Changeset No. Date Contributor Comment
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 ...
12017-06-20 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.
12017-04-18 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.
12017-01-08 08:20:37 UTCTheSwavu Hey! Someone found a use for my good-ol friend Mainland Australia.
12016-11-04 01:00:41 UTCCloCkWeRX Do you know if the bridge (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/771693) is actually there still?
22016-11-04 03:46:09 UTCaharvey 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
12016-06-25 02:35:51 UTCEwen Hill Thanks for doing that.
12016-04-16 07:08:31 UTCsamuelrussell Kudos! Do these sites have relationships? Could those relationships be mapped?
22016-04-16 07:20:09 UTCaharvey 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...
12015-10-01 01:45:34 UTCriblit 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.
22015-10-01 05:34:38 UTCaharvey 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...
8 changeset(s) created by aharvey have been discussed with a total of 14 comment(s)