in cbd in lanes 1-2 but are required to use the Australian road rul... | |
| 8 | 2017-09-04 06:36:00 UTC | aharvey | Hmm I always read http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access as designated meaning it's set aside for that purpose. So a path with has a sign saying pedestrians and bicycles can use it would be foot=designated, bicycle=designated. access=yes I understood as you're allowed to use the way, but ther... | |
| 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... | |