aharvey participated in the following changeset discussionsaharvey participated in the following changeset discussions| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 168508941 by Faultis @ 2025-07-05 05:11 | 1 | 2025-07-05 05:17 | Faultis ♦1 | I'm hoping that this gets accepted and Google maps finally accept the numerous requests i sent in to remove this road from gps navigation. Its caused me a lot of issues and i've had 3 people get bogged at the back of my property over the last 2 years. The road is only in decent condition ... |
| 2 | 2025-07-05 12:51 | aharvey | In OpenStreetMap edits like this aren't "requests", instead they immediately update the map, there's no review. Other mappers map choose to review your changes and request feedback or after discussion if we feel the changes are detrimental we might revert or roll back changes.\... | |
| 124716683 by Supt_of_Printing @ 2022-08-10 07:45 | 1 | 2025-07-05 12:24 | aharvey | Reviewing the changes here https://osmcha.org/changesets/124716683 significant parts of the changes here created two parallel ways for different lanes of the road where no physical separation exists, and therefore I've reverted some of this changes back to the prior state around where Frenchs F... |
| 168468300 by Cathest0 @ 2025-07-04 04:23 | 1 | 2025-07-04 06:04 | aharvey | Thanks, if it's not open to the general public, but only those living or working within the community you could set access=private, similar to how it's tagged further along. |
| 168296217 by Testy1234 @ 2025-06-30 07:58 | 1 | 2025-07-04 05:34 | aharvey | are you sure these are already built or possibly still under construction? |
| 168299079 by Testy1234 @ 2025-06-30 09:08 | 1 | 2025-07-01 08:22 | aharvey | hi what are you basing these changes on? In particular changing the roads from under construction to completed?It looks like everything is changed to line up with the DCS Base Map however that will show roads which are still under construction or even not even started. |
| 2 | 2025-07-01 20:43 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | There's also been a street name added to way/54490663, which is a power line. --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168299079 | |
| 3 | 2025-07-01 20:46 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | As well as street names on way/1167362251 which is a forest, way/1111036712 which is a construction landuse, and way/1167362242 which is another construction landuse. --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168299079 ... | |
| 4 | 2025-07-04 05:21 | aharvey | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1410857505 seems unlikely they would re-align this section after it was only just constructed? | |
| 5 | 2025-07-04 05:33 | aharvey | There's too many conflicts for an automated revert, so I've fixed:- way/54490663 street name on a power line- way/1167362251 street name on a forest- way/1111036712 street name on a construction landuse- way/1167362242 street name on a construction landuse- way/809948816 restor... | |
| 168299573 by Testy1234 @ 2025-06-30 09:17 | 1 | 2025-07-04 05:18 | aharvey | roundabouts need junction=roundaboutI've added this. |
| 168432137 by Testy1234 @ 2025-07-03 08:03 | 1 | 2025-07-04 05:14 | aharvey | Per prior comments, I've updated these to proposed roads. |
| 168432473 by Testy1234 @ 2025-07-03 08:13 | 1 | 2025-07-04 05:10 | aharvey | It appears you're basing these edits soley on the DCS NSW Base Map and I assume other DCS datasets (as the road name does not appear on the base map, but does appear in addressing data)?These datasets will include roads and lots that haven't started construction yet, as such unless you... |
| 168463333 by barlow99 @ 2025-07-03 22:50 | 1 | 2025-07-04 00:29 | aharvey | hi please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3FIn OpenStreetMap roads on private property are still mapped but as access=private which is usually then shown on maps as a p... |
| 168423528 by kurisubrooks @ 2025-07-03 03:42 | 1 | 2025-07-03 05:53 | aharvey | I think these names should go on the airport not the terminal ie. on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/985743235 |
| 168423723 by Urban Green Place @ 2025-07-03 03:56 | 1 | 2025-07-03 04:08 | aharvey | Thanks, I just changed this too https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=indoor%20play?uselang=en which I think is a better fit. |
| 2 | 2025-07-03 04:49 | Urban Green Place ♦1 | Good edit, I agree, I think that tag is a better fit. | |
| 168117364 by LachlanTansey2009 @ 2025-06-26 02:03 | 1 | 2025-07-03 02:46 | aharvey | hi, it's good practice to try ad retain the history of existing features https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_historySo the preferences is to update what exists rather than delete and re-add them.A number of railway lines here have been deleted only to be re-added ... |
| 168331282 by LachlanTansey2009 @ 2025-07-01 00:43 | 1 | 2025-07-03 02:41 | aharvey | hi could you please comment on the discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/melbourne-disused-rail-line-during-construction/132185 |
| 168382681 by donmac703 @ 2025-07-02 06:48 | 1 | 2025-07-02 12:53 | aharvey | I think it should be tagged based on what it is on the ground, I don't see why it can't be service=driveway and still be used by bus routes so long as it has the appropriate psv=* or bus=* access tags. |
| 2 | 2025-07-03 00:26 | aharvey | or actually since the public can drive, just access=yes (since for driveways it can be ambiguous without an explicit access=yes or access=private) | |
| 168412024 by MichaelC123 @ 2025-07-02 18:14 | 1 | 2025-07-03 00:25 | aharvey | psv=* is an access key. psv=yes means taxi's and busses are allowed to drive on this road, however it's not needed since by default we assume highway=primary is access=yes, ie. anyone can access it, cars, busses, bicycles, motorbikes.The tag doesn't indicate the road segment is pa... |
| 168388187 by nlseven @ 2025-07-02 09:11 | 1 | 2025-07-02 11:55 | nevw ♦1,978 | Hi, the building overlay is not sufficiently accurate to add to the osm without further refinement. It is expected that you zoom in close to the building footprint and adjust the corners to be a close copy of the building seen in the imagery. If they were more accurate we could import the data but w... |
| 2 | 2025-07-02 12:43 | aharvey | Nev, these were already added prior to this changeset, nlseven just changed the building types, which looks fine. | |
| 3 | 2025-07-02 15:00 | nevw ♦1,978 | Ooops, my humblest apologies nlseven, keep up the good work. A big improvement is needed in the way I address quality control issues it seems. | |
| 168374799 by donmac703 @ 2025-07-01 23:17 | 1 | 2025-07-02 00:44 | aharvey | Thanks for fixing this one. There still exists an amenity=shelter here, just it shouldn't be conflated with the highway=bus_stop so I've mapped it out in https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1411345167 |
| 168375322 by tastrax @ 2025-07-01 23:52 | 1 | 2025-07-02 00:17 | aharvey | Thanks. For some of these I've used `addr:unit:designation=Shop` to try and retain that information that would otherwise be lost.This tag hasn't been used yet, but is the best I could come up with. |
| 2 | 2025-07-02 04:38 | tastrax ♦1,145 | Thanks Andrew - maybe we should also consider addr:unit:designation for other things such as Lot and Suite (which are the most common words I find in the unit fields? | |
| 131829758 by Nrg800 @ 2023-01-29 06:09 | 1 | 2025-07-01 13:22 | aharvey | I don't think it's a good idea to make changes based on transport plan maps, firstly mass mapping based on this is not okay from these copyrighted maps, secondly are you sure that these plans reflect the current reality and not future aspirations? even then why take their plans over survey... |
| 168335000 by thekenfliege @ 2025-07-01 04:51 | 1 | 2025-07-01 05:38 | aharvey | Does this appear on the imagery here, it doesn't line up with any of the imagery sources we have.What's DLR stand for? |
| 2 | 2025-07-01 06:06 | thekenfliege ♦1 | DLR: www.dlr.dewe have set up this telescope 2019, this imagery is old, there are many more telescope stations (and even the area has increased) | |
| 3 | 2025-07-01 06:16 | aharvey | Thanks! I added https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q157332 as the operator:wikidata. | |
| 4 | 2025-07-01 07:27 | aharvey | Should this be considered within/part of the Mount Kent Observatory complex?https://www.unisq.edu.au/study/why-unisq/unisq-stories/research-stories/smartnet seems to suggest so, in which case we should extend https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/516925285 to cover this site and then also tag man_ma... | |
| 5 | 2025-07-01 07:32 | aharvey | Actually I'm not sure since the other telescopes are tagged as man_made=observatory within the amenity=university.It just doesn't seem right to tag the site as amenity=university since it's a dedicated research site run by the university but not a university where students go to c... | |
| 168117210 by stephsteph @ 2025-06-26 01:49 | 1 | 2025-06-27 00:29 | aharvey | We don't usually tag where it's safe/no safe to cross since this is quite subjective, and regardless the footpaths and existing crossings are already well mapped here, so there's no reason to place crossing=no along the way like this. |
| 2 | 2025-07-01 00:58 | stephsteph ♦1 | We got a complaint on a journey plan from a translink customer about them being told to cross here instead of the signalised intersection and therefore weren't given enough time to get to the train station. Openstreetmap actually has the function to not suggest crossing at segments so I wanted ... | |
| 3 | 2025-07-01 05:04 | aharvey | Thanks for the context, and I can see the issue that most routing engines will still route along the road in addition to or instead of the dedicated mapped footpath network. I can understand why though, since not everywhere has the footpaths mapped out and many places there are no footpaths so it mu... | |
| 4 | 2025-07-01 05:14 | aharvey | Indeed when I tried with https://brouter.de/brouter-web/ here it also tried to cross the road where there's no crossing but I customised the routing profile (increasing path_preference from 0 to 20) and then it avoided crossing at the non-crossing instead re-routing me along the mapped footpath... | |
| 104676043 by Timmo's @ 2021-05-14 09:15 | 1 | 2025-07-01 02:13 | aharvey | Thanks for adding HEMS 4 in https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/352054938/historyI just changed it to emergence=air_rescue_service + air_rescue_service=aeromedical since this tag is documented at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:air_rescue_service%3Daeromedical and went through a formal pro... |
| 168326184 by PSharman @ 2025-06-30 20:29 | 1 | 2025-07-01 00:10 | aharvey | hi the suburb, postcode and state aren't needed since these are already derived from existing boundaries mapped. Indeed these addresses were imported from Vicmap data and we intentionally omitted this data for this reason. |
| 167848114 by donmac703 @ 2025-06-19 23:40 | 1 | 2025-06-20 04:25 | aharvey | hi could you please reply to my earlier changeset comments about changing the route names? I might ask for wider community feedback, if you could hold off further changes until we get community feedback? |
| 2 | 2025-06-20 05:38 | aharvey | https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/public-transport-route-names/131624if you had any thoughts on the matter if you could contribute to the thread please. | |
| 3 | 2025-06-21 12:12 | aharvey | I've restored the proper name "Dubbo XPT" based on this being the better route name over the artificial route name from PTv2 per community discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/public-transport-route-names/131624 | |
| 4 | 2025-06-30 05:22 | donmac703 ♦3 | Hi Andrew,I have finally found these notes buried in my gmail feed after getting a message in OSM about them. (They appear in a gmail category that gets 20-50 messages per day, outside of my usual inbox).Currently, the naming of elements appear to all over the place. It is only when they are see... | |
| 5 | 2025-06-30 05:38 | aharvey | No problem. My main issue is that name="Train 427: Dubbo XPT" isn't what these routes are known as on the ground, in common local knowledge or in official documentation, it's an invented name purely from PTv2. We should be using route names that closely match what the route is kn... | |
| 168217921 by Ravman @ 2025-06-28 08:50 | 1 | 2025-06-30 00:12 | aharvey | not sure what you mean by symbol? Maybe you mean tag?I added the sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking tag to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1408273600 which is probably the best way to tag a "steep rock" section that you need to use your hands to navigate through. |
| 2 | 2025-06-30 04:06 | Ravman ♦1 | Thanks Harvey, this is better. I'm very new to this process. I'm good out in the field, but still learnig this platform. Are your changes now live? | |
| 3 | 2025-06-30 04:19 | aharvey | Yeah I made them back on the 21st. Unfortuantly that tag isn't shown on the default map here.The "Tracestack Topo" style https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-36.907493/147.162343&layers=PN does show it as "T3".Other maps like OSMAnd can show it under Configure ... | |
| 168254946 by C&T88 @ 2025-06-29 08:30 | 1 | 2025-06-30 00:22 | aharvey | could you provide any further documentation for this change? |
| 168254975 by C&T88 @ 2025-06-29 08:32 | 1 | 2025-06-30 00:21 | aharvey | could you provide any further documentation for this change? |
| 2 | 2025-06-30 06:07 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | And can you please use changeset comments that describe what you're doing: https://osm.wiki/wiki/Good_changeset_comments --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168254975 | |
| 168213240 by shiok! @ 2025-06-28 05:46 | 1 | 2025-06-30 00:16 | aharvey | hi I see you've removed the IUCN number, I don't know much about it but I've asked the person who added it at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47349280 |
| 2 | 2025-06-30 09:15 | TheSwavu ♦544 | Meh. It's OSM, so there's two ways of tagging something. I had just been using both because it's not that much more effort. I would have most likely just fixed it when I get round to checking CAPAD.Thanks for letting me know. | |
| 47349280 by TheSwavu @ 2017-04-01 09:22 | 1 | 2025-06-30 00:16 | aharvey | The IUCN number you added was removed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168213240 but I don't know much about IUCN numbers to understand what it should be here? |
| 168252168 by Ringbarkis @ 2025-06-29 06:43 | 1 | 2025-06-30 00:10 | aharvey | looks good, but just a minor note that instead of deleting https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12119421701 and creating a new one next to it, you could just move the existing one to improve the location and update any tags you need. This is based on good practice documented at https://wiki.openstreet... |
| 164924872 by donmac703 @ 2025-04-14 07:36 | 1 | 2025-06-29 23:54 | aharvey | hi why did you change https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/451869895 to not:operator:wikidata=Q5260271 I assume it's from the iD suggestion, perhaps you clicked the wrong button?I also just did https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168286708 since I got sick of people changing ... |
| 2 | 2025-06-30 01:01 | donmac703 ♦3 | You are correct, the screen paint sometimes alters the screen after the thought and muscle process of clicking the button begins, resulting in a a different button being clicked... :-( | |
| 168163897 by AntBurnett @ 2025-06-27 03:12 | 1 | 2025-06-27 03:59 | aharvey | any reason to not set name=Woolwich Baths? |
| 2 | 2025-06-27 04:12 | AntBurnett ♦16 | None whatsoever. The DCS NSW Base Map only has "Baths" but if that's what they're known as locally, then go ahead! | |
| 3 | 2025-06-27 04:38 | aharvey | I don't have any local knowledge I was just going by the fact that you named it as "Woolwich baths" in your changeset comment but the name was missing.Though I checked Bing Streetside (which we can use) and it does show the name signposted https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=-33.840041~1... | |
| 4 | 2025-06-27 04:50 | AntBurnett ♦16 | Perfect - I was looking for signage on Collingwood Street at Gale Street without success. Well done, and thank you. | |
| 167686106 by ❤️🔥 @ 2025-06-16 10:16 | 1 | 2025-06-18 05:10 | aharvey | I'm not sure it's best to cut out the atrium like this as a building inner. It's tricky because it is open air on the NE end, but completely covered by a clear roof and still contains escalators and ground, level 1, level 2 walkways around the outer ring of the atrium and overall I�... |
| 2 | 2025-06-26 00:40 | ❤️🔥 ♦364 | sorry I forgot to reply but I did fix the building:part issues. I don't remember how much of the carpark building has shops on the ground floor, so I expanded the area to cover all of it for now | |
| 3 | 2025-06-26 03:13 | aharvey | I saw that thanks. I think around where Kathmandu is is the furthest the shop part goes, but that's okay. | |
| 168081500 by Tassie turf taker @ 2025-06-25 08:00 | 1 | 2025-06-25 09:30 | nevw ♦1,978 | Hi, I notice you have removed a section that crosses in to private property. Should the remaining section have access=private removed or have foot=yes and bicycle=yes so that they can link to other path segments.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access?uselang=en-GB |
| 2 | 2025-06-26 00:21 | aharvey | Agree with nevw, better to use access=private. Though it's unclear to me from the imagery if this path does join up, so I've re-added the private driveway access in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168116099 marking it as access=private. | |
| 164122088 by ❤️🔥 @ 2025-03-26 13:27 | 1 | 2025-06-25 04:49 | aharvey | Thanks. Regarding https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1371681902/history this is what created https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4570090 for but I forgot to map it.I don't think highway=path is correct, I've retagged it as https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man%20made=wildlife%20cro... |
| 2 | 2025-06-26 00:26 | ❤️🔥 ♦364 | oh that explains the mystery, thanks ! | |
| 168039893 by warudo @ 2025-06-24 09:42 | 1 | 2025-06-24 11:44 | aharvey | https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1138446 is for the suburb Centennial Park, so the prior https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q61721649 was indeed correct. Furthermore the wikipedia page you added is for the suburb.I've fixed these both now. |
| 2 | 2025-06-24 11:46 | aharvey | See the suburb which already has those wikidata/wikipedia tags https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3697552 | |
| 167513960 by kurisubrooks @ 2025-06-12 02:02 | 1 | 2025-06-23 04:52 | aharvey | There's also building=airport_terminal has 200 uses https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=airport_terminal though not documented on the wiki, and seems like other terminal buildings also use building=transportation. |
| 167952354 by Jorisbo @ 2025-06-22 11:23 | 1 | 2025-06-23 03:00 | aharvey | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like suggests that it's okay to start inventing new tags if there's no good existing tag, indeed this is how new tags come about. People start using them and eventually as the usage is refined they get documented as in-use, or they go throug... |
| 2 | 2025-06-23 04:08 | Jorisbo ♦143 | thx | |
| 167896191 by uftyv @ 2025-06-21 02:34 | 1 | 2025-06-21 12:42 | aharvey | how can you tell from imagery that these are all water storage, could they possibly be other kinds of silo? eg. for grain? |
| 2 | 2025-06-21 20:48 | uftyv ♦2 | You're right, I've changed it to silo as a general purpose | |
| 167900568 by uftyv @ 2025-06-21 07:15 | 1 | 2025-06-21 12:39 | aharvey | Please ensure you retain any other tags on the node, in this case it had historic=yes. |
| 2 | 2025-06-21 12:40 | aharvey | + it would be more accurate to use source:geometry since actually the source was the person who mapped it as a node prior to you. You can also leave off the source tag and instead rely on the changeset level source. | |
| 3 | 2025-06-21 20:45 | uftyv ♦2 | Thanks for the heads up, I'll make sure to add the tags into the way when I make a building | |
| 167900656 by uftyv @ 2025-06-21 07:18 | 1 | 2025-06-21 12:38 | aharvey | some information was lost here, before we had address 86B and then address 2/68 but you've replaced both with just 68B.If you're not sure which applies to what best to leave the two address nodes as they are and only move the building=yes tag along to the building. I've fixed this... |
| 167554132 by Ravman @ 2025-06-12 23:19 | 1 | 2025-06-13 00:55 | aharvey | it's not considered good practice to use the name tag to describe things see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don't_use_name_tag_to_describe_thingsIf you want to provide a description to map users it's best to use the description=* tag https://wiki.openstreetmap.o... |
| 2 | 2025-06-21 12:28 | aharvey | I've updated this in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167911590 | |
| 167700842 by Sauvik Das @ 2025-06-16 15:43 | 1 | 2025-06-18 00:43 | aharvey | according to https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5627375 the post code is 2113 where did 2109 come from for here?addr:country is not needed, it can be derived from the existing admin boundaries. |
| 2 | 2025-06-21 12:25 | aharvey | I've reverted this change. | |
| 167769850 by donmac703 @ 2025-06-18 08:13 | 1 | 2025-06-19 02:18 | aharvey | In my view the name should be the actual route name, not some concoction based on a preset format of MODE: STOP_FROM => STOP_TO. If data consumers wan't to show the route name in that format they can built it from the data. the name=* should match the actual name used for the route "on ... |
| 2 | 2025-06-19 02:19 | aharvey | Furthermore https://palmbeachferries.com.au/ seems to indicate that "Palm Beach Ferries" should be the network and the operator should be FantaSea Cruising" | |
| 3 | 2025-06-21 12:20 | aharvey | I've restored the prior route names. | |
| 4 | 2025-06-21 12:23 | aharvey | I've changed the network and operator based on my prior comment. | |
| 167764812 by donmac703 @ 2025-06-18 05:29 | 1 | 2025-06-19 02:22 | aharvey | the previous bus route name seems to match whats "on the ground" better than the "MODE REF: FROM => TO" concoction |
| 2 | 2025-06-21 12:18 | aharvey | I've restored the prior route names based on community feedback at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/public-transport-route-names/131624 | |
| 167764029 by donmac703 @ 2025-06-18 04:49 | 1 | 2025-06-19 02:22 | aharvey | similar comments about the route name |
| 2 | 2025-06-21 12:16 | aharvey | I've restored the prior names based on community feedback at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/public-transport-route-names/131624 | |
| 167774788 by donmac703 @ 2025-06-18 10:10 | 1 | 2025-06-19 02:12 | aharvey | I don't think the name should be updated from GTFS data alone, especially to a non-name name, it seems like the prior name "Broken Hill Xplorer" is correct. |
| 2 | 2025-06-19 02:13 | aharvey | Do we really need to specify the platform names in to/from. Simply Sydney -> Broken Hill seems much simpler and better for people using the data. | |
| 3 | 2025-06-19 04:58 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | That name follows the PTv2 name format, however that's been widely discussed/disputed. I've generally ignored that format and use whatever name is actually used in either GTFS or on vehicles themselves. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/... | |
| 4 | 2025-06-19 05:36 | aharvey | Thanks, I was aware where it came from just strongly disagree with it being applied here, especially when it replaces an "on the ground" or "known as" name that was already mapped.But good to see there has been progressing in removing this from the PTv2 standard. | |
| 5 | 2025-06-19 05:54 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | It's still "officially" part of the standard, but it's being ignored more and more at least. I'd be in favour of changing the name back to its previous one, or another name from GTFS if preferred. | |
| 6 | 2025-06-21 12:12 | aharvey | I've restored the prior name based on this being the better route name over the artificial route name from PTv2 per community discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/public-transport-route-names/131624 | |
| 167858004 by Dan123iel @ 2025-06-20 08:18 | 1 | 2025-06-20 12:39 | aharvey | I suspect the lanes:conditional should also be increased to 3 as likely it only changes by one lane during the AM lane shift. I'm not sure though. |
| 167858133 by Dan123iel @ 2025-06-20 08:23 | 1 | 2025-06-20 12:38 | aharvey | if there's no arrows on the road or other road signs then we shouldn't be setting turn:lanes per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn it should only be used where there are road markings or sign markings indicating the lane guidance. |
| 167851551 by Lexi A @ 2025-06-20 04:00 | 1 | 2025-06-20 05:43 | aharvey | The ways which join the road to the parking lots (eg. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1396730532) should be "Driveway" (highway=service + service=driveway) not "Unclassified" (highway=unclassified). As a rule of thumb if you drive up and over the footpath it's a driveway. ... |
| 2 | 2025-06-20 05:45 | aharvey | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1396730553I'm not sure about that one the routing will already let you turn there like this https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_car&route=-27.558516%2C152.278678%3B-27.558694%2C152.278799usually we wouldn't model the int... | |
| 3 | 2025-06-20 05:47 | aharvey | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1396730552 turn lanes are not modelled like that, we only draw a separate way where there is physical separation, if there's just paint on the ground it's best to use the turn:lanes tag https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn#Indicated_turns_by_lane t... | |
| 4 | 2025-06-22 01:45 | Lexi A ♦1 | Thanks aharvey for the corrections and explainations and taking the time to review my edits. I will keep these in mind for the future and hopefully map more accurately in the future | |
| 167812155 by Dan123iel @ 2025-06-19 07:36 | 1 | 2025-06-19 23:04 | aharvey | Are there freshly painted turn arrows on the ground? Imagery isn't showing any turn arrows painted. Or is there other signage indicating the restrictions?turn:lanes is only used where there are markings on the ground or other signage implying it. And then it's only used for the section... |
| 2 | 2025-06-19 23:34 | Dan123iel ♦1 | Thank you. I drive this route daily and the arrows have been painted atleast 6 months ago. I will do some study on the non / through / blank on the straight lanes... | |
| 3 | 2025-06-19 23:49 | aharvey | Thanks for confirming. | |
| 167813049 by Dan123iel @ 2025-06-19 08:04 | 1 | 2025-06-19 22:53 | aharvey | I think on the basis that we mark the additional lane from when it starts, even if it's still to narrow to use at that point, it's okay to say this has 4 lanes total (2 for right turn) even though it only becomes wide enough for two further along). |
| 167813273 by Dan123iel @ 2025-06-19 08:10 | 1 | 2025-06-19 22:49 | aharvey | Thanks. That's fine, just you had a typo in "slight_right" which I've fixed. |
| 167807758 by NicFromNewy @ 2025-06-19 05:08 | 1 | 2025-06-19 06:08 | aharvey | thanks!but these two restrictions from/to the same way aren't needed (if they were we'd need them on every single road at an intersection).https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19267503https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19267500most routers will apply sensible defaults a... |
| 167805574 by Rachel2010 @ 2025-06-19 03:03 | 1 | 2025-06-19 04:00 | aharvey | > StreetComplete asked me which floor this shop was on, however coming back to it this info appears to be already tagged? I'm not familiar enough with indoor tags to know what's going on here.We have two tags for floor level, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:level and https:/... |
| 167781369 by allgear__noidea @ 2025-06-18 12:58 | 1 | 2025-06-19 02:05 | aharvey | can you provide any further information on why this is access=no? What kind of signage is present on the ground? |
| 167802050 by donmac703 @ 2025-06-18 22:30 | 1 | 2025-06-19 02:01 | aharvey | "Transport for NSW" seems to be the more common value https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/operator=Transport%20for%20New%20South%20Wales vs https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/operator=Transport%20for%20NSWIt appears in a bunch of presets so ideally we'd use the same value f... |
| 2 | 2025-06-19 02:02 | aharvey | Although looking at this change are you sure it's correct?In general I think the preference is to have the network set at a lower level than simply "Transport for NSW". The regional trains are a different network to the metro trains, than to the suburban trans and intercity trains... | |
| 167696282 by Edward Lundin @ 2025-06-16 14:01 | 1 | 2025-06-18 04:23 | aharvey | Hi Google Maps Street View is not a usable source for deriving information for OpenStreetMap. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GoogleYou can use other street level imagery providers built into editors like Mapillary, Bing Street Side and others.As such I'll revert this road as yo... |
| 2 | 2025-06-18 04:25 | aharvey | reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167763531please only use permissible sources for mapping | |
| 3 | 2025-06-18 09:59 | Edward Lundin ♦1 | Ah, ok. I will check other sources and possibly redo the change. Thanks. | |
| 167715873 by donmac703 @ 2025-06-16 22:58 | 1 | 2025-06-18 03:22 | aharvey | See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route_master the route_master relation should have the route relations as members not the first bus stop.The network should probably match the network of the routes |
| 167700636 by Sauvik Das @ 2025-06-16 15:37 | 1 | 2025-06-18 00:45 | aharvey | hi what's your reason for adding these addr:postcode and addr:country nodes around the place? There are a bit meaningless without any other address information and can be derived from existing boundaries. |
| 167718089 by yazanarouri @ 2025-06-17 01:47 | 1 | 2025-06-18 00:34 | aharvey | the postcode boundary at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16354215 says otherwise, is the postcode boundary wrong? |
| 2 | 2025-06-18 01:19 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | 4212 is significantly closer to Brisbane, this definitely seems incorrect. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/167718089 | |
| 167720870 by yazanarouri @ 2025-06-17 04:59 | 1 | 2025-06-18 00:31 | aharvey | Did the suburbs change recently? https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11675694 exists as "North Toowoomba" and the address suburb is usually inherited from this. |
| 2 | 2025-06-18 01:17 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | Does North Toowoomba East actually exist? I can find North Toowoomba and East Toowoomba, but nothing combining the two of them. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/167720870 | |
| 167636460 by UncleZhanger @ 2025-06-15 05:44 | 1 | 2025-06-16 00:47 | aharvey | hi, Google Street View can't be used to derived data from adding to OSM, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GoogleThere are street imagery providers you can use including Bing Streetside and Mapillary, these are available from within the iD editor, but these don't show any max wei... |
| 2 | 2025-06-20 21:56 | UncleZhanger ♦2 | Hi, thanks for the advice. I didn’t know about the google rule. It is based on my ground survey, the only reason I noticed it was that Osmand navigated me there with an overweight truck, then I saw the sign and I had to go around the block. | |
| 167558154 by vinnski @ 2025-06-13 04:44 | 1 | 2025-06-13 05:33 | aharvey | hi and welcome to OSM.When you say "Shared Path", shared between who? Pedestrians and cyclists? Can the public drive their car, or only maintenance vehicles or no one can drive?Because your tags aren't quite right. highway=path implies you can't drive but you have motor_v... |
| 167482730 by Yourock17 @ 2025-06-11 09:56 | 1 | 2025-06-13 00:49 | aharvey | Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1056843378 commercial? If so what kind of commercial, offices? Because now we have building=commercial + residential=apartments which can't go together. |
| 117204660 by lyjjimmy @ 2022-02-09 14:15 | 1 | 2025-06-12 05:46 | aharvey | According to https://www.tollambulancerescue.com.au/news/our-bases/bankstown/ "The Bankstown Base also includes The ACE Training Centre" so should be place the "ACE Training Centre" feature as a node inside https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13778946/history ?I've ma... |
| 167514484 by Hazel Exceed ICT @ 2025-06-12 02:42 | 1 | 2025-06-12 03:47 | aharvey | looks good |
| 167514365 by Ansderer @ 2025-06-12 02:30 | 1 | 2025-06-12 03:46 | aharvey | I'm not from the ACT, but if there are a few houses where people live here then that seems ok. There is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Disolated_dwelling but it looks like there are 5 houses here so hamlet is probably correct.There is the District of Booth at https://www.ope... |
| 167333352 by catgirlseraid @ 2025-06-08 02:50 | 1 | 2025-06-09 07:35 | aharvey | pretty much every beach along the coastline has opportunities for surfing, unless it's it has a specific local name you'd like to map should we really be adding sport=surfing off each beach?furthermore, the "water" here is already mapped via the coastline, so we shouldn'... |
| 2 | 2025-06-09 08:08 | catgirlseraid ♦31 | I'm unsure about the sport=surfing without a name too. This was a node converted to an area as part of a area=yes on nodes cleanup, it wasn't creating any new information. This is the ID of the original node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12036802068 | |
| 3 | 2025-06-09 08:10 | catgirlseraid ♦31 | The water tagging seems to be part of a preset i was using sorry, natural=water removed from both this area and the nearby one i also fixed in this changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167383324 . Thanks for noticing and pointing it out <3 | |
| 4 | 2025-06-09 10:25 | aharvey | Thanks, fair enough. | |
| 5 | 2025-06-09 10:29 | catgirlseraid ♦31 | I have no problems if you want to remove them, maybe best to reach out to the original mapper first though? | |
| 6 | 2025-06-09 12:12 | aharvey | I'll leave them. I looked through the original contribution and it seems they were mostly from Strava surfing heatmaps, which is mostly just mapping the popular surfing spots. It just seemed odd seeing them mapped but the more I think about it the more I think it's reasonable. | |
| 167377447 by ArchangelEkim @ 2025-06-09 04:25 | 1 | 2025-06-09 05:39 | aharvey | In JOSM, under the More Tools menu there is a "Replace Geometry" tool, which when you select for example a node and a way will automatically move the tags from the node to the way, place the node as one of the way nodes (which helps with retaining the link between the node and way in the h... |
| 2 | 2025-06-09 05:40 | aharvey | ah I can see you did that sometimes here, sorry I just saw the ones you didn't first. | |
| 3 | 2025-06-09 11:27 | ArchangelEkim ♦13 | Ah did I delete some? I was sure I only used the replace geometry tool. | |
| 4 | 2025-06-09 11:37 | ArchangelEkim ♦13 | Its weird because these were some of the last I replaced and I know I used the tool. Now I want to revert and fix this... | |
| 5 | 2025-06-09 11:52 | aharvey | It's okay, it happens. While it's nice to try and keep the history it's not essential, one can still attempt to reconstruct it via a lookup of the changeset looking at the deleted node's tags and the tags on the way. | |
| 6 | 2025-06-09 11:57 | ArchangelEkim ♦13 | Yeah okay, plus there is definitely addresses to add in that were missing. I am aware the coles development may have actually changed its address too. But thats from application documents. Not sure where Ill get the actual address from within compliance. | |
| 7 | 2025-06-09 12:09 | aharvey | near the fire hydrants, or on the fire escape maps throughout the building or sometimes within lifts are good places to look | |
| 167369256 by —pj @ 2025-06-08 20:35 | 1 | 2025-06-09 05:53 | aharvey | hi, please don't map for the renderer see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_for_the_renderermoving the way to from it's true location just to improve the cartography isn't good practice in OSM, this is left to the cartography software to decide where... |
| 167378043 by ArchangelEkim @ 2025-06-09 04:51 | 1 | 2025-06-09 05:18 | aharvey | Did you recently survey this? When I did in June 2024 the new building at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1296216101 was still under construction but there seemed to be a driveway (the one you deleted here) running parallel to the other road (the one you made oneway). Just wanted to check if thing... |
| 2 | 2025-06-09 11:24 | ArchangelEkim ♦13 | I am not familiar with the driveway, but its possible connected with the one way accessway which I created here (i just joined the two links you had together and aligned it. Ive known this has always been a one way passthrough for the many years I visit the GPs. However Ive only ever taken notice at... | |
| 167335916 by Wonx2150 @ 2025-06-08 06:08 | 1 | 2025-06-08 11:24 | aharvey | Shared path as shared with pedestrians, off the street where the footpath would be? If so you'd need to at a minimum add foot=yes to say pedestrians are allowed, then segregated=no to imply that pedestrians and cyclists share the same space. |
| 166994324 by arctic-rocinante @ 2025-05-31 00:50 | 1 | 2025-06-06 05:11 | aharvey | The outline you've drawn seems to line up with Sentinel imagery which shows it. Well done. |
| 166995267 by arctic-rocinante @ 2025-05-31 02:21 | 1 | 2025-06-06 05:02 | aharvey | is it https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:surface%3Dfibre_reinforced_polymer_grate ? |
| 2 | 2025-06-12 02:27 | arctic-rocinante ♦35 | Yes I think so (going from memory - I didn't take a photo).To be honest I copied the surface tag from a nearby boardwalk segment that looked like the same material. Seems that one originated from the below changeset (which switched it over from "plastic"):https://www.openstreetm... | |
| 166997507 by arctic-rocinante @ 2025-05-31 05:49 | 1 | 2025-06-06 04:59 | aharvey | OSRM is adding area routing, so hopefully this will soon be not needed (maybe once enough routers follow too) |
| 166999977 by arctic-rocinante @ 2025-05-31 07:37 | 1 | 2025-06-06 04:58 | aharvey | the ballot thing really depends when you want to visit, it's only for peak times, other times you can rock up and by a day pass at entry.I've updated this to motor_vehicle=yes + fee:motor_vehicle=yes. To say that anyone can drive here if you pay a fee. In particular it's open to t... |
| 2 | 2025-06-06 22:23 | arctic-rocinante ♦35 | Makes sense to me, thanks for updating it 👍 | |
| 112868718 by Andy_T_56 @ 2021-10-23 10:29 | 1 | 2025-06-04 09:26 | aharvey | hi, where did the ferry operator "Navigators" come from? According to https://derwentferries.com.au/travel-info/ it seems like "Derwent Ferries" is the operator? |
| 2 | 2025-06-05 06:53 | Andy_T_56 ♦10 | According to the Australian Business Register, The entity Derwent Cruises Pty Ltd has the business names Derwent Ferries, Derwent Link, Derwent River Ferry Service and Mona Roma. The trading name is "Navigators" | |
| 3 | 2025-06-05 06:59 | aharvey | Thanks. Okay I won't change anything, but just going by their website it does seem like "Derwent Ferries" would be better and more understood by users for the operator tag.PS. This is why I like to tag `operator:wikidata` as well, because Wikidata has more flexibility to record th... | |
| 167160281 by emmanuels26 @ 2025-06-04 05:13 | 1 | 2025-06-04 06:27 | aharvey | Thanks for improving this. Generally addr:suburb, addr:postcode and addr:state aren't needed as they can be derived from the admin boundaries, indeed when we did the import of these addresses it was decided to intentionally not include suburb, postcode and state. |
| 167141814 by SnowyAvalanche @ 2025-06-03 15:54 | 1 | 2025-06-04 04:16 | aharvey | hi, what happened to the building? I see you've removed building=yes, but still have the building:levels tag?If the building is no longer there, then what's there now? |
| 167150570 by james____ @ 2025-06-03 19:48 | 1 | 2025-06-03 22:29 | aharvey | ok, but we can't use Google Street View for mapping in OSM, just your local knowledge, surveys or sources we can legally use. |
| 141628045 by RejectBigTech @ 2023-09-23 04:27 | 1 | 2025-06-03 05:06 | aharvey | I've reverted this changeset in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141628045 since it had incorrectly dragged a node to the wrong location. |
| 166963580 by gpsbob @ 2025-05-30 10:19 | 1 | 2025-06-02 03:08 | aharvey | While okay to map it as a node or on the main office building, I think where possible it's best to place the tags on the whole site area, as this then captures all the motel buildings and grounds. I've made changes here to do that. |
| 166962076 by gpsbob @ 2025-05-30 09:46 | 1 | 2025-05-30 09:50 | gpsbob ♦2 | Is adding driveways meaningful, worthwhile and done correctly in this instance? He who has not tasted grapes says sour. |
| 2 | 2025-06-02 03:01 | aharvey | If you feel it adds value, then by all means go for it. Someone might find it useful.It's most useful for larger blocks where it provides information about which street and where exactly access to a residence may be from. Especially where a residence may be addressed to one street but acces... | |
| 167006114 by chr1sb @ 2025-05-31 10:33 | 1 | 2025-06-02 02:48 | aharvey | access=no would imply it's unusable by any vehicle including fire trucks, emergency services, and NPWS maintenance vehicles. Is that the case? (this would be motor_vehicle=no) Or is it just closed to general public vehicles? (this would be motor_vehicle=private).Additionally do you know the... |
| 2 | 2025-06-02 02:49 | aharvey | ps this applies to all your other recent changes too. | |
| 3 | 2025-06-02 04:26 | chr1sb ♦1 | Noted. Emergency and maintenance vehicles are allowed. The NPWS Plan of Management for the reserve states general public is "limited to minimal impact day bushwalking". | |
| 166765506 by dmil89 @ 2025-05-26 08:03 | 1 | 2025-05-28 02:42 | aharvey | thanks, fyi it should be either disused:amenity=bar or amenity=bar but not both tags. it looks like from your edit you've added the disused by left the amenity=bar intact. I've fixed this now. |
| 166808243 by Kat_McIntosh @ 2025-05-27 06:26 | 1 | 2025-05-27 09:18 | aharvey | hi unfortuantly this doesn't seem to matchup with the other addresses here. The address you've modified was for Unit 4, 31 Rosella Cl, but now you've set it as Unit 4, 350 Benhiam St, but all the other units 1 through 13 are still mapped as 31 Rosella Cl. Are all the other units in th... |
| 166767188 by openstreetmap mapper @ 2025-05-26 08:39 Active block | 1 | 2025-05-26 21:29 | aharvey | From the imagery it looks like it might be a combined basketball and netball court? |
| 166759308 by Auguste Bonnet @ 2025-05-26 05:24 | 1 | 2025-05-26 08:36 | aharvey | hi, it may well be dangerous, but the kerb ramps on either side imply there is an unmarked crossing here, therefore we should map it as such, and we should restore the prior unmarked crossing tags.Routing engines can take this into account when routing or when people are doing network analysis f... |
| 164267609 by WoodsC @ 2025-03-29 22:19 | 1 | 2025-05-26 07:48 | aharvey | hi, the Grose Valley was already mapped as an area at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12107614 but the node you've added sits out side that. Do you think the Grose Valley relation should be extended into where you've placed the node or should that be Govetts Gorge https://www.openst... |
| 2 | 2025-05-29 00:30 | WoodsC ♦1 | Hi, I see what you mean. I hadn't realised Grose Valley was already in the system, but anyway, it should also encompass Govett Gorge 12107671 as it's a considerable percentage of the valley system. It's also what the vast majority of people see and know as the Grose Valley, principall... | |
| 166663939 by mschilde @ 2025-05-23 16:10 | 1 | 2025-05-26 04:39 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166758428 please discuss further here or on the OSM Community Forum. |
| 166663977 by mschilde @ 2025-05-23 16:11 | 1 | 2025-05-26 04:36 | aharvey | hi, I'm reverting this as it goes against past discussions within the local community, I would suggest to post in the OSM Community Forum if you'd like to propose a change or discuss this further.For more context, in Australia we have administrative boundaries for "State/Territory... |
| 2 | 2025-05-26 04:39 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166758428 please discuss further here or on the OSM Community Forum. | |
| 166687660 by DisplayName_999 @ 2025-05-24 09:33 | 1 | 2025-05-26 04:01 | aharvey | lanes:forward and lanes:backward should add up to lanes. I've just fixed this and added more lane details to the street here. |
| 155921434 by TheSwavu @ 2024-08-29 10:38 | 1 | 2025-05-26 03:59 | aharvey | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8202040033https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=967348017368965this isn't a crossing, it's where the cycle path from the footpath joins onto the road, it's not intended/built to cross from one side of the road to another, and likely this would be... |
| 166719680 by openstreetmap mapper @ 2025-05-25 05:00 Active block | 1 | 2025-05-25 10:03 | ArchangelEkim ♦13 | Heyo, is there a reason or justification you can provide for this significant changeset. This amount of roads being upped to 'primary' is a big change especially as a first contribution. |
| 2 | 2025-05-26 01:35 | aharvey | 1. these road classification changes are a bit controversial, I'd encourage you to discuss changes about why you believe they should be changed. In the meantime, I've reverted these changes in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166756107, however retained the correct addition of lanes... | |
| 166721458 by snid678 @ 2025-05-25 06:49 | 1 | 2025-05-26 01:18 | aharvey | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12861961858 could also be two different nodes, one for 4A and another for 4B |
| 2 | 2025-05-26 08:11 | snid678 ♦1 | Hi. Agree to the two different nodes. Both were merged automatically when they were added (likely had them too close together). I have split them back to 2 seperate nodes. | |
| 166753482 by ConsEbt @ 2025-05-25 22:29 | 1 | 2025-05-26 00:47 | aharvey | according to https://www.stmattsmanly.org.au/ their address is 1 Darley Road and therefore not addr:street=The Corso |
| 154078156 by ShelbyAT @ 2024-07-17 23:20 | 1 | 2025-05-20 10:28 | aharvey | The change from access=restricted to access=yes, according to https://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/visit-a-park/parks/macquarie-marshes-nature-reserve> Recognised for its important wetlands, access to this nature reserve is limited to management and research staff, and there are no visitor fa... |
| 2 | 2025-05-23 05:27 | aharvey | I didn't hear back so I've updated this to access=private based on the website guidance. | |
| 166417127 by TheSwavu @ 2025-05-18 06:36 | 1 | 2025-05-18 10:01 | aharvey | why is this one noexit? |
| 2 | 2025-05-18 11:04 | TheSwavu ♦544 | Where does it go? | |
| 3 | 2025-05-18 23:04 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | Wrong node? It's on the corner of a building --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166417127 | |
| 4 | 2025-05-18 23:53 | aharvey | is the noexit meant to be no exit from the building or no exit from the inclinator? either way it appears from the imagery that the house below is accessed via the driveway, into the building (or carport) then down the inclinator or steps to the house, either way this node is just in the middle betw... | |
| 5 | 2025-05-22 04:07 | aharvey | I've removed the noexit=yes since the inclinator can likely be exited at either end, to access the residence and to access the street. | |
| 6 | 2025-05-22 08:33 | TheSwavu ♦544 | That's not what the noexit tag indicates. It's a flag to a validator to stop telling me it's a problem. | |
| 7 | 2025-05-22 22:30 | aharvey | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:noexit=yes> Use the noexit=yes tag at the end of a highway=* to indicate that there is no possibility to travel further by any transport mode along a formal path or route.It seems like one can travel from the road to the house via the inclinator, ad... | |
| 8 | 2025-05-22 23:39 | TheSwavu ♦544 | Keep reading. "Note: this tag is by no means an access restriction (indicating that passing is not allowed). It must be ignored by routing (GPS)."As you have already pointed out this goes into someone's private building. As far as I know mapping the internal layout of people'... | |
| 9 | 2025-05-23 05:01 | aharvey | I thought as a QA flag it's meant for where an end of a way is close to another way, so QA tools flag it as "maybe should be connected", but if it really shouldn't be connected because it doesn't connect in real life you use "noexit=yes" to say, "hey QA, no re... | |
| 166632648 by Neurotrip36 @ 2025-05-22 23:01 Active block | 1 | 2025-05-23 03:09 | aharvey | hi, it would be helpful for others if you could explain your thinking and rationale in setting the place type each time you change it. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments |
| 2 | 2025-06-14 05:27 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | DWG revert - undiscussed doubtful import from unknown sourcehttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167599357 | |
| 166634344 by GW-TP @ 2025-05-23 01:18 | 1 | 2025-05-23 03:03 | aharvey | hang on, mode specific access tags like motor_vehicle override the top level access. So if you set access=permit and then motor_vehicle=yes you're saying you need a permit, unless you're driving then you don't need a permit. Since this isn't the case, I suggest you can just leave... |
| 2 | 2025-05-23 03:05 | aharvey | See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:accessOn the other hand if you do want to be expclit on who can access use something like no top level access=* tag, but then tag motor_vehicle=permit + bicycle=permit + foot=permit. In this case it sounds like you get a 3 day transit permit, I'm ... | |
| 166632061 by GW-TP @ 2025-05-22 22:28 | 1 | 2025-05-22 23:51 | aharvey | Thanks. Based on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access=permit> This tag should be used in cases where a permit is required, but is routinely granted to everyone requesting it. In cases where access to permit is obstructed it would be more appropriate to tag these areas access=private... |
| 166513591 by TheSwavu @ 2025-05-20 09:10 | 1 | 2025-05-21 04:50 | aharvey | Sorry I don't agree with this change. The Wildlife Protection Area should be tagged as a protected_area with a protect_class based on the protection of native wildlife. While yes the tag should be used an an area, in this case the node is a placeholder until we can identify and map the exact bo... |
| 2 | 2025-05-21 05:17 | aharvey | I've converted it to an area covering the bushland as an initial estimate with a fixme note. I see protect_class=4 is more for IUCN so I've changed it to 7 | |
| 3 | 2025-05-21 05:29 | aharvey | Hmm all the other Wildlife Protection Area's in OSM in NSW use protect_class=4 and that seems to align with other countries per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:protect_class although I understand these aren't IUCN assigned, so based on that could be protect_class=7. I don't mi... | |
| 4 | 2025-05-22 08:37 | TheSwavu ♦544 | No. The IUCN categories are a statement of intent from the owner of the reserve. This reserve does not have a published IUCN category. | |
| 5 | 2025-05-22 23:41 | aharvey | Ok, so I guess it comes down to if protect_class is meant to be strictly applying based on IUCN category, or if it's just for IUCN-like categories that can apply even without a published IUCN.A bit like if sac_scale applies only where we have an "official" SAC scale, or can it app... | |
| 166590064 by Tableaunovice @ 2025-05-22 00:34 | 1 | 2025-05-22 03:12 | aharvey | hi in this changeset you converted a main Brisbane CBD road into a video wall, without further justification I've reverted this changeset in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166591920 |
| 166591018 by Tableaunovice @ 2025-05-22 02:02 | 1 | 2025-05-22 03:06 | aharvey | hi I'm not sure what you were trying to do here, but your change wasn't related to traffic signs and broke the Brisbane City and Spring Hill boundary relations.I've reverted this changeset in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166591839 |
| 139683045 by P15ta @ 2023-08-10 01:08 | 1 | 2025-05-22 01:52 | aharvey | In my changeset from 2023-02 at http://openstreetmap.org/changeset/133064253 I noted the construction then later that year I see you've removed the construction area and redrawn the demolished buildings even though construction was still ongoing? https://www.newgreenschatswood.com.au/newsWe... |
| 163382954 by arctic-rocinante @ 2025-03-08 23:33 | 1 | 2025-05-22 01:40 | aharvey | it shows up on Sentinel-2 imagery so I've updated the geometry, it looks like you had it too big, I tried to keep the shape but it's quite hard without a higher resolution image. |
| 154122085 by MargaretRDonald @ 2024-07-18 23:33 | 1 | 2025-05-21 03:29 | aharvey | no it was correct before, one is for the wikidata item for this National Park and the other is the wikidata item for the operator of the park (NPWS). I've fixed this now. |
| 59796573 by Warin61 @ 2018-06-13 04:38 | 1 | 2020-09-16 10:49 | TheSwavu ♦544 | Hi,Can you remember what you were trying to do here? It looks like you've duplicated some of the tagging from the ways/relations on random boundary nodes.Can I just delete them? |
| 2 | 2020-09-19 06:20 | Warin61 ♦2,664 | I was trying to indicate that the landuse is forestry ... rather than simply trees as is assumed by some from the tag landuse=forest. I did this on nodes (not ways) with the tag landuse=forestry. There are 2 NSW Forestry Corporation areas that are not tree production areas, one is a sawmill the ot... | |
| 3 | 2020-09-19 23:48 | TheSwavu ♦544 | That doesn't really explain why you've copied the tagging of this relation: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7138489and put it on this node on the boundary:https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4778458694and this relation:https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/586307... | |
| 4 | 2025-05-20 05:11 | aharvey | The duplicate tags on the way nodes still exist. There are multipolygon/boundary relations with landuse=forest, which then contain a single node on one of the ways with landuse=forestry with a matching name.In JOSM, I first used overpass to download operator="Forestry Corporation of NSW&quo... | |
| 5 | 2025-05-20 07:40 | Warin61 ♦2,664 | The idea is to to avoid the multiple meanings of the tag landuse=forest (as explained in the page Forest) by using the tag landuse=forestry. I never got around to duplicating the relations but used nodes to get an idea of the number. With the increasing pressure to stop all logging and transfer Stat... | |
| 6 | 2025-05-20 09:55 | aharvey | I didn't realise the tagging was a mess, I thought we had landuse=forest for land managed for forestry and natural=wood to say the area is covered in trees, but alas it seems the tagging is still problematic. Given https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse=forestry could we not just tag t... | |
| 7 | 2025-05-20 11:52 | Warin61 ♦2,664 | The tagging in NSW looks ok. I am not so certain in other parts. Duplicate tagging is done in various forms in OSM ... seasonal and intermittent for instance. I did nodes so I could be certain of finding them again, they would be 'better' as duplicate relations but then some would say ... | |
| 166474000 by walkerreuben @ 2025-05-19 12:31 | 1 | 2025-05-20 03:28 | aharvey | there's different mapping styles, but likely the best is to mark these as a building and have the way follow the footprint of the building. Alternatively you can mark the whole property as an area with the address. |
| 166502788 by Rosie Ware Clinical Nutrition @ 2025-05-20 02:50 | 1 | 2025-05-20 03:24 | aharvey | This is a 6 story office building, I would be surprised if a small nutritionist business took up the whole building. The street level imagery indicates there is likely multiple tenants here. If you have office space here best to just add a node within the building, rather than on the building.Fu... |
| 164404229 by Warin61 @ 2025-04-02 06:41 | 1 | 2025-05-19 04:38 | radiotrefoil ♦109 | Hi, I feel like the access=no tag on way/22731635 is ambiguous given that foot=designated. Just confirming, it is accessible by foot? I understand there is a gate at the western entrance to Ingar Road that can be bypassed on foot but restricts access to cars. |
| 2 | 2025-05-19 06:12 | Warin61 ♦2,664 | Access for HGVs, buses, taxies etc etc... Are these all to be stated? The access=no means no access unless there is a following dedicated tag .. such as in this case foot=yes, bicycle=yes and motor_vehicle=private (to allow NP service vehicles) ... | |
| 3 | 2025-05-19 06:42 | aharvey | HGV, busses, taxis are all covered under `motor_vehicle`. There's not much left outside of motor_vehicle, foot, and bicycle.I understand your point that you're applying a default of no then applying the exceptions, but why should that be access=no vs access=yes. Unlike a military base ... | |
| 4 | 2025-05-20 07:53 | Warin61 ♦2,664 | I don't think public access by motor vehicle is allowed... locked gates at access points would indicate that? | |
| 5 | 2025-05-20 08:12 | radiotrefoil ♦109 | I think `motor_vehicle=private` `foot=designated` `bicycle=designated` is sufficient, considering `motor_vehicle=private` encompasses the only significant access restriction | |
| 166452896 by MPP10 @ 2025-05-19 01:07 | 1 | 2025-05-19 01:10 | NeisBot ♦2,239 | Hi MPP10, welcome to OSM!Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 94% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:- 25 highway(s)- 1 building(s)- 1 natural(s)- 1 waterway(s)Could you please confirm if these deletions ... |
| 2 | 2025-05-19 03:59 | aharvey | I've reverted this changeset since it deleted many features which quite likely still exist including a waterway=stream, a natural=wood and highway=track.Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_d... | |
| 3 | 2025-05-19 04:32 | radiotrefoil ♦109 | I have marked all trails on 3 Binstead Street and 58 Sir Henrys Parade as private. | |
| 166451471 by tastrax @ 2025-05-18 23:07 | 1 | 2025-05-19 01:10 | aharvey | Thanks, but actually these are semi detached not detached https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dsemidetached_house |
| 2 | 2025-05-19 03:49 | tastrax ♦1,145 | Whoops - that's what I meant to tag them as!! Thanks for catching that. | |
| 166306119 by Majew Lime @ 2025-05-15 13:45 | 1 | 2025-05-15 21:21 | aharvey | I've added bicycle=yes since it seems implied that bicycles can continue through due to the shared path of either side. I've also updated the tagging of the refuge island section. |
| 2 | 2025-05-16 00:50 | Majew Lime ♦1 | Thanks for that, new mapper here. Should refuge islands always be marked by a separate feature? When is it ok/preferred to use crossing:island=yes? Also I should note that the two shared paths do not have the bike/pedestrian markings and are the regular concrete/tiled paths. | |
| 3 | 2025-05-16 01:11 | aharvey | There's not really any best practice around this so really up to the mappers preference. For me if the refuge island is long I might map it as footway=traffic_island, but if it's only 1 or 2 meters I would just use a node with crossing:island=yes.If the shared paths don't have mar... | |
| 4 | 2025-05-16 01:19 | Majew Lime ♦1 | I'm not the one who mapped out these blue paths, they were already there previously. In WA, cyclists can ride on the footpaths even if they don't have the bicycle symbol. Would it be worth changing them to normal footpaths with bicycle=yes instead of bicycle=designated because a lot of the... | |
| 5 | 2025-05-16 01:22 | aharvey | Yeah that sounds good. | |
| 6 | 2025-05-16 01:27 | Majew Lime ♦1 | Alright, thanks for all the help and advice! | |
| 134549915 by Rocket Racoon @ 2023-04-05 18:30 | 1 | 2025-05-15 02:59 | aharvey | I don't think it's useful to tag each residential property as leisure=garden. |
| 162878127 by northchun @ 2025-02-24 06:57 | 1 | 2025-02-24 23:12 | aharvey | Previously it was tagged `compacted` which is "A mixture of larger (e.g., gravel typically 20mm) and smaller (e.g., sand) parts, compacted (e.g., with a roller), so the surface is more stable than loose gravel." per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:surface%3DcompactedYou'll... |
| 2 | 2025-05-14 08:28 | aharvey | This has since been fixed. | |
| 166150533 by Supt_of_Printing @ 2025-05-12 12:36 | 1 | 2025-05-14 03:48 | aharvey | I'm not a fan of adding superfluous nodes to make it look prettier, after all where do you stop you could keep adding arbitrary nodes to retain the smoothness at higher and higher zooms. Extra nodes make it much harder for future mappers to make changes as needed. Instead I believe we should mo... |
| 2 | 2025-05-14 03:53 | aharvey | all I could find in existing documentation is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_curves_with_an_appropriate_number_of_nodes which doesn't really tell us much... | |
| 3 | 2025-05-14 04:20 | Supt_of_Printing ♦40 | Whilst I do understand that not everybody is a fan of "smoothness", there are those of us who are. The rules are open to interpretation on this, so with respect, I will stick to my interpretation and preference. | |
| 166157552 by DeepScanBot @ 2025-05-12 15:03 Active block | 1 | 2025-05-12 23:31 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | Hi, you mention removing tags however you've removed whole objects and added other details, can you let me know what sources you have for this?Your profile also seems to indicate you're doing mechanical edits, are you following the Automated Edits Code of Conduct? https://wiki.opens... |
| 2 | 2025-05-14 03:46 | aharvey | Furthemore you've removed "dumplings" as a value from these instead of converting it to "dumpling" per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cuisine%3DdumplingI'm fine with converting the tag per the wiki, but not removing it completly. | |
| 3 | 2025-05-15 00:02 | tastrax ♦1,145 | Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country and regional code +61 x xxxx xxxx, +61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number.For freecall numbers that work whilst overseas (ie 13 13 13) use +61 X... | |
| 4 | 2025-05-30 05:20 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | DWG revert – undiscussed Organised import from unknown sourcehttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166952257 | |
| 166158588 by DeepScanBot @ 2025-05-12 15:27 Active block | 1 | 2025-05-14 03:43 | aharvey | local practice is we don't include addr:state, addr:postcode, addr:suburb since these are derived from the admin boundaries.I'm okay with converting to singular but not sure how "dumplings;asian" became "asian;noodle" when simply converting to singular? Should be &q... |
| 2 | 2025-06-01 01:58 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown sourcehttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167033291 | |
| 166161931 by wielandb @ 2025-05-12 16:44 | 1 | 2025-05-14 03:41 | aharvey | shouldn't "parking:lane:left" be converted to "parking:left=lane" rather than "parking:left=yes" or is it converted to "yes" if the options have changed in the new schema and it needs to be checked? |
| 2 | 2025-05-14 09:32 | wielandb ♦132 | Hi, thanks for your comment!A generic =yes is set if there is no information about the parking position in the original tags. The old scheme would expect something like parking:lane:left=parallel parking:lane:left:parallel=on_streetto be complete, where =on_street would convert to =lane... | |
| 166232214 by Maradona11 @ 2025-05-14 03:02 | 1 | 2025-05-14 03:37 | aharvey | PS. I've updated the documentation around community car parks and bicycle parking at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Transportation#%22Park_&_Ride%22_Commuter_Car_Parks if I've missed anything please feel free to fix or let me know. |
| 162379793 by Suvarna Mithun @ 2025-02-11 08:06 | 1 | 2025-02-11 12:55 | nevw ♦1,978 | Hi, the source you used is copyrighted and I don’t believe osm has a specific waiver to use this data.https://www.landgate.wa.gov.au/terms-of-use/ |
| 2 | 2025-02-12 05:15 | Suvarna Mithun ♦2 | Hi,Simper Road appears consistently across Google, Esri and Main Roads travel map (which uses Google Maps).In Western Australia, Landgate are the owners of road naming. The official source can be viewed here: https://maps.slip.wa.gov.au/landgate/locate/. Main Roads uses Landgate data. Because ... | |
| 3 | 2025-02-12 05:55 | nevw ♦1,978 | I suppose it is fine to occasionally check the name on the Landgate site but as it is a copyrighted source you should not routinely use the info provided to update osm unless they have provided explicit permission to do so. There is a list of sources that can be used in osm herehttps://wiki.openst... | |
| 4 | 2025-04-15 06:23 | aharvey | We can't use Landgate data, their data is copyright and not compatible with OSM's licensing requirements.We can use the Main Roads WA data which is CC BY and which we have a waiver for. We even have it as a background imagery layer in JOSM and overlay imagery layer in iD, all out of th... | |
| 5 | 2025-04-15 06:28 | aharvey | There is a Bing Streetside image we can use here which although hard to read seems to say "Coyrecup North" so I'm tempted to therefore set this section as that per Bing Streetside, and per Main Roads WA. It was named 9 years ago so signage may be different now. | |
| 6 | 2025-05-13 03:56 | Suvarna Mithun ♦2 | Hi,I hope you are well.I'm seeking assistance regarding an issue we’ve encountered with road naming inconsistencies in OpenStreetMap (OSM). I work with the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) in Western Australia, and we use Mapbox as our mapping platform, which relie... | |
| 7 | 2025-05-13 05:31 | aharvey | The Main Roads WA data such as https://catalogue.data.wa.gov.au/dataset/mrwa-road-network per the Australian Data Sources page at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources#Western_Australia shows it may be used since it is CC BY 4.0 and Main Roads WA completed the OSMF LWG's C... | |
| 8 | 2025-05-13 05:38 | Suvarna Mithun ♦2 | Thank you for your response.Does this mean that OSM is already ingesting data from Main Roads?The reason being last time we had a discrepancy in road name - landgate, main roads and google had the correct name but OSM still had the old road name.Thanks | |
| 9 | 2025-05-13 06:06 | aharvey | There's no automatic ingesting of data, it's up to mappers to decide what to incorporate. There have been coordinated efforts in the past by Microsoft's mapping team to resolve differences in road names between OSM and government datasets.I believe the resolution in those prior ca... | |
| 10 | 2025-05-13 06:07 | TheSwavu ♦544 | OSM is a volunteer based mapping project. Unless someone is interested enough in checking OSM against MWRA, then it's not going to be automatically ingested. | |
| 11 | 2025-05-13 06:37 | Suvarna Mithun ♦2 | Thank you both.Are there any mechanism in OSM wherein they compare the existing map against a source to check if they are outdated/incorrect without users reporting them. | |
| 12 | 2025-05-13 08:39 | aharvey | Within the wider OSM ecosystem, there are tools people have built to try and compare and flag differences, but I note that you can't just assume that OSM is wrong and a particular government dataset is correct if there are differences, so each case should be addressed on a case by case basis.... | |
| 13 | 2025-05-13 10:40 | aharvey | PS. You might want to drop into the OSM Hackathon tomorrow https://geogeeks.org/2025/0514_osm-hackathon-city-of-canning.html | |
| 166182106 by Sultan96 @ 2025-05-13 04:24 | 1 | 2025-05-13 05:07 | aharvey | natural=tree_row should be used on a linear way not an area covering the foliage, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=tree_rowAlso please don't tag leaf_cycle and leaf_type as mixed as a way to tag unknown, only select it if they really are mixed. These all appear to be broa... |
| 166146405 by allgear__noidea @ 2025-05-12 11:06 | 1 | 2025-05-13 00:08 | aharvey | Thanks. The gate is probably locked at night, but I think it's fine to set locked=no as during the day it's not locked. If we know the specific opening hours we could use conditional restrictions to specify when it's locked and when it's unlocked. |
| 166176100 by aussiegeek @ 2025-05-12 22:55 | 1 | 2025-05-12 22:56 | aussiegeek ♦1 | Both the foot/cycle paths parallel to palmers rd had bridge & layer=1 tags, but skeleton creek also has a bridge tag, so set it to layer=1 and bridge above to layer=2 |
| 2 | 2025-05-13 00:05 | aharvey | Looks good. | |
| 161513974 by TheSwavu @ 2025-01-19 06:39 | 1 | 2025-05-12 00:01 | aharvey | Ah I missed this change. My intention was to map the regions of Sydney including "Northern Beaches", "North Shore", "Lower North Shore", "Upper North Shore", "Inner West", "Eastern Suburbs", "St George", "Sutherland Shire&quo... |
| 2 | 2025-05-12 09:51 | TheSwavu ♦544 | I think the main problem is that none of these regions are verifiable. Ironically the Sutherland Shire is the only one that is, because it's an LGA--and is already mapped. | |
| 3 | 2025-05-12 11:51 | aharvey | I'll open a thread to discuss, because I think they should exist in OSM. In this case The Shire as a region probably should exclude the Royal National Park, unlike the LGA which includes it.But even in the case of those that might share the same boundaries like the Northern Beaches region/d... | |
| 166096505 by ArchangelEkim @ 2025-05-11 07:42 | 1 | 2025-05-12 00:03 | aharvey | Thanks! |
| 165666406 by ArchangelEkim @ 2025-05-01 09:26 | 1 | 2025-05-01 10:48 | aharvey | Seems reasonable to me. |
| 2 | 2025-05-09 07:03 | aharvey | https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1422096468142694&focus=photo makes it hard to tell but seems like this driveway might also use 47 and 49 Wicks Road as addresses? If so these could still exist inside the site area being 51 Wicks Road. | |
| 3 | 2025-05-09 10:51 | ArchangelEkim ♦13 | Yeah I'm not sure where you are seeing those numbers, but I am aware of some cottages on Coxs Rd also using divisions of the 120 address. So you might be right with the one on Wicks Rd as well. Ill have a check though which buildings it actually refers to tho because the DCS geocoding doesn... | |
| 165825536 by MapAnalyser465 @ 2025-05-05 03:25 | 1 | 2025-05-05 04:36 | aharvey | Per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=motorway_junction highway=motorway_junction is really the tag for a motorway exit, it's the node along the motorway where you can take an exit, so it's no suitable for an interchange.The way at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/129284... |
| 2 | 2025-05-07 13:52 | mrpulley ♦170 | I'd move the tags for the interchange back onto way 1292847049. Highway=motorway_junction is for junctions (where ways connect), so doesn't belong on a node in the middle of the junction. | |
| 3 | 2025-05-08 01:20 | aharvey | I've put the tags back on the area. | |
| 160225093 by RobMorgan_AU @ 2024-12-12 22:03 | 1 | 2025-05-07 21:53 | aharvey | It's established practice to only split the way into a dual carriageway where there is a physical separation https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Dual_carriageway. In this case there is just 4 lanes, 2 go forward, 2 turn right onto tho motorway,Instead it's better to use https://wiki.op... |
| 2 | 2025-05-07 22:32 | TheSwavu ♦544 | You can also represent it using a turn restriction https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19100096 | |
| 165751797 by kylesey @ 2025-05-03 10:16 | 1 | 2025-05-04 23:40 | aharvey | If there's nothing left on the ground should it even be mapped here at all? There's OpenHistoricalMap for historical features. If it is kept in OSM then abandoned means there's still some evidence on the ground, according to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_... |
| 2 | 2025-05-05 08:32 | kylesey ♦2 | Other lines that closed at a broadly similar time (1950s-1960s) and have little to no physical features left are in OSM/ORM though? I am currently in Germany and this type of decades-old closed line are still everywhere, especially where similar to this one they have clearly had a big influence on t... | |
| 3 | 2025-05-06 04:16 | aharvey | I don't have a strong opinion either way, so I'm okay to leave them if you want.I re-read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:railway regarding abandoned vs razed:"The course of a former railway which has been abandoned and the track removed. The course is still recognized... | |
| 152759811 by mrpulley @ 2024-06-16 13:02 | 1 | 2025-05-05 04:37 | aharvey | FYI there were some changes at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165825536 to the interchange changes you made here, if you were interested in commenting your thoughts? |
| 165787581 by sanddune @ 2025-05-04 08:07 | 1 | 2025-05-04 13:54 | aharvey | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1383500133 should be demanding_mountain_hiking not alpine? It's not typically alpine here. |
| 2 | 2025-05-04 17:23 | sanddune ♦2 | Thankyou for spotting this. After reading the wiki again, I agree I should've used "demanding_mountain_hiking" here. I've fixed it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165809477 | |
| 165628249 by RobboMC @ 2025-04-30 10:23 | 1 | 2025-05-01 00:40 | aharvey | do the signals have a bicycle traffic light? eg like https://www.nsw.gov.au/driving-boating-and-transport/roads-safety-and-rules/bicycle-safety-and-rules/riding-bikes-near-pedestriansIf they do it should be bicycle=designated + foot=designated.We're using "designated" if there... |
| 2 | 2025-05-03 09:40 | RobboMC ♦2 | The short answer is YES!The long response is that Google Maps will not draw a bicycle route across this crossing. I understand it takes months to update; if you can get Maps to allow bikes across here I will go away. :) If you like change it back to designated. It;s one of the few places in t... | |
| 3 | 2025-05-04 05:14 | aharvey | Not sure what this has to do with Google Maps, this is OpenStreetMap. But thanks for confirming the dedicated bicycle lights in that case we can use designated. | |
| 165615262 by Mikulover2201 @ 2025-04-30 03:18 | 1 | 2025-05-01 00:22 | aharvey | Thanks. You should explicitly set oneway=yes on these. |
| 165534070 by SirenTraining @ 2025-04-28 06:58 | 1 | 2025-04-28 08:02 | nevw ♦1,978 | Hi, if you are adding a business listing to a multistory building you need to add all the details to a new node within the building outline unless you are the sole occupant of the whole building.I also noticed that this building was tagged as:addr:housenumber=2addr:street=Market Streetbuildi... |
| 2 | 2025-04-30 08:26 | aharvey | No reply, I've reverted this in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165534070 | |
| 165569812 by Tanzila_TA @ 2025-04-29 00:37 | 1 | 2025-04-29 04:38 | aharvey | What is the location value for?The location key as documented at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location doesn't match how you're using it, and I don't think it's right to use it as you are.Can you hold off these edits until we resolve this? |
| 2 | 2025-04-29 04:40 | aharvey | Regarding the source, it's best used per tag eg source:name=* or better yet on the changeset. Since it's not quite correct to say the source was from the open data portal since it was added independently beforehand. | |
| 3 | 2025-04-29 04:47 | aharvey | Furthermore an import must go through the proper import process.I've previously proposed and worked through an import of this data at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/AU_NSW_TfNSW_Railway_Level_Crossings you can see the kinds of documentation and community consultation y... | |
| 4 | 2025-04-29 23:49 | Tanzila_TA ♦1 | Hi @aharvey, great pickup on the location tag, I'll fix this. Since it's a suburb name, would addr:city be more suitable? Thank you! | |
| 5 | 2025-04-29 23:58 | Tanzila_TA ♦1 | I am unsure what you mean regarding recording the source? I am from TfNSW Data Services team, we have updated Open Data with the latest level crossing info and aim to improve OSM with the same. We have recorded the source tag with the Open Data link previously for our other assets such as Rest Area... | |
| 6 | 2025-04-30 03:56 | aharvey | Thanks for replying.Do they really need suburb tagged?It's already discouraged to add addr:city to most addresses since suburb boundaries are already mapped. In this case the level crossing is on the border of two Suburbs https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3173338 and https://www.op... | |
| 7 | 2025-04-30 04:17 | Tanzila_TA ♦1 | Internally we have an identifying ID, names and location of the level crossings. Since the names are not unique and we don't want to the IDs here, we wanted to add the suburb/ location as well, so that any discrepancies can be easily identified during any future audits. Thanks very much for... | |
| 8 | 2025-04-30 08:22 | aharvey | I think comparing based on proximity is the best way to link them to your data. Sometimes we do include external references but I'm not sure that's best here. | |
| 165573897 by ArchangelEkim @ 2025-04-29 05:06 | 1 | 2025-04-29 13:21 | aharvey | ps JOSM has tools to make it easy to generate the parking space geometries from the outline + entering row/column counts. Much easier than manually drawing these out. |
| 165572747 by ArchangelEkim @ 2025-04-29 03:54 | 1 | 2025-04-29 04:30 | aharvey | amenity=parking_space should be used for each individual parking space not a group of them. You can always still use amenity=parking for the whole parking area.For the addr:housenumber's if you know the addr:street that would be helpful too. |
| 2 | 2025-04-29 04:34 | ArchangelEkim ♦13 | Yep okay thats what I thought, seems others have used it in the wrong way then, I can easily copy paste that then.What would be your suggestion for numbering the buildings since technically they are not an address number. Just a building ref number for the main address of 51 wicks rd. | |
| 3 | 2025-04-29 04:47 | aharvey | If they aren't address numbers don't use addr:housenumber. If they are building numbers/codes use ref=*. If they are unit numbers you could use addr:unit but I think in this case they are probably just building numbers/codes which should be ref.That said, if they are used for addressin... | |
| 4 | 2025-04-29 04:55 | ArchangelEkim ♦13 | I thought about using ref and checked some articles about the issue which noted i should use house number, but yes they are sort of used in addressing since our deliveries are usually made out to the individual building of the entire campus (sort of like a unit number) | |
| 5 | 2025-04-29 13:18 | aharvey | That's it though, if anything they act like a unit not addr:housenumber.How you have it currently means the house at 30 Wicks Road https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6395430523 is the same address as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/332096380 which you've also tagged as addr:housenumb... | |
| 165572007 by LeighAP @ 2025-04-29 03:05 | 1 | 2025-04-29 04:33 | aharvey | These likely should be under ref=* https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only |
| 165549623 by hotseventyfive @ 2025-04-28 13:31 | 1 | 2025-04-28 23:55 | aharvey | The public_transport=station is already mapped in the member way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1261363035 so best to leave this one as the stop area. If you think that's wrong please discuss first, as no justification for the change was given in your changeset comment.As such I've ... |
| 165531563 by ArchangelEkim @ 2025-04-28 05:26 | 1 | 2025-04-28 08:35 | aharvey | Hi, we now have two objects for Dalrymple-Hay Nature Reserve, where we should only have one. It's preferable to retain the history https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_history where possible, so in this case I'd like to remove the duplicate you just added and repair t... |
| 2 | 2025-04-28 08:39 | aharvey | I've repair it now. | |
| 3 | 2025-04-28 09:32 | ArchangelEkim ♦13 | Why have it as a boundary rather than an area? Can it be switched to an area so it shows properly in editor? | |
| 4 | 2025-04-28 09:50 | aharvey | In Australia according to https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/australia-oceania:australia/tags/boundary=protected_area we have 8,586 as relations and 3,802 as ways so both are used and valid.Until OSM can better support retaining an object history as it changes between a node/way/relation I'd pref... | |
| 5 | 2025-04-28 10:00 | ArchangelEkim ♦13 | Ah okay, good to know, its a shame though, cause that is what I feel atm is that while the general structure of OSM is reliable the map has definitely gotten fractured with confusing components. | |
| 165532138 by ArchangelEkim @ 2025-04-28 05:54 | 1 | 2025-04-28 08:41 | aharvey | did you confirm https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12793967751 via survey? Without a survey you can't really know if it's a ford or a bridge or a culvert. |
| 2 | 2025-04-28 09:12 | ArchangelEkim ♦13 | Yeah, that should be via Imagery, you can actually see it through the trees, the rocky surface of the ford allows it to be seen. | |
| 163107858 by aharvey @ 2025-03-02 02:31 | 1 | 2025-04-28 05:33 | ArchangelEkim ♦13 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1363948676/historyThis is only used for utility poles there is no way for pedestrians to walk down. Can be confirmed by street imagery. |
| 2 | 2025-04-28 08:10 | aharvey | Thanks, I've re-added it as not:highway=path to prevent it being re-added by future mappers as such.You can't really tell from the Mapillary or Bing Streetside image we can use. We can't use Google Street View for mapping due to licensing. | |
| 165526775 by northodox @ 2025-04-28 00:09 | 1 | 2025-04-28 02:06 | aharvey | Thanks. You could consider adding sidewalk=no to say there is no footpath here. |
| 165403302 by ArchangelEkim @ 2025-04-25 02:44 | 1 | 2025-04-28 01:46 | aharvey | In the case of https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/11568757353 the operator:wikidata value was correct, so in iD selecting "Tag not the same" is incorrect. You can either ignore the warning or opt to upgrade the tags to update the operator tag from "TfNSW" to "T... |
| 2 | 2025-04-28 01:49 | ArchangelEkim ♦13 | Thanks, Yes that I was meant to do, but misclicked. Apologies. | |
| 165406259 by ArchangelEkim @ 2025-04-25 05:40 | 1 | 2025-04-28 01:15 | aharvey | hi I noticed you deleted the school building https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/1362794618 this was visible on my 2025-02-23 imagery.The DCS imagery here is from 2022 so quite outdated and shows the pitch you've mapped.Bing shows a building but it's different to the ne... |
| 2 | 2025-04-28 01:18 | ArchangelEkim ♦13 | Hi i tried to modify what is was because I believe what you may have seen is the new COLA roof over that area, It is not a building in the complete sense. I was about to add it back today. | |
| 3 | 2025-04-28 01:22 | aharvey | Thanks, yeah I'm just working off drone imagery, so I don't have any local knowledge. I did suspect it was just a roof, in that case it's still best to retain it as building=roof then any sport pitches can still be mapped inside it. | |
| 4 | 2025-04-28 01:26 | ArchangelEkim ♦13 | Yeah i didnt realise at the time there was a roof object. I was clearing through errors in it and I thought my memory was wrong and that they may have removed it again. Nice you have access to drone imagery thats probably even more recent. | |
| 5 | 2025-04-28 01:35 | aharvey | Thanks for confirming, I've restored it and retagged as a roof, but left the netball pitch you've restored as I have no idea what's under the roof. | |
| 6 | 2025-04-28 01:38 | ArchangelEkim ♦13 | Thanks for that, yeah its just another netball/basketball pitch. | |
| 165403086 by ArchangelEkim @ 2025-04-25 02:28 | 1 | 2025-04-28 00:58 | aharvey | I had mapped https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12617115483 but you added https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12784980716 which is very close, I suspect it's a duplicate as unlikely there would be two crossings so close, I'll merge the two together. |
| 2 | 2025-04-28 00:58 | aharvey | and thanks for fixing the brownfield area I added, I just saw the houses demolished, but I didn't realise it was for the park expansion https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Planning-and-development/Projects-and-current-works/St-Ives/Bedes-Forest-expansion-and-improvementsIf it's not yet built, t... | |
| 3 | 2025-04-28 01:00 | ArchangelEkim ♦13 | Yeah I am adding that construction zone now. | |
| 4 | 2025-04-28 01:20 | aharvey | Thanks.Regarding https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/224362496 where you changed the operator:wikidata I don't understand that. Is the operator not NSW Department of Education? https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5260271 ? | |
| 5 | 2025-04-28 01:25 | ArchangelEkim ♦13 | OSM was pushing an issue with it when I reviewed it, I don't why it switched to that. | |
| 6 | 2025-04-28 01:30 | aharvey | No worries, I've fixed that. iD was warning about outdated operator:type syntax. | |
| 165407350 by ArchangelEkim @ 2025-04-25 06:24 | 1 | 2025-04-28 01:02 | aharvey | If there is only one outer to https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19035292 it doesn't need to be a multipolygon relation and can be a simple way instead. I'll restore the original way https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/400690120 to retain the history but with the new expand... |
| 165401275 by Angyork @ 2025-04-24 23:58 | 1 | 2025-04-28 00:54 | aharvey | What's the iD editor issue? |
| 2 | 2025-04-28 00:55 | aharvey | Oh looks like from the note that it's deleting a way which is a member of a relation. | |
| 165493151 by Mikulover2201 @ 2025-04-27 07:47 | 1 | 2025-04-28 00:43 | aharvey | This seems highly suspicious, how are these residences accessed by vehicle otherwise? |
| 160204381 by vicmap_import @ 2024-12-12 11:42 | 1 | 2025-04-26 11:55 | nevw ♦1,978 | Hi, there are two nodes on top of each other here with two addresses.330 Cochranes Road:https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12415703847890 Traralgon Creek Road:https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12415703846Can you assist in correcting if necessary, thanks. |
| 2 | 2025-04-26 21:57 | aharvey | This is an artefact of the import, that different addresses may have the same location and these were imported as such.https://gitlab.com/alantgeo/vicmap2osm/#stage-8---imported-addresses-sharing-the-same-location-manual-reviewAs part of the post import I created a MapRoulette challenge for ... | |
| 3 | 2025-04-27 00:56 | nevw ♦1,978 | Yes, I agree, 330 Cochranes Road seems more suitable.I'll delete 890 Traralgon Creek Road now.Thanks for info and help. | |
| 165188001 by TheSwavu @ 2025-04-20 10:59 | 1 | 2025-04-22 03:36 | aharvey | Thanks, I've updated https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads#School_Zones to not that maxspeed:conditional is only needed where there is a reduction in speed, and in this case I'll add `hazard=school_zone` on these to avoid loosing the information about thes... |
| 165100180 by Wesley Warren @ 2025-04-18 08:23 | 1 | 2025-04-22 03:07 | aharvey | Looks good, thanks. |
| 165096488 by TheSwavu @ 2025-04-18 05:54 | 1 | 2025-04-19 10:44 | aharvey | this key is experimental still, for this specific why do we need to specify 00:00-24:00 to me it just adds complexity and makes it even harder to enter the values, the surcharges are always going to be based on the whole day and not for only some hours of the day. |
| 2 | 2025-04-19 11:24 | TheSwavu ♦544 | The suggestion to add the hours comes from the opening_hours evaluation tool because the opening hours spec requires a time selector. Given that I'm already editing this I felt I might as well deal with the warning. | |
| 165086033 by Wesley Warren @ 2025-04-17 19:08 | 1 | 2025-04-18 04:55 | aharvey | Thanks. Per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths I'd go further and replace highway=track with disused:highway=track |
| 165093617 by rant-better @ 2025-04-18 02:15 | 1 | 2025-04-18 04:52 | aharvey | the admin admin boundaries all along here seem shifted, it's not a huge deal but I think it's also fine to tweak by a meter to align with the property boundaries. |
| 2 | 2025-04-19 13:21 | rant-better ♦8 | Thanks aharvey. If not a huge deal, I'll leave the borders as is, I don't really want to touch the big things like that until I have more experience. Cheers | |
| 165008766 by msleath @ 2025-04-16 03:21 | 1 | 2025-04-16 03:41 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | Hi, if this is actually private property, the ways should remain and be tagged as such. You've removed a segment and left another part named Frenchmens Road disconnected from other roadways. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165008... |
| 2 | 2025-04-16 03:55 | msleath ♦1 | Hi,this is my private property. the parts of frenchmans road are disconnected because the road reserve has not been developed. why has this easement been labeled frenchmens road? why is my driveway marked up? how can i find out who is making these mistakes? | |
| 3 | 2025-04-16 03:57 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | There's a note on the highway=residential section that does mention that it differs from the road reserve in the DCS NSW base map, however what's there is what's been mapped. YOu've also removed a driveway that does exist from the looks of aerial imagery, and should still remain,... | |
| 4 | 2025-04-16 04:07 | msleath ♦1 | how then can it be frenchmans road? how is prvate prperty-no access indicated? why is my driveway mapped and others not? are you a staff member with openstreetmap? | |
| 5 | 2025-04-16 04:12 | msleath ♦1 | the labelling of this easement as part of Frenchmens road is highly misleading - locally and for the public. | |
| 6 | 2025-04-16 04:14 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | You'd have to ask whoever mapped it as such, if you check the history of that item, you'll be able to see that changeset, and you can comment on it.For private property, you'd tag it as access=private.Driveways get mapped as people choose to, someone most likely was mapping the ... | |
| 7 | 2025-04-16 04:29 | msleath ♦1 | can i ask about your interest here? surely the aim is for accuracy rather than someone with no local knowledge looking at s satellite image and saying that looks about right? can you help identify who has made the changes so i can contact them? as before this kind of mistske causes a lot of problems... | |
| 8 | 2025-04-16 04:35 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | Mapping it as it exists is the best way to do that, which would probably be to keep the ways there, but tag them to reflect that it's not actually part of Frenchmens Road and that it's private. | |
| 9 | 2025-04-16 04:45 | msleath ♦1 | it should not be labeled frenchmans road this is wrong. And it should be identified as a track not a resdential road. i am not highly skilled in use of the app - i have done my best to correct the information albeit clumsy. is there a complaint line i can contact. i’m actually surprised and al... | |
| 10 | 2025-04-16 04:46 | msleath ♦1 | not to mention lack of accountability by casual observers of satellite imagery. | |
| 11 | 2025-04-16 06:05 | aharvey | Welcome to OpenStreetMap, we are a collaborative volunteer project. Mapping works best when done via a ground survey as there's so much that can be missed on misinterpreted from satellite or aerial imagery. Ground surveyed data is given higher preference, so it's great you're contribu... | |
| 12 | 2025-04-16 06:12 | aharvey | Also highway=track is meant for fire trails or forestry roads. Gravel or dirt roads which function as access roads or driveways to access residences, even in the bush, should still be tagged based on their function as either highway=residential or highway=service + service=driveway. https://wiki.ope... | |
| 13 | 2025-04-16 07:38 | msleath ♦1 | thank you aharvey, its still a worrying model for me where maps can be based not on ground surveys but only observation. observation by ordinary folk without any qualifications in property is assumed. clearly that serves some purposes and not others. i do not believe the mapping of our driveway is o... | |
| 14 | 2025-04-16 09:44 | radiotrefoil ♦109 | Hi, I am a local mapper who surveyed this area on 24th March. I appreciate your clarification here msleath. I didn't find any indication of private property aside from the mailbox for 1 Frenchmens Rd at the left fork - this is probably the same reason past mappers have mistakenly thought that F... | |
| 15 | 2025-04-16 10:49 | msleath ♦1 | so, not having a go at you because this is the model for the app, you came into the area looked for or at the signposts and then without reference to the council website clearly showing the unformed frenchmens road and without looking at any title information, you’ve uploded info you think mig... | |
| 16 | 2025-04-16 11:09 | radiotrefoil ♦109 | As the others have said, the best practice is to map the ground truth because that is the objective of OSM, rather than cloning the council GIS.See: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ground_truthI did the survey to specifically check whether the Waterfall Road sign was still on the pole (it is... | |
| 17 | 2025-04-16 11:58 | msleath ♦1 | so, possibly very many mistakes such as these across the mountains. the reason i mention council mapping layers is that both frenchmans road and waterfall road reserves are both clearly shown so i’m not quite understanding why there is not one simple extra online check to ensure observed road ... | |
| 18 | 2025-04-17 00:03 | msleath ♦1 | One more observation. The access to Bungaree Cottages is not marked as a road - access. This one can clearly be seen on the aerials and in fact there is a sign on Railway Parade showing the track as the entrance to Bungaree Cottages. This is inconsistent with other roads marked in this small area. | |
| 19 | 2025-04-17 00:10 | radiotrefoil ♦109 | Good morning. Last night I moved the name tag for Bunjaree Cottages towards the Railway Pde entrance. The track itself should remain unnamed but it should now be clear that that is the correct access rather than via Frenchmens Rd (those tracks are now marked private). Note that it might take some ti... | |
| 20 | 2025-04-17 00:48 | msleath ♦1 | ok so that track will appear as a road similar to the marking for a driveway? | |
| 21 | 2025-04-17 00:58 | aharvey | I've changed https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/228339555 to driveway, since it's for access to the cottages, only past Wattle Cottage it becomes as land management track (eg. access to power lines, fire trails, forestry, farm roads) | |
| 22 | 2025-04-17 01:05 | msleath ♦1 | so the road from railway parade to bungaree cottages will appear as a road consistent with the road labelled waterfall road or the road to 14-18 frenchmans road? | |
| 23 | 2025-04-17 01:44 | aharvey | how it appears depends on how consumers of OSM data choose to display it, I'm just concerned with how it's tagged here. | |
| 24 | 2025-04-17 01:56 | msleath ♦1 | ok i have chosen the standard view and one road is represented as a thick white band and another as a brown dotted line. i have not altered the view. can you let me know why there is a difference in presentation many thanks | |
| 25 | 2025-04-17 02:14 | aharvey | 2hu4u mentioned earlier it may take time for the map tiles to update. There may be style differences based on the tags used, residential, service, driveway or track, and then again based on the road surface tags and access tags. | |
| 26 | 2025-04-17 02:25 | msleath ♦1 | thanks, other changes seen to have happened immediately. can you let me know an approx time for the change? if it doesn’t happen who should i contact to get it changed to match existing representation of driveways and tracks? i’d do it myself but that doesn’t seem to work. | |
| 27 | 2025-04-17 02:26 | msleath ♦1 | can you also enlighten abot the difference between a brown dotted line and a thick white line - just for further reference many thanks | |
| 28 | 2025-04-17 02:35 | aharvey | I don't know, but you can always check the live date in an editor (Edit). I'm not concerned with how it looks on the map, it's more about how it's represented in the data.I posted this link earlier which documents different road classifications and tags https://wiki.openstree... | |
| 29 | 2025-04-17 02:37 | radiotrefoil ♦109 | The line weights generally represent the importance of a road. Railway Pde is a tertiary road. Frenchmens Road is residential road which is your normal street. Waterfall Road is an unspecified service road (speckled appearance indicates unpaved) which usually indicates a graded access road, and ofte... | |
| 30 | 2025-04-17 02:47 | msleath ♦1 | Great thank you so much. I can now advise our easement is ungraded access road and sometimes difficult to cross for two wheel drive vehicles so on this basis it’s a brown dotted line and the track to Bungaree cottages is the access to a registered business so more than a track do you think? | |
| 31 | 2025-04-17 02:49 | msleath ♦1 | Also I had the idea that mapping was all about the visual representation of geographical details so how could it be that how things look is not important? Rhetorical no need to answer | |
| 32 | 2025-04-17 02:50 | msleath ♦1 | Thanks for changing I can see that now. I think we’re very close to an accurate map of this little corner of the world | |
| 33 | 2025-04-17 02:54 | radiotrefoil ♦109 | Sounds good msleath, I think that matches up with how it is now.Regarding the visualisation;OpenStreetMap under the hood is more like a "database" rather than a finished map.What you see on the standard view of this website is just one possible representation ("rendering") ... | |
| 164793552 by Suvarna Mithun @ 2025-04-11 01:26 | 1 | 2025-04-14 04:08 | aharvey | correct based on what? What's the signage on the ground say?Also note that previously we had alt_name=Grimwade Road but now both alt_name and name have the same value, which isn't right.Also the short section up near Noggerup was missed. |
| 2 | 2025-04-14 05:13 | Suvarna Mithun ♦2 | Hi, Landgate is the official source of information for Western Australia.You can see the correct map under https://map-viewer-plus.app.landgate.wa.gov.au/index.html. | |
| 3 | 2025-04-15 05:58 | aharvey | It's been pointed out previously to you at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162379793 that Landgate data can't be used to update data in OSM, their data is copyrighted they don't permit OSM to use their data, as such we can't risk using it. | |
| 4 | 2025-04-15 06:19 | aharvey | Main Roads WA have released their data under CC BY and have completed the OSMF waiver allowing us to use their data, we even have a background layer available in JOSM and iD out of the box.In this case Main Roads WA have the name "Grimwade Road" however this doesn't necessarily me... | |
| 5 | 2025-04-15 06:34 | Suvarna Mithun ♦2 | Hello, i work at the department of fire and emergency services and we publish warnings to the western Australian communities when any hazards like bushfire happens. This is to ensure that the community is safe.So road names plays a very critical role when we put out these warnings.Our website ht... | |
| 6 | 2025-04-15 06:45 | aharvey | It sounds like neither of us know what signage is on the ground, if any. I've asked the originally contributor of Belkin Road for feedback at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/2393286.Without any other information, or feedback from other mappers it's fine for this one to be renam... | |
| 7 | 2025-04-15 07:05 | Suvarna Mithun ♦2 | There is signage in google which shows Grimwade Rd. | |
| 8 | 2025-04-15 09:01 | Treadly ♦3 | Using Google street view, the actual sign for the road at the Noggerup end says Grimwade Road. Have a look for yourself. The sign is about 100 metres up from the actual intersection. | |
| 9 | 2025-04-15 22:49 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | Google isn't a source we can use, it's copyrighted. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164793552 | |
| 10 | 2025-04-16 01:23 | Suvarna Mithun ♦2 | You can look at main roads https://travelmap.mainroads.wa.gov.au/Home/Map and this shows the road name as 'Grimwade Road'. | |
| 11 | 2025-04-16 02:21 | aharvey | The only sources we can use are those at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources#Western_Australia which are CC BY 4.0 with a waiver marked as green which includes selected Main Roads WA open data which is CC BY 4.0 and which Main Roads WA have provided OSM a waiver for -> htt... | |
| 12 | 2025-04-16 03:22 | Treadly ♦3 | The signage on the ground says it's Grimwade Road. Why on earth would you call it anything different to what the actual signs say? | |
| 13 | 2025-04-16 03:54 | aharvey | That's my point, in general in OSM we prefer to set the name based on what the signage on the ground says. This whole discussion originated from the fact that the road name was changed based on another map and not from an on the ground survey of the signage, so it was unclear what the ground tr... | |
| 14 | 2025-04-16 04:04 | Treadly ♦3 | I live about 20km from this road. I have driven it many times. I have seen the signs with my own eyes. The signs say Grimwade Road. Go and have a look for yourself. The signs have been erected by Main Roads. | |
| 15 | 2025-04-16 04:12 | aharvey | That's great, and thanks for confirming. This is exactly why I flagged you about this change at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/2393286 so you, who originally contributed this way as Belkin Road could be notified about the change to Grimwade Road and given a chance to give feedback abou... | |
| 16 | 2025-04-16 04:35 | Treadly ♦3 | "Formerly Bekin Road, a “made” name from abbreviating the Balingup/East Kirup/Noggerup Road, it is now just Grimwade Road. It was not until the early 1970s that the Department created its own Nomenclature Committee. From then on, while name generation continued to be from the fi... | |
| 17 | 2025-04-16 05:34 | aharvey | (For anyone else interested) the above is from https://www.foresthistory.org.au/Proceedings2004/141.pdf | |
| 165005199 by computerOwl @ 2025-04-15 22:39 | 1 | 2025-04-16 02:44 | aharvey | why did you delete this? looks like a driveway to me based on the sources you used. |
| 164925685 by northodox @ 2025-04-14 07:55 | 1 | 2025-04-15 00:44 | aharvey | but are pedestrians strictly forbidden based on signage or otherwise? or is it just the case of it's not the best idea to walk here? |
| 2 | 2025-04-15 05:08 | northodox ♦2 | Good point. I have no signage or otherwise to support this. Macquarie Pass seems to not restrict pedestrians, either, which I now see is marked as foot="not specified". Perhaps this change should be rejected until/if I find something authoritative. | |
| 3 | 2025-04-15 05:53 | aharvey | foot=* is meant to be used for legal accessibility, and legally you can walk on any road except where there is no pedestrian signage like on some motorways.To indicate there's no infrastructure for pedestrians we can use sidewalk=no (no footpath alongside the road), shoulder=* (is there a s... | |
| 4 | 2025-04-15 06:50 | northodox ♦2 | Thanks for your time and explanation. I think there are sub-sections within the selected section of road that would fit those attributes you describe. I think it's best to reject this and I'll review the road for sub-sections that suit those tags. (I've also contacted the local counci... | |
| 5 | 2025-04-16 02:41 | aharvey | Thanks, any improvements would be great.> I think it's best to reject thisOSM doesn't have a concept of accept/reject. Changesets are applied immediately and automatically, then if we want to roll back we can either manually restore to the prior state or revert the changeset (ei... | |
| 2393286 by Treadly @ 2009-09-06 17:34 | 1 | 2025-04-15 06:43 | aharvey | Regarding Belkin Road at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/40306252/history do you have any feedback on if you still think it should be Belkin Road or as per Main Roads WA which uses "Grimwade Road" ?There's been some discussion about this at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changese... |
| 164933461 by TheSwavu @ 2025-04-14 11:01 | 1 | 2025-04-15 00:42 | aharvey | do you think we should swap the conditional? Some data consumers won't support conditionals, or even if they do they may still default to the non-conditional. In the case of "closed at night", I think it's better to say it's "open, except at night" instead of it�... |
| 2 | 2025-04-15 04:35 | TheSwavu ♦544 | access:conditional= Oct-Mar 06:00-18:30, Apr-Sep 07:00-16:30Which is what was there before does not mean anything.As to which way around you'd like the default to be if a data consumer can't digest a conditional, that'd would depend on what you think the safer option would be.... | |
| 3 | 2025-04-15 05:48 | aharvey | Yeah agreed it was wrong before and at least now it's correct in that it's parseable.I really don't know which is best access=yes or access=no here, so just seeing if you had an opinion.If I'm making a map to show paths which are open to the public vs those closed/private... | |
| 164933757 by TheSwavu @ 2025-04-14 11:10 | 1 | 2025-04-15 00:37 | aharvey | Thanks. In https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/1087666855 AND wasn't what I intended by the ; but I've made changes and think it's correct now.I've also fixed a few values that used "maxstay" in fee:conditional which should be "stay" per https:... |
| 164960025 by TheSwavu @ 2025-04-14 23:03 | 1 | 2025-04-14 23:58 | aharvey | || vs |yes| is a matter of style, is there a clear consensus? I prefer |yes| since it's a bit more readable and less error prone in getting the wrong number of lanes. |
| 2 | 2025-04-15 04:37 | TheSwavu ♦544 | Given that these were wrong, I don't think the style is causing anyone a problem because they were not looking at them anyway. | |
| 164793281 by Starlight7813 @ 2025-04-11 01:04 | 1 | 2025-04-12 13:01 | Sam Wilson ♦33 | These are slipways, not drydocks. Actually, I wonder if we should even call them slipways, perhaps abandoned:service=slipway would be better? They're not usable and are maintained as museum exhibits. |
| 2 | 2025-04-12 22:48 | TheSwavu ♦544 | One of them still kinda works... it's got a sub parked on it. Maybe add a historic tag?Either way they are not dry docks. | |
| 3 | 2025-04-14 04:14 | aharvey | Based on these comments I've reverted to restore the slipway ways, then added access=private based on the tag's introduced with this change. | |
| 4 | 2025-04-14 07:43 | Sam Wilson ♦33 | Thanks! | |
| 164839973 by JBMD @ 2025-04-12 04:30 | 1 | 2025-04-14 04:03 | aharvey | it should be the lower case tag value building=hospital, but no worries I've fixed it. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164839973 |
| 68775056 by davo4991 @ 2019-04-02 02:47 | 1 | 2025-04-10 04:01 | aharvey | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/443605093/history added Sydney Water as the Zone Substation operator, are you sure that's correct? I would assume it's Ausgrid who operate the substation. |
| 164614938 by Arvin Wiyono @ 2025-04-07 04:03 | 1 | 2025-04-08 03:46 | aharvey | I've made some adjustments in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164659060 in particular moved the name to the building way.Was it intentional to move Budget Avis Car Rental? Or was that accidential? |
| 164543744 by MichaelH_osm @ 2025-04-05 10:08 | 1 | 2025-04-06 03:00 | aharvey | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix offers some options, `construction` is usually for something being built/repaired, if it's just damaged and repairs haven't started then I'd leave it as one of the "stages of decay"`abandoned` seems to match best, but ... |
| 164538099 by ullemig @ 2025-04-05 07:03 | 1 | 2025-04-05 10:49 | aharvey | The tags look good. |
| 164538429 by ullemig @ 2025-04-05 07:18 | 1 | 2025-04-05 10:48 | aharvey | "Sea side lane repair. Circulation in both directions on the remaining lane regulated by traffic light."In that case the road is still accessible to traffic both directions, just with delays. Most data consumers expect highway=construction to mean it's undergoing construction and ... |
| 2 | 2025-04-05 11:06 | ullemig ♦2 | Hi aharvey, I was following Tag:highway=construction and misinterpreted the mention to "minor" on top of the article as *besides*.Now I was looking again on Key:construction#Highways and it's more clear to me that "minor" should be *instead*.I'm reverting highwa... | |
| 3 | 2025-04-05 22:59 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | If it's going to be like that for more than 6 months I'd look at mapping that it's a single lane road, and potentially even as alternating one-way. | |
| 4 | 2025-04-06 05:57 | ullemig ♦2 | I have no idea. QLD Traffic gives no forecast as of the time of writing: https://qldtraffic.qld.gov.au/?id=659051I don't know my way around the Douglas Shire website. This seems to be the latest update: https://douglas.qld.gov.au/download/Cape-Trib-Road-Visitor-Fact-Sheet2.pdf | |
| 164271283 by NathanaelCBR @ 2025-03-30 03:17 | 1 | 2025-04-01 03:40 | aharvey | The overtaking=no is good, but the restriction=no_u_turn https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:restriction=no_u_turn needs to go on a relation object which has to/from/via members, and not on the way.In JOSM add a new relation, set the tags type=relation + relation=no_u_turn then add the two w... |
| 2 | 2025-04-04 23:47 | NathanaelCBR ♦2 | OK thank you I'll update it | |
| 3 | 2025-04-05 00:00 | NathanaelCBR ♦2 | OK after doing more research it doesn't make sense to use this restriction type as that's about performing U-turns at an intersection, which wasn't the routing issue; OsmAnd was wanting me to perform a U-turn on the way, over a solid white line. Which is different. Will keep reading. | |
| 4 | 2025-04-05 02:57 | aharvey | Technically the restriction=no_u_turn should only be used on signed no u turns, and not as an arbitrary way to place restrictions on the routing, but it is common practice it is widely used as the latter and seems mostly accepted to do this by the community.So I would say in this case to prevent... | |
| 5 | 2025-04-05 03:02 | aharvey | Ah I see you've done this now. | |
| 164459113 by phoenixburn @ 2025-04-03 11:06 | 1 | 2025-04-04 01:13 | aharvey | hi I'm not sure what you mean by "open plan" but for the 5 units you've mapped if they are sharing a common wall, but next to each other and not on top what you have for the outlines is good, but for the tags I would use building=house + house=terraced per https://wiki.openstreet... |
| 164234120 by Donald Garton @ 2025-03-29 04:58 | 1 | 2025-03-29 10:55 | aharvey | Seems unlikely there would be a house ware shop here, can you provide anything to support your claim? Also the building added should only cover the building footprint, not the whole lot, is that something you can fix? |
| 2 | 2025-04-01 03:41 | aharvey | no reply so I'll revert this. | |
| 164273052 by dktrfrd0 @ 2025-03-30 04:43 | 1 | 2025-04-01 03:36 | aharvey | Thanks. I've added a few extra tags to mark the brand and tag it as a bottle return machine. |
| 164291741 by Cal Marshall @ 2025-03-30 15:10 | 1 | 2025-04-01 03:32 | aharvey | name is for proper names not descriptions per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don't_use_name_tag_to_describe_things |
| 164348652 by RoadLessTravelled @ 2025-03-31 20:45 | 1 | 2025-04-01 03:30 | aharvey | See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:diet:vegetarian and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:diet:vegancuisine=* should be for french, german, japanese etc, not the diet types. |
| 164231208 by shanewh @ 2025-03-29 00:01 Active block | 1 | 2025-03-29 04:14 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | Hi, if the lanes exist for part of it, the road should be split and tagged to represent what is there. Even if vehicles are allowed to park there, the tagging should represent that the bike lane is conditional. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/ch... |
| 2 | 2025-03-29 04:19 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | Hi, I've reverted this due to issues with the mapping, please see my changeset comments on the changes for more details. Happy for you to message me directly if you do need assistance with any of the tagging I've reverted.https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164233798 | |
| 3 | 2025-03-29 09:06 | shanewh Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 4 | 2025-03-29 09:09 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | If the bike lane exists, it should be mapped. There might be tags to describe details about it, but just removing it or marking it as non-existent even if it does exist is wrong. Making several incorrect edits that aren't correct because you're not happy with the real life situation isn�... | |
| 5 | 2025-03-29 12:20 | aharvey | hi shanewh, given you're brand new to OSM, I suggest taking some time to learn about how OSM works, learn from other experienced mappers in the area, and take in feedback.In this case fortera is correct that if the bike lane exists it should be mapped. If you don't like narrow bike lan... | |
| 164231460 by shanewh @ 2025-03-29 00:23 Active block | 1 | 2025-03-29 04:17 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | Hi, instead of access=no, the better way would be to just tag bicycle=no and horse=no. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164231460 |
| 2 | 2025-03-29 10:27 | shanewh Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 3 | 2025-03-29 10:31 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | The best option is to specifically mark what isn't allowed, unless nothing is allowed. | |
| 4 | 2025-03-29 11:32 | shanewh Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 5 | 2025-03-29 11:45 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | The options in iD are a simplified version to try and help, but access tagging is generally best to be specific unless there's no access allowed regardless of method of travel. I'd recommend reading some of the wiki pages around access tagging. | |
| 6 | 2025-03-29 12:15 | aharvey | Agreed with fortera here. a top level access=no strongly implies it's in general not accessible to anyone, it's always best to try and tag specific modes and omit the top level access tag. So it sounds like foot=yes + bicycle=no + horse=no. | |
| 7 | 2025-03-30 01:38 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | Reverted by DWG - deleted valid features & incorrect mappinghttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164270753 | |
| 164231580 by shanewh @ 2025-03-29 00:34 Active block | 1 | 2025-03-29 04:18 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | Regardless of the size, if the lane exists and is marked (as per the aerial imagery your edit says you've used) then it is okay to have in OSM. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164231580 |
| 2 | 2025-03-29 04:19 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | Hi, I've reverted this due to issues with the mapping, please see my changeset comments on the changes for more details. Happy for you to message me directly if you do need assistance with any of the tagging I've reverted.https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164233798 | |
| 3 | 2025-03-29 09:11 | shanewh Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 4 | 2025-03-29 09:16 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | If it's a functioning bike lane then it should be mapped. From the looks of aerial imagery, which is all your edit mentions using, there's a bike lane there. If it doesn't actually exist then it's fine to be removed, but if it exists, it should stay. If it is only 30cm wide t... | |
| 5 | 2025-03-29 10:23 | shanewh Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 6 | 2025-03-29 10:27 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | If it's not a bike lane and is just a line on the side of the road then sure, the bike lane tagging can be removed, but you need to state that and not say you're removing it because it's not wide enough. If there's anything indicating a bike lane is there regardless of width, th... | |
| 7 | 2025-03-29 11:02 | shanewh Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 8 | 2025-03-29 11:42 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | There's more than just cyclists using OSM, it's a geospatial database with many uses. We map what's on the ground. | |
| 9 | 2025-03-29 12:12 | aharvey | hi shanewh, I can see you're brand new to OSM, I suggest reading some wiki pages like https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practiceIn this case, it's easy, just tag the bike lane width per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway#Supplementary_details then data consumers li... | |
| 10 | 2025-03-30 01:09 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17482 | |
| 164188746 by RileyKC @ 2025-03-28 01:39 | 1 | 2025-03-28 10:42 | aharvey | I added a landuse=brownfield to indicate what's there now, but I'm just going of Esri World Imagery, nut sure if construction has started? |
| 72669618 by WoodWoseWulf @ 2019-07-26 05:08 | 1 | 2025-03-27 12:05 | aharvey | From what I can see the operator is Metropolitan Memorial Parks https://www.metropolitanmemorialparks.com.au/locations/field-of-mars-cemeteryGiven you added both Northern Cemeteries and Ryde City Council I wanted to check with you if you had any extra local knowledge? |
| 2 | 2025-03-27 12:09 | aharvey | Sorry I just found out "On 1 July 2023, MMP was officially formed throughthe amalgamation of three previous cemeteryoperators and Crown land managers: NorthernCemeteries, Rookwood General Cemeteries andSouthern Metropolitan Cemeteries." So that answers the Northern Cemeteries pie... | |
| 3 | 2025-03-27 19:20 | WoodWoseWulf ♦1,163 | Hi. There have been some pretty big changes to how cemeteries are administered over the past 3 or so years, so I'm not sure if the Council would still be relevant now that Metropolitan Memorial Parks has now replaced the previous operators. | |
| 164114844 by chrisolver @ 2025-03-26 10:28 | 1 | 2025-03-27 00:49 | aharvey | Thanks for adding this, it looks more like a shared driveway rather than a residential road/street, what do you think? I'm also not sure about including the name Ryan Place, if it is a shared driveway we won't normally apply the street name of the adjoining street to the driveway. |
| 2 | 2025-03-28 09:58 | chrisolver ♦1 | Yeah fair enough. Will upDATE | |
| 163965138 by Phil_Wilkinson @ 2025-03-22 21:43 | 1 | 2025-03-26 01:46 | aharvey | If you check the history at https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/node/11013942187 you can see the node was originally correctly placed, but then subsequently (likely accidentally) moved. Therefore I've restored the node back to v1 which was placed correctly. |
| 164031011 by Nickowlogical @ 2025-03-24 12:48 | 1 | 2025-03-26 00:32 | aharvey | hi the Georges River website and spatial portal contained copyrighted data and content, and they are not able to be used for mapping in OSM. You can rely on local knowledge and from physical signage, but please don't copy across copyrighted council information. |
| 2 | 2025-03-26 00:33 | aharvey | In this case the name appears on the DCS NSW Basemap which is an allowed sourced and available out of the box in iD as a background layer, since the name is there we can keep the name you've added. | |
| 164058977 by ozjonesy @ 2025-03-25 04:22 | 1 | 2025-03-26 00:26 | aharvey | looks good, you could consider adding https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:segregated |
| 164059217 by TereseWilcock123456789 @ 2025-03-25 04:35 | 1 | 2025-03-26 00:23 | aharvey | Unfortuantly per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources#Queensland most of the QLD QSpatial sources aren't permitted to be used in OSM. We can use the Geoscape Admin Boundaries dataset which is released quarterly. |
| 164061177 by Caleb NHVR @ 2025-03-25 06:10 | 1 | 2025-03-26 00:05 | aharvey | Good work migrating the the turn lanes and placement tags correctly! Impressive to do it in iD without the visual feedback you get in JOSM with the "Lane and road attributes" style. |
| 2 | 2025-03-26 03:10 | Caleb NHVR ♦10 | Thanks Andrew, I did catch that in the placement wiki page. I'll have to keep a lookout - it's quite a helpful map style. Thanks again | |
| 163884869 by Zen Possum @ 2025-03-21 00:27 | 1 | 2025-03-26 00:01 | aharvey | hi, not sure what happened here, but I think you wanted to split this way into two features, one as a fire trail and another as a path, but somehow you ended up with two overlapping ways. I've fixed this now. |
| 164087656 by 目立たない @ 2025-03-25 17:06 | 1 | 2025-03-26 00:00 | aharvey | It looks like you've tried to fix the overlapping ways, however https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163884869 showed the intent was to split it into track and trail. I've restored the track deleted here and fixed the overlap. |
| 163727389 by ❤️🔥 @ 2025-03-17 11:27 | 1 | 2025-03-24 04:16 | aharvey | I doubt these are funicular's "in which a cable attached to a pair of tram-like vehicles on rails moves them up and down" more likely these are inclinators which are tagged as linear ways with highway=elevatorhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=elevator?uselang=en#Inclin... |
| 2 | 2025-03-24 23:00 | ❤️🔥 ♦364 | hmm yeah I read https://osm.wiki/Tag:railway=funicular#funicular_vs_inclined_elevator while mapping these, but the comparison section didn't offer much advice...from the harbour level, it looks like a railway track with a safety cable between in parallel. not sure how it works mechanicall... | |
| 3 | 2025-03-25 00:36 | aharvey | Yeah I agree that it's hard to decide, and that railway=funicular includes both technical funicular's where there must be two tracks and two cars, joined by the same cable to counterbalance each other and "inclined railways where the vehicle(s) are moved by cables, but which are not n... | |
| 163563382 by SB15 @ 2025-03-13 10:22 | 1 | 2025-03-14 03:02 | aharvey | hi the Esri World Imagery has bad resolution here, so please don't change building geometries which are very accurately mapped from high resolution DCS NSW Imagery to match worse resolution imagery.Due to this I've reverted this changeset. |
| 2 | 2025-03-19 11:05 | 08kiran95 ♦1 | Hi aharvey,Thanks for your quick check and reverting edits here—I really appreciate it! I just wanted to clarify something out of curiosity. Based on my understanding, water from the river shouldn't overlap or intersect with houses that are situated along its banks. Could you help... | |
| 3 | 2025-03-19 23:17 | aharvey | If the house is built on piers it may have been built over the water, it could be always over the water even at low tide, or only during hide tide, but either way it's expected that the two polygons could overlap. | |
| 4 | 2025-03-20 15:26 | 08kiran95 ♦1 | Hello aharvey, We want to ensure the best possible accuracy for our mapping efforts, especially in avoiding overlaps between water and buildings. While we can't control publicly available source materials in OSM, we can guide mappers to use the most suitable imagery references. To imp... | |
| 163555729 by watsuptodate @ 2025-03-13 06:05 | 1 | 2025-03-14 04:40 | aharvey | hi I think it's good to remove the lane since there's no separated way, however the bus stop node needs highway=bus_stop per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=bus_stop plus the other tags for public transport https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/1817076180 |
| 163553559 by AMac44 @ 2025-03-13 04:17 | 1 | 2025-03-14 04:36 | aharvey | it's best to try and retain existing ways and just tweak them as needed per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_history however I realise that's not always possible or easy, just something to keep in mind. |
| 163557972 by ahirek @ 2025-03-13 07:36 | 1 | 2025-03-14 04:34 | aharvey | looks good |
| 2 | 2025-03-14 11:15 | ahirek ♦1 | I'm really enjoying mapping in this area! This challenge highlights several locations where water overlaps with buildings, and it's great to help improve OSM data by fixing them. Excited to contribute! | |
| 163593277 by Ase83 @ 2025-03-14 00:48 | 1 | 2025-03-14 04:32 | aharvey | I couldn't see anything attached to it, so have deleted the duplicate. |
| 163557181 by computerOwl @ 2025-03-13 07:05 | 1 | 2025-03-14 03:32 | aharvey | hi you've left some URLs in https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12658008910 and other nodes |
| 163557482 by BlumleinPear @ 2025-03-13 07:18 | 1 | 2025-03-14 03:30 | aharvey | As far as I can tell https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1360049806 was not duplicated, any reason for the deletion? |
| 162528899 by radiotrefoil @ 2025-02-15 09:15 | 1 | 2025-03-14 03:29 | aharvey | Looks like you have some duplicates https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1359830887/historyhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1360049809/historyAlso not sure why https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1360049806 was removed by another user since it wasn't duplicated... |
| 2 | 2025-03-14 03:46 | radiotrefoil ♦109 | Thanks, not sure how that happened haha. I'll sort it out | |
| 163563510 by Dwight__ @ 2025-03-13 10:25 | 1 | 2025-03-14 02:58 | aharvey | hi not sure why two features were deleted here? It's too hard to tell from the imagery sourced you've used and DCS NSW Imagery still shows them clearly. I've also fixed the positioning of the other building you moved. It's fine for building/water to overlap where they do on the g... |
| 163575505 by SB15 @ 2025-03-13 15:30 | 1 | 2025-03-14 02:46 | aharvey | I've improved this to shift the coastline to highest visible tide per imagery. Also please note that in this area the Esri World Imagery won't have the best alignment, usually the DCS NSW Imagery is best for alignment. |
| 163576404 by SB15 @ 2025-03-13 15:55 | 1 | 2025-03-14 02:44 | aharvey | I've tweaked this to shift the shoreline to highest visible tide on imagery. |
| 163577260 by SB15 @ 2025-03-13 16:15 | 1 | 2025-03-14 02:26 | aharvey | hi similar to my previous comment it's not correct to just shift the building/waterway so they don't overlap if in reality they do. coastline and river shorelines are mapped to high tide, which from the DCS NSW Imagery here is much closer to the building and likely covers part of it. |
| 2 | 2025-03-14 02:39 | aharvey | I've tweaked the area here to improve the accuracy. | |
| 163577359 by SB15 @ 2025-03-13 16:17 | 1 | 2025-03-14 02:19 | aharvey | hi, in this changeset you've just shifted the building and river so they don't overlap, but that's not correct because in real life they do, the building is sitting over the water. I belive we should revert this change. |
| 163512701 by evo_evz @ 2025-03-12 05:55 | 1 | 2025-03-12 23:52 | aharvey | ps. you can enable the "DCS NSW Land Parcel Lot" from JOSM Imagery to show lot boundaries. |
| 163546803 by YA Manningham Council @ 2025-03-12 21:49 | 1 | 2025-03-12 23:32 | aharvey | Thanks for confirming this. I think given the placed barrier and signage then it's correct to mark as access=no as you have. I think at some point it could be further downgraded to abandoned:highway=path which means it won't usually show up on maps built with OSM but will still be present ... |
| 150475304 by Cam-I-Am @ 2024-04-25 04:46 | 1 | 2025-03-12 10:40 | aharvey | Hi, this track you added has been recently deleted, did you have any local knowledge you can add?https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1255574200/history |
| 2 | 2025-03-12 11:07 | Cam-I-Am ♦2 | Hi @aharvey, thanks for the heads up.There is absolutely a track there, even if it is not sanctioned by council. The Southern end of it is very well defined and appears "constructed". It becomes overgrown quite quickly but is still passable on foot. I suspect it was an official track a... | |
| 3 | 2025-03-12 11:30 | aharvey | Yeah I think based on your knowledge here reverting back is best, and possibly adding informal=yes. | |
| 4 | 2025-03-12 21:17 | philam48 ♦22 | Thanks for tagging me in the other comments. My knowledge of this path is the same as Cam-I-Am and I also support reverting the deletion. | |
| 5 | 2025-03-12 23:28 | aharvey | Thanks looks like a positive outcome here https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1255574200/history | |
| 163506131 by @philt3r @ 2025-03-11 23:30 | 1 | 2025-03-12 08:57 | mueschel ♦6,567 | Hi,I don't think that adding private power meters is within the scope of OSM. In general we do not map installations in private residential buildings for privacy reasons, and this seems to be one. I'd like to ask you to ask for some opinions on that in the forums. |
| 2 | 2025-03-12 23:23 | aharvey | I think what @philt3r is trying to do here is mark houses which have an electricity connection from the grid. I think that would be okay, you can observe this from overhead wires from the street, although that doesn't work in areas where the network is underground.I think it's useful d... | |
| 163463834 by @philt3r @ 2025-03-10 23:27 | 1 | 2025-03-12 10:30 | aharvey | hi please note that the source you've used here expressly says> Essential Energy retains all intellectual and industrial property rights which exist or may exist in or with respect to the information or material. The information or material must not to be copied or distributed by you to ... |
| 2 | 2025-03-12 21:19 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | There's also a dragged node on w1111001526, probably easiest to revert the whole changeset. There's also no usage at all for that tag in AU, plus someone else has raised privacy concerns on another changeset. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmch... | |
| 3 | 2025-03-12 23:20 | aharvey | I've fixed the dragged node, and removed the power:meter since this is likely from the stated copyrighted source. | |
| 163509176 by @philt3r @ 2025-03-12 02:53 | 1 | 2025-03-12 23:15 | aharvey | hi could you explain how you've determined these tag values? |
| 163518921 by computerOwl @ 2025-03-12 09:29 | 1 | 2025-03-12 11:42 | aharvey | hi I've re-instated this but used the abandoned lifecycle prefix, since there is still a faint painted outline of the netball court, but given the faded paint and the parking lines seems unlikely still in used. |
| 163437298 by matzco @ 2025-03-10 11:17 | 1 | 2025-03-10 12:20 | aharvey | Looks like you may have already found https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths because you're tags are close.What you have is pretty much it, except you got the key=tag a bit mixed up.We write key=tag so left part is t... |
| 2 | 2025-03-12 10:52 | aharvey | I've fixed this now. | |
| 157562320 by philam48 @ 2024-10-07 02:06 | 1 | 2025-03-12 10:40 | aharvey | Hi, this track you edited has been recently deleted, did you have any local knowledge you can add?https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12555742 |
| 163463683 by YA Manningham Council @ 2025-03-10 23:20 | 1 | 2025-03-12 10:39 | aharvey | hi and welcome to OSM.Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Legal_AccessOSM can contain data for sanctioned, informal, and closed/illegally constructed paths and our guidelines page explains the reasoning and what tags can be used... |
| 163433486 by Oblate Spheroid @ 2025-03-10 09:34 | 1 | 2025-03-10 12:23 | aharvey | Unfortunately Landgate don't release their data as open data so due to copyright we can't utilise it in OSM. Safest to check the street signage via a ground survey. |
| 2 | 2025-03-20 08:30 | Oblate Spheroid ♦1 | It appears that this has been updated/corrected. Thans to the community. :-) | |
| 163387873 by TheSwavu @ 2025-03-09 06:38 | 1 | 2025-03-10 02:51 | aharvey | A shame to loose the address type qualifier, I know for the Vicmap import we dropped this due to complexity but in this case it was surveyed.I'm also not sure if there are some mixed used buildings with commercial and residential that would have both Shop 1 and Unit 1 within the same address.... |
| 2 | 2025-03-10 03:17 | TheSwavu ♦544 | There were 9 uses of addr:shop in Australia and 489,000 of addr:unit. | |
| 3 | 2025-03-10 07:30 | TheSwavu ♦544 | Turns out the global usage of addr:shop is 13. There is also only about 1100 addr:unit with "shop" in it https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/203S. | |
| 4 | 2025-03-10 12:16 | aharvey | Okay, I think using `addr:unit` makes it more compatible with existing tools, just think we should have some way to capture the unit type/qualifier/designation. | |
| 160195851 by MrYodaylay @ 2024-12-12 07:30 | 1 | 2024-12-17 21:46 | aharvey | hi, welcome back to OSM. Some good changes here, but I also have a few comments:1. The Northern Beaches Council Aerial Imagery is copyright, "The contents of this website are copyright and may not be reproduced in any form without the prior consent of Northern Beaches Council." as such... |
| 2 | 2024-12-17 22:07 | aharvey | I've made further changes to address 2, 3, and 4. But apart from that, good work on the other improvements. | |
| 3 | 2024-12-17 22:12 | aharvey | 5. https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/1244811645 I had tagged as a service way. It's quite wide with a gate, and the connection with the driveway to me it's designed for emergency/service/maintenance vehicles to access. Therefore I think it's still best tagged as highway=... | |
| 4 | 2024-12-23 00:56 | aharvey | I've changed point 5 back to a service road now as it does provide service vehicle access. | |
| 5 | 2025-03-08 14:47 | MrYodaylay ♦6 | Hi aharvey! Thanks for double checking my edits and the quality checking. I was (and still am) relatively new to editing.I don't know why I didn't see any of your comments for the last 5 months until now, so apologies for that.For this edit, I don't believe the Northern Beache... | |
| 6 | 2025-03-08 23:42 | aharvey | Thanks for replying, all good. | |
| 163271096 by scott_mobile16 @ 2025-03-06 06:24 | 1 | 2025-03-06 08:54 | aharvey | I had left this unconnected since it's unclear from imagery, even on Bing it's not clear, if anything Bing seems to show it going more off to the east. Since it seems people are very keen to try and fix this remotely without waiting for a ground survey, I'll change it to go where I th... |
| 2 | 2025-03-06 11:47 | scott_mobile16 ♦2 | Thanks aharvey. You're right it's not clear from any of the imagery available. Sorry for jumping to conclusions. Do you think adding a note would help it get surveyed? If I were nearby I would go check it out but I'm in Melbourne. | |
| 3 | 2025-03-08 08:26 | aharvey | I just checked via survey and made some tweaks. | |
| 163266500 by stersakian @ 2025-03-06 01:07 | 1 | 2025-03-07 04:14 | aharvey | possibly from the imagery this looks more like residential=terrace? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:residential%3Dterrace |
| 163267249 by Naarlack @ 2025-03-06 02:09 | 1 | 2025-03-07 04:12 | aharvey | looks good |
| 2 | 2025-03-07 05:19 | Naarlack ♦1 | Cheers - Thanks for checking 👍 | |
| 163267471 by Naarlack @ 2025-03-06 02:20 | 1 | 2025-03-07 04:12 | aharvey | looks good |
| 163278455 by idk_ @ 2025-03-06 10:02 | 1 | 2025-03-07 04:10 | aharvey | There is informal=yes for informal ways https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:informal%3Dyes however an informal highway=track seems lees likely than highway=path.highway=track implies that it's physically usable by vehicles (might only be 4wd, or private maintainance workes, but at least... |
| 2 | 2025-03-07 12:19 | idk_ ♦2 | See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163325067, I believe I've tagged it correctly based on all the information I know about it. I'm pretty sure it's just an access trail for the rail line, so motor_vehicle=permissive was used. Thanks | |
| 163238940 by inas @ 2025-03-05 10:37 | 1 | 2025-03-05 23:03 | aharvey | I had added this to map the two bicycle route signage indicating from Havilah to turn to Victoria and vice versa from Victoria to Havilah. Perhaps instead we should just extend https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6282345 to include Havilah as well? Then remove this relation I added. |
| 2 | 2025-03-06 00:57 | inas ♦18 | Yea. I figured that was the case. I'm going to check out the signage from Havilah this weekend, to see if I can find a route from there. It didn't seem to be the right thing to add this to a Chats -> Crag relation, but that might be the least worst thing ultimately. Give me a couple... | |
| 3 | 2025-03-06 02:00 | aharvey | No rush. There was also a discussion recently on when lcn=yes should go on a way vs using a route relation at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/lcn-tagging-in-australia/123529/25 but I still not sure it's resolved. | |
| 4 | 2025-03-06 06:46 | aharvey | I just checked on the ground and it's clear that the existing route that we have coming down Hercules then into Victoria continues onto Havilah, as the signage is continuous throughout. | |
| 163266351 by stersakian @ 2025-03-06 00:56 | 1 | 2025-03-06 01:33 | aharvey | Looks good |
| 163226901 by Maradona11 @ 2025-03-05 03:30 | 1 | 2025-03-05 23:46 | aharvey | I tweaked a few tags https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/1364663766In particular access=yes since it's open for all, but also added fee:conditional for conditions for free parking.Also added https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:park%20ride |
| 163147589 by W_D @ 2025-03-03 06:49 | 1 | 2025-03-04 05:09 | aharvey | hi you've tagged the whole stream as tunnel=culvert, are you sure that's correct? If the stream is open in some places, but channelled through a culvert in other places you can split the way and tag each part differently. |
| 163182250 by Elephant Hippos @ 2025-03-04 00:40 | 1 | 2025-03-04 05:05 | aharvey | Looks good. |
| 162873875 by Starlight7813 @ 2025-02-24 01:53 | 1 | 2025-02-25 00:09 | aharvey | hi I can see a number of issues here.1. https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=178701610829910&focus=photo seems to show a bike lane between the left turn lane and through traffic lanes. while I couldn't see any bicycle signage, I think it still can be considered a bicycle lane, there'... |
| 2 | 2025-02-28 19:48 | Starlight7813 ♦2 | 1. Local council does not include these as bike lanes on their maps anywhere.2. Many of them only included information about the "bike lanes", though i do think adding the turn lanes back would be a good idea, and i can do that | |
| 3 | 2025-03-04 00:44 | aharvey | We usually prefer to "map what's on the ground" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what's_on_the_ground rather than what only appears on other maps. | |
| 4 | 2025-03-04 00:44 | aharvey | Though I know it's tricky when it's just the lane markings and no actual bicycle pictogram painted on the road or other signage, so I'll leave it to those on the ground here to decide. | |
| 142133137 by Lockstar @ 2023-10-04 08:34 | 1 | 2025-03-04 00:37 | aharvey | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11237813778 is not a ford, the footpath runs above the drain. I'll fix this. |
| 154716239 by Cubic8 @ 2024-08-02 02:57 | 1 | 2025-03-01 02:48 | aharvey | hi sorry but I have to disagree here, based on my April 2024 and December 2024 surveys there is a footpath around the turning circle. This is not present on the 2022 imagery, so recent. When you deleted this what source/evidence were you relying on? |
| 2 | 2025-03-01 02:50 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163074921 | |
| 154716306 by Cubic8 @ 2024-08-02 03:02 | 1 | 2025-03-01 02:43 | aharvey | Thanks for improving this. Looks like you added the start in 2012 then I surveyed in 2020 and lost the track around the power line and had to bush bash out to Yanco Close, but I'd always wondered if there was a path to continue through somewhere. |
| 162871876 by haegaragain @ 2025-02-23 23:17 | 1 | 2025-02-24 23:15 | aharvey | from your link this looks like a shared path, not exclusivly for bicycles only, is that the case?If so in iD there is a "Shared Path" preset otherwise best to apply both bicycle=designated and foot=designated then segregated=no. |
| 2 | 2025-02-25 02:36 | haegaragain ♦1 | I've used the shared path preset for the majority of the route along Kingsway; it's just the Banksia Ave section that has the dedicated bike path (there's just about 1s of it in the TfNSW video). The southern side of Denman Ave is also bike-only, though it's only marked as such a... | |
| 3 | 2025-02-28 00:49 | aharvey | Thanks for confirming you had it correct. | |
| 149949121 by ❤️🔥 @ 2024-04-13 12:18 | 1 | 2025-02-25 04:51 | aharvey | I guessed that TC was for Traffic Counter or Traffic Classifier based on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12282844010 being TC. You can see the road markings where the embedded device is installed, but not sure about this location. |
| 2 | 2025-02-25 04:53 | aharvey | Per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dstreet_cabinet#Street_cabinet_categories I think street_cabinet=traffic_monitoring is a better fit than traffic_control. These devices all appear to be related to traffic monitoring rather than control, although I'm just guessing. | |
| 3 | 2025-02-25 20:52 | ❤️🔥 ♦364 | sure, that seems like a reasonable assumption. Any thoughts on https://osm.org/changeset/162928844 ? The 3 weird ones are all related to the Tidal Flow System (TFS) so in that case I think =traffic_control is fine? I'll add those to the wiki once I get photos | |
| 4 | 2025-02-25 23:40 | aharvey | Yeah in fact traffic_signals and tidal flow signals are the only two types of street_cabinet=traffic_control I can think of. I guess variable message sign could be considered since the messages are designed to stop traffic or slow traffic or tell them one route is closed. | |
| 5 | 2025-02-26 00:52 | aharvey | Please do add them on the wiki though.As an aside, UPS was documented to use utility=power, but I don't think that's correct. utility=power was meant to mean this thing is part of the power network, ie. generation of power and distribution to consumers. Whereas these UPS cabinets are p... | |
| 6 | 2025-04-05 05:07 | ❤️🔥 ♦364 | thanks, I'll keep that in mind for UPS. sorry for the very delayed reply. I've just added 3 new ones to the wiki (no suggested tags, just for reference) | |
| 162870554 by JaxxC @ 2025-02-23 22:12 | 1 | 2025-02-25 00:00 | aharvey | It looks like we already have a childcare mapped at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12311154657 which is now duplicated at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/113359611If we only have 1 childcare here there should only be 1 OSM object marked as childcare per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/... |
| 162804204 by computerOwl @ 2025-02-22 06:11 | 1 | 2025-02-22 10:21 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162810447 |
| 2 | 2025-02-22 10:53 | computerOwl ♦23 | Hi there,The buildings I removed had way off geometry, and doesn't align with the expectation of quality for OpenStreetMap. Not quickly doing an import for Microsoft buildings. There were many like this in a large area from running an overpass turbo query. That aside, I removed it for quali... | |
| 162804237 by computerOwl @ 2025-02-22 06:14 | 1 | 2025-02-22 10:20 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162810411 |
| 2 | 2025-02-22 10:53 | computerOwl ♦23 | Hi there,The buildings I removed had way off geometry, and doesn't align with the expectation of quality for OpenStreetMap. Not quickly doing an import for Microsoft buildings. There were many like this in a large area from running an overpass turbo query. That aside, I removed it for quali... | |
| 162804346 by computerOwl @ 2025-02-22 06:21 | 1 | 2025-02-22 10:05 | aharvey | Longstanding OpenStreetMap principals include1. Do correct errors -> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Do_correct_errors2. Don't remove objects that you don't need or like -> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don't_remove_objects_that_you_... |
| 2 | 2025-02-22 10:18 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162810358 due to the above mentioned reasons. | |
| 3 | 2025-02-22 10:52 | computerOwl ♦23 | Hi there,The buildings I removed had way off geometry, and doesn't align with the expectation of quality for OpenStreetMap. Not quickly doing an import for Microsoft buildings. There were many like this in a large area from running an overpass turbo query. That aside, I removed it for quali... | |
| 4 | 2025-02-23 03:30 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | I agree with aharvey, while some of these aren't perfect, some of the deleted ones are reasonably accurate.Deleting the ones that are somewhat off isn't the right answer, either correct them, put a fixme tag on the problematic ones, leave a note, or see if someone in the community can ... | |
| 5 | 2025-02-23 05:19 | kurisubrooks ♦54 | fortera and aharvey are correct here. please fix the buildings yourself if you don't think they're of a sufficient quality. data shouldn't be deleted | |
| 6 | 2025-02-23 07:12 | computerOwl ♦23 | OpenStreetMap is about quality, not just quantity. If buildings have geometry that’s way off, leaving them on the map just adds noise and misleads users. I didn’t just delete them for fun—I removed data that didn’t meet the standards OSM strives for. It’s not about disl... | |
| 7 | 2025-02-23 07:21 | kurisubrooks ♦54 | While I understand your point of view, and there have been many cases where I would have liked to have done the same, this is not the OpenStreetMap way. As @aharvey provided links to, and as @fortera_au mentioned; if data is incorrect, you fix it, not delete it. | |
| 8 | 2025-02-23 07:21 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | It's not misleading for houses to be slightly off from what they are, as long as positioning is right. It's not perfect, but it's still accurate enough to remain in OSM.If you're not happy with the accuracy of these buildings, then engage with the people adding them in, but o... | |
| 9 | 2025-02-23 07:36 | computerOwl ♦23 | It's not just slightly off. It's way off. | |
| 10 | 2025-02-23 07:44 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | They're not perfect, but they're still accurate in that there's a house in that location. Even people can't map houses perfectly, I've corrected plenty that have been mapped manually.Deleting those objects means that instead of knowing there's a house there, we now ... | |
| 11 | 2025-02-23 07:56 | kurisubrooks ♦54 | I just checked the buildings you had removed personally and they were of a completely standard quality that you would expect in the OSM database. It's humourous that you personally use an AI to add buildings for you, one that seems to only recognise sheds as buildings (changeset/162522492), in ... | |
| 12 | 2025-02-23 08:11 | computerOwl ♦23 | The buildings I add with AI are accurate. These weren’t. Regardless of their “erratic pattern,” adding buildings is still data.Moreover, THESE buildings have severely incorrect geometry, as I’ve mentioned in my previous comments. You CAN remove data for low-quality buildi... | |
| 13 | 2025-02-23 08:13 | computerOwl ♦23 | I believe there’s a line where data quality drops so low that it does more harm than good. Buildings with severely inaccurate geometry can mislead users and lower the map’s reliability. In those cases, I stand by the decision to remove them. | |
| 14 | 2025-02-23 08:16 | kurisubrooks ♦54 | Do you have a link to the policy you're referring to where it's accepted to remove data for low-quality buildings? I'd like to see what officially recognised/community-standard position you're referring to. | |
| 15 | 2025-02-23 08:20 | computerOwl ♦23 | I realize now that my approach to handling low-quality buildings didn’t fully align with the community’s expectations. I was focused on improving the map’s overall accuracy but understand that deleting data—even if flawed—is not the preferred method here. | |
| 16 | 2025-02-23 08:21 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | I agree with kurisubrooks, you’ve got 3 mappers, including a former DWG member, who all disagree with these being deleted, I’d like to see where people have agreed that minor issues (that are still not that inaccurate and provide accurate data in that there are houses there) are worthy o... | |
| 17 | 2025-02-23 08:25 | kurisubrooks ♦54 | OpenStreetMap has a very documented way of handling most issues, and there have been issues with users in the past not being able to recognise the documentation and instead using their personal beliefs as their standard for contributing - I'm glad this is not the case here, and I applaud you fo... | |
| 18 | 2025-02-23 09:18 | janesk ♦7 | If the buildings aren't egregiously wrong I would certainly not remove them from the map even if they may not be as high quality as anyone would like. Obviously at a certain point data could become bad enough that you might consider it vandalism, at which point removing them would be justif... | |
| 156769374 by ❤️🔥 @ 2024-09-18 12:00 | 1 | 2025-02-20 06:24 | aharvey | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1316363251/history is non existent |
| 159689019 by DylaniaCat @ 2024-11-28 07:40 | 1 | 2024-11-28 14:38 | muralito ♦2,019 | Hi DylaniaCat. Thanks for the changeset, but please keep it within a smaller geographic region, within a smaller bbox. |
| 2 | 2025-02-20 05:59 | aharvey | I've reverted https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12381862239/history in this case you added a highway=crossing between the surface road and the underground walkway. Yes iD issued a warning here, but it's a false positive. Please take care when editing. | |
| 147363117 by ❤️🔥 @ 2024-02-12 11:39 | 1 | 2025-02-19 10:19 | aharvey | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1249459181man_made=water_works is "a facility where water is treated to make it suitable for human consumption before being sent to the water network." per the wiki.However the building is labeled "SPS", which is per https://wiki.openstre... |
| 2 | 2025-02-21 09:23 | ❤️🔥 ♦364 | got it, thanks for fixing this | |
| 162481034 by kylesey @ 2025-02-13 21:02 | 1 | 2025-02-14 04:31 | aharvey | The Curve and Gradient diagram has unclear copyright and per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources#New_South_Wales we don't feel comfortable using it directly as a data source. |
| 162485024 by calhliber @ 2025-02-13 23:55 | 1 | 2025-02-14 04:05 | aharvey | Possibly these buildings should have ref=A through ref=K? |
| 162035159 by Lockstar @ 2025-02-02 07:01 | 1 | 2025-02-13 22:49 | aharvey | hi the traffic cabinet was already mapped at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12470392128 and you've added a duplicate, I'll add your new tags to the existing node. |
| 160197055 by vicmap_import @ 2024-12-12 08:20 | 1 | 2025-02-02 05:26 | Pierce ♦41 | I just noticed this changes and I just noticed that the tremendous amount of cleanup work that this will now require.Can we rollback these changes until the import script is improved to assign the addresses to the buildings rather than creating superfluous nodes? |
| 2 | 2025-02-02 06:22 | TheSwavu ♦544 | If you read the wiki page linked above, you will find that this import proposal was discussed in May 2021. It was discussed again in the Oceania category on the OSM Community forum in December 2024. If you don't participate in the AU community discussions, then I don't know how you exp... | |
| 3 | 2025-02-02 06:47 | aharvey | I'll echo TheSwavu's comments, this was already discussed. It was a conscious decision not to merge addresses onto other features on the map as part of the import.Firstly there's different ways addresses can be mapped, as a lone node, on the building, on the landuse representing t... | |
| 4 | 2025-02-11 13:57 | Pierce ♦41 | Woah, so I was not expecting the tone I received here. So I’ll keep it blunt.> If you don't participate in the AU community discussions, then I don't know how you expect to be involved.Sorry, but I can't accept that for me to be a contributor to OSM, I need to be an a... | |
| 5 | 2025-02-11 22:59 | aharvey | Firstly I value local mappers and everything to do with this import was done in consideration of how it would impact mappers, the intent was to support local mappers and minimise disruption and grief. So I'm disappointed that you feel otherwise.You don't need to be active on the commun... | |
| 162375413 by Caleb NHVR @ 2025-02-11 04:23 | 1 | 2025-02-11 09:22 | aharvey | See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination`destination=*` should go on the road you turn into, not the road you turn from, but it only really works when there it's not different from each of the from roads, and even then it's usually for a place not a street (see https://w... |
| 2 | 2025-02-11 23:33 | Caleb NHVR ♦10 | Thanks Andrew, I'll have the look at the wiki links and review it in relation to this junction shortly. Cheers | |
| 161725061 by BartekChom @ 2025-01-24 19:15 | 1 | 2025-02-09 04:22 | aharvey | building=skyscaper is not a tag in common use (<20 uses) and not documented on the wiki, nor have I seen any discussion on the tag.In general I don't think this is a good idea, as "skyscraper" is hard to define, you'd need to pick an arbitrary height and then you may as we... |
| 2 | 2025-02-09 05:41 | BartekChom ♦30 | OK, I am sorry. Good arguments. I was removing explicitly discouraged tag building=building and in this case I understood from the source only that it is a skyscraper. In the table i see "Office". Is building=office a good tag? Actually https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/6-8-parrama... | |
| 3 | 2025-02-09 05:49 | BartekChom ♦30 | (plus start_date=2022, but anyway I am not sure that I would copy all information from a web page even if I were deciding all by myself) | |
| 4 | 2025-02-09 09:23 | aharvey | No worries, I didn't look back to see it was building=building before.skyscrapercenter.com is a database, which holds a vast collection of information about buildings, they consider this their proprietary data and while their terms mention "public use" after I asked them about use... | |
| 5 | 2025-02-09 12:14 | BartekChom ♦30 | OK, thank you, I have to remember not to use it. | |
| 158917740 by DeOnlyR @ 2024-11-09 02:30 | 1 | 2025-02-06 11:09 | aharvey | hi could you please document your source of these building heights? It's a bit hard to claim you're "fixing" them without backing up how you came to these results?Also for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/466884767/history I set both ele and height, so that you can o... |
| 2 | 2025-02-06 11:45 | DeOnlyR ♦3 | Hi, all building heights are sourced from skyscrapercentre.com which source their information from architectural plans of the building.View Tower for example is shown to be 107m in height above ground level:https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/metro-view-residences/13403Regarding your s... | |
| 3 | 2025-02-06 13:45 | aharvey | It's nice to see the interest in improving our building heights data, however you can't use proprietary data when editing OSM https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Copyright#Proprietary_data.While sourcing a fact might be okay, in this case doing a bulk sourcing of their database is not ... | |
| 4 | 2025-02-06 20:26 | DeOnlyR ♦3 | It is a non-profit organisation which clearly states that all information on the website is for public use apart from their drawings and externally submitted photographs. I do not see how this is "unclear" in terms of public usage of their data."All information provided on the CTB... | |
| 5 | 2025-02-06 22:43 | aharvey | While it's good they do include some information about the use of their data, I still feel "public use" is not clear enough. For example if I build their data into my commercial product and sell it, is that public use? because it's totally okay to do that with OSM data.Even w... | |
| 6 | 2025-02-07 22:54 | aharvey | I reached out to CTBUH and heard back that "Republication of our data for commercial use in not allowed." and they did not provide a waiver to this, therefore on this basis the data is incompatible with OSM. We'll need to go through and remove all instances where you copied this data ... | |
| 7 | 2025-02-08 11:18 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162275408 | |
| 8 | 2025-02-09 04:50 | aharvey | As an update I've finished reviewing all your prior edits and have reverted either fully or manually the data I strongly believe or you have stated to have been copied from the CTBUH proprietary database. | |
| 112567595 by DeOnlyR @ 2021-10-16 07:05 | 1 | 2025-02-09 04:49 | aharvey | manually reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162301634 to remove proprietary data |
| 89770128 by DeOnlyR @ 2020-08-22 04:57 | 1 | 2020-08-22 14:34 | aharvey | looks like you accidentally dragged the bus stop into a building https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/2626808800 safe to assume that was an accident? I'll move it back. |
| 2 | 2020-08-22 20:36 | DeOnlyR ♦3 | Thanks aharvy, Yes that was an accident, thank you for fixing it. | |
| 3 | 2025-02-09 04:46 | aharvey | This changeset has been manually reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162301600 to remove all proprietary data added. | |
| 4 | 2025-02-09 04:48 | aharvey | also in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162301618 | |
| 74214901 by green_leek @ 2019-09-07 21:25 | 1 | 2025-02-09 04:42 | aharvey | hi as recently extensively discussed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158917740 skyscrapercenter.com is not an acceptable source for use in OSM. I reached out and they confirmed no commercial use is permitted, so it's definitely a no for OSM. I've had to revert a whole bunch of t... |
| 83505667 by John Bek @ 2020-04-14 04:31 | 1 | 2025-02-09 04:40 | aharvey | hi as recently extensively discussed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158917740 skyscrapercenter.com is not an acceptable source for use in OSM. I reached out and they confirmed no commercial use is permitted, so it's definitely a no for OSM. I've had to revert a whole bunch of t... |
| 110373745 by DeOnlyR @ 2021-08-28 10:02 | 1 | 2025-02-09 04:34 | aharvey | Partially reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162301440 to remove building height as this was likely sourced from proprietary data. |
| 110373947 by DeOnlyR @ 2021-08-28 10:08 | 1 | 2025-02-09 04:18 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162301270 due to the use of proprietary data. |
| 110399130 by DeOnlyR @ 2021-08-29 04:46 | 1 | 2025-02-09 04:16 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162301234 due to use of proprietary data. |
| 148525724 by DeOnlyR @ 2024-03-11 22:43 | 1 | 2025-02-08 11:27 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162275879 due to use of proprietary data. |
| 148897119 by DeOnlyR @ 2024-03-20 08:02 | 1 | 2025-02-08 11:21 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162275655 due to use of proprietary data. |
| 149375010 by DeOnlyR @ 2024-03-31 03:15 | 1 | 2025-02-08 11:19 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162275567 due to the use of proprietary data. |
| 149375273 by DeOnlyR @ 2024-03-31 03:42 | 1 | 2025-02-08 11:19 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162275515 due to use of proprietary data in the changes. |
| 161880304 by Michael Todd FSC1 @ 2025-01-29 02:55 | 1 | 2025-02-05 23:49 | aharvey | Is this based on local knowledge, or otherwise how do you know this?At the Newell Hwy intersection here, I couldn't see any street signs on the street level imagery, and further south we don't have any street level imagery, so it's unclear.It was originally named based on DCS da... |
| 139731474 by TheSwavu @ 2023-08-11 04:24 | 1 | 2025-02-02 13:41 | aharvey | I missed this change earlier by why was boundary=protected_area removed? It's a Wildlife Protection Area with protection_title tagged and should have protect_class=4. |
| 2 | 2025-02-02 19:22 | TheSwavu ♦544 | It's not in CAPAD so I was unable to verify the protect class. | |
| 3 | 2025-02-02 20:35 | aharvey | Either way it's still a protected area and protect class 4 seems the correct class. If there's no objection I'll reinstate it. | |
| 4 | 2025-02-02 21:43 | TheSwavu ♦544 | The IUCN categories are based on management intent. How do you know what the intent of the owner of this land is? Have they published that somewhere? | |
| 5 | 2025-02-02 22:01 | aharvey | https://www.northernbeaches.nsw.gov.au/environment/native-animals/wildlife-protection-areas> Wildlife Protection Areas are public places set apart for the protection of our native animals and their habitats under the NSW Companion Animals Act, 1998.From https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki... | |
| 6 | 2025-02-02 22:56 | aharvey | Regardless, the signage present at these locations indicates these areas as "Wildlife Protection Areas" with details showing the intent by the council that they are for the protection of native animals. | |
| 7 | 2025-02-03 09:12 | TheSwavu ♦544 | That's not how IUCN categories are assigned see https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/pag-021.pdf | |
| 8 | 2025-02-03 10:44 | aharvey | Okay but according to the wiki "boundary=protected_area is used to mark boundaries of protected areas", that's a very broad definition, but "Wiildlife Protection Areas" seem like they should come under this tag.I don't have any knowledge of IUCN, I simply read the d... | |
| 162035092 by computerOwl @ 2025-02-02 06:57 | 1 | 2025-02-02 13:32 | aharvey | Please try to keep the history https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_history of objectsThis way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/898239664/history could have been retained and amended into the new way you added https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1356111699/historyKeeping... |
| 2 | 2025-02-02 13:33 | aharvey | 2. It should be footway=crossing for the crossing sections not footway=sidewalk. | |
| 3 | 2025-02-02 22:42 | aharvey | At a minimum could the backyard trampolines https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1356111675/history be tagged access=private to indicate they aren't part of a public playground. | |
| 161890841 by ❤️🔥 @ 2025-01-29 10:13 | 1 | 2025-01-29 23:53 | aharvey | what's the reason for removing the gas pipeline https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/526335497/history ? |
| 2 | 2025-01-29 23:53 | aharvey | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/526335498/history | |
| 161820292 by Oreg2 @ 2025-01-27 14:15 | 1 | 2025-01-29 00:43 | aharvey | Per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Abbreviations we try to avoid abbreviations in the name no in this case the name should be "Avalon Beach Surf Life Saving Club" without the "(SLSC)" bit at the end.If you want you could tag short_name=Avalon Beach SLSC |
| 2 | 2025-02-06 17:58 | Oreg2 ♦12 | Sorry I found your message only now.Good point, fixed. Thanks! | |
| 161813348 by mueschel @ 2025-01-27 11:02 | 1 | 2025-01-28 11:10 | aharvey | Thank you. This is because I was using StreetComplete EE trying to edit tags directly without any field presets to guide me. |
| 161839917 by jontsy @ 2025-01-28 01:19 | 1 | 2025-01-28 11:02 | aharvey | could probably even mark it as disused then with disused:highway=path per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_of_decay |
| 161845229 by computerOwl @ 2025-01-28 06:52 | 1 | 2025-01-28 10:58 | aharvey | firstly https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1302411156/history was added July 2024 Bing, and Esri imagery don't have dates, DCS is from Feb 2022. If you haven't done a survey and don't have more recent imagery, then don't delete. Or better yet ask first.secondly, if you check t... |
| 2 | 2025-01-28 10:59 | aharvey | reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161852842 | |
| 158027645 by Hotfish @ 2024-10-17 21:53 | 1 | 2025-01-28 10:45 | aharvey | Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3FBased on this guidance even if the trails have no public access, we still include them in OpenStreetMap data but with the appropriate tags setting no public access. |
| 161838120 by Meead Saberi @ 2025-01-27 23:15 | 1 | 2025-01-28 02:05 | aharvey | FYI footpaths should also have the footway=sidewalk tag |
| 158159026 by pritchy009 @ 2024-10-21 08:32 | 1 | 2025-01-25 06:59 | aharvey | How did you trace or derive https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1326456127 since it doesn't appear on Bing Maps Aerial? |
| 146843267 by ❤️🔥 @ 2024-01-30 01:08 | 1 | 2025-01-21 05:46 | aharvey | waterway=flowline was recently documented for this purpose https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dflowline |
| 2 | 2025-01-21 11:59 | ❤️🔥 ♦364 | perfect, thanks for updating these :) | |
| 3 | 2025-01-22 21:48 | ❤️🔥 ♦364 | should we also add oneway=no ? iD assumes that waterway=flowline implies oneway=yes: https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/pull/10283 but these are all tidal bays | |
| 4 | 2025-01-22 23:08 | aharvey | Interesting. oneway isn't mentioned on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waterway or https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dflowline.However while these are tidal bays and the current changes based on the tide, downstream is still towards the ocean and the way should be dr... | |
| 5 | 2025-01-22 23:14 | aharvey | Actually I just realised I thought the tidal tag was meant to be used on any feature that is affected by the tides, ie. the full length of the waterway from tidal limit to where it ends at the ocean, but seems from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tidal it should only be the small section bet... | |
| 6 | 2025-01-23 03:55 | ❤️🔥 ♦364 | okay, maybe it's fine as is. It felt a bit weird, but I guess having a direction makes sense | |
| 150904660 by ❤️🔥 @ 2024-05-05 05:07 | 1 | 2025-01-21 10:32 | aharvey | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1279812527I think calling this a building is a stretch. I believe it should be waterway=drain which I'm tried to document at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sydney_Water#Sewage_Network |
| 2 | 2025-01-21 11:58 | ❤️🔥 ♦364 | sounds good, man_made=tunnel is the only other opinion I can think of , but its also not perfect | |
| 161582262 by Jack Boschert @ 2025-01-20 23:59 | 1 | 2025-01-21 09:44 | aharvey | motor_vehicle=permissive means "Open to general traffic until such time as the owner revokes the permission which they are legally allowed to do at any time in the future." see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:accessIt sounds like this one is not open to motor vehicles, but your... |
| 2 | 2025-01-22 05:21 | Jack Boschert ♦6 | Hi aharvey, thanks for clarifying ther permissive value. I had used that incorrectly. I've just updated the attributes of this path which can be seen in chageset 161623136. Cheers, Jack | |
| 146062347 by gsfjohndoe @ 2024-01-09 11:08 | 1 | 2024-01-12 02:47 | aharvey | Hi, I don't think these changes should apply. The body of water is mapped, and for these large harbours there isn't a clear centerline like there might be for a river. |
| 2 | 2024-01-27 11:11 | aharvey | While I still don't fully support mapping like this, at the very least I've removed the descriptive names and fixed the incorrect (upstream) directions. | |
| 3 | 2025-01-21 05:58 | aharvey | waterway=flowline was recently documented https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dflowline as a suitable tag for this purpose and I've since apply the tag to these ways | |
| 161364559 by aharvey @ 2025-01-15 02:11 | 1 | 2025-01-19 22:01 | Maradona11 ♦44 | Is this new location replacing the George St (temp) location? and do we have it confirmed that its open for 2025 terms? |
| 2 | 2025-01-19 22:27 | aharvey | I added this based on the new school name appearing in the Geographic Names Register, but I realise the name can be approved well before the construction even starts and the location data isn't always accurate, so I added this one a bit too much in haste.Looking into it more, it looks like ... | |
| 3 | 2025-01-19 22:37 | Maradona11 ♦44 | no problem. its hard to keep up with the school grounds in the Sydney West growth areas. Gledswood Hills HS for example is temporarily within Gregory Hills PS school grounds! year 7 only | |
| 4 | 2025-01-19 22:50 | aharvey | Yeah I did that one together with this one, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161365383 I hope I got it right. | |
| 161513949 by TheSwavu @ 2025-01-19 06:36 | 1 | 2025-01-19 11:19 | aharvey | Thanks! I didn't realise there were new boundaries here, looks like it was done 1.5 years ago too. |
| 161395628 by TheSwavu @ 2025-01-15 21:00 | 1 | 2025-01-17 01:28 | aharvey | thanks i missed this one.I was going to suggest we disable suburb, postcode, and state in iD as it's only in rare cases when you might need to set them, and the trouble they cause by people adding incorrect or superfluous data is real, but I realised that might not be the case in every stat... |
| 2 | 2025-01-18 05:12 | TheSwavu ♦544 | I can't think of any reason why the suburb/state/country would be any different to the existing boundaries. Even if they were different, there is no way to tag that this is the case and when people do QC checks they'll get flagged and then changed to match anyway. The other thing i... | |
| 3 | 2025-01-19 10:52 | aharvey | Thanks. I think we should the1. Get a documented consensus that addr:suburb, addr:state, addr:postcode should not be tagged where they are inherited from the admin_boundary, providing reasoning and justification for this as well.2. Take this consensus to iD and then request these fields not be... | |
| 161476767 by computerOwl @ 2025-01-18 02:48 | 1 | 2025-01-18 03:06 | aharvey | Hi could you please advise the rationale behind theses changes? To me these look questionable and I don't think we should necessarily be actioning all JOSM validator issues. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/161476767 |
| 2 | 2025-01-18 03:12 | computerOwl ♦23 | Hi there,Could you explain what you mean? I used the JOSM validator, found warnings / errors, let JOSM fix some of them. | |
| 3 | 2025-01-18 03:14 | computerOwl ♦23 | I don't see an issue with doing that. Please let me know if there is, as I'm new to this. | |
| 4 | 2025-01-18 10:43 | aharvey | Yeah in my view a lot of the JOSM validator warnings are too strict.For example source:geometry is fine and acceptable to use to document the source of the geometry https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source:geometry even on nodes. It doesn't need to be changed to source:position doing ... | |
| 5 | 2025-01-18 10:47 | aharvey | Even changing cycleway/sidewalk:left and :right into a single tag https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/447120360 I think it's not helpful, while the two different ways of tagging can be interpreted as the same, for mappers entering data it's best to retain what was mapped.I&... | |
| 6 | 2025-01-18 20:17 | computerOwl ♦23 | I revert it because they're my edits and I did something wronghttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161504655 | |
| 7 | 2025-01-18 20:42 | aharvey | It's not just this one, it'll all of them. I think systematic bulk changes like this should be first discussed, or at least discussed before continuing further. | |
| 161439101 by Razorback77 @ 2025-01-17 01:30 | 1 | 2025-01-17 02:32 | aharvey | hi thanks for the edit here. Per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only the name value should only reflect the street name, in this case being a private driveway it likely doesn't have a name therefore name should be omitted/empty.The fact that it is a Private Drive... |
| 2 | 2025-01-17 02:37 | Razorback77 ♦1 | OK -thanks for letting me know. | |
| 161420222 by mueschel @ 2025-01-16 13:52 | 1 | 2025-01-16 21:29 | aharvey | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name:etymology says "This key is intended for a name or sometimes a word, but not a full etymology tracing the evolution of that word, as one would find in a dictionary."Previously the etymology value was "Lt.William Bradley" but you�... |
| 2 | 2025-01-16 23:00 | mueschel ♦6,567 | I'd say that the text is still reasonably short and not like "one would find in a dictionary.".I understand the Wiki as "keep it short, OSM is not the right place to give a full description like on a Wikipedia page". That would also include not circumventing this limitatio... | |
| 3 | 2025-01-17 00:14 | aharvey | Still I thought name:etymology was meant to only contain the persons name, as it's "intended for a name or sometimes a word", further details could go in `name:etymology:description` or `name:etymology:note`. We could just delete the whole `name:origin` that was there and got moved to... | |
| 4 | 2025-01-17 08:03 | mueschel ♦6,567 | :description is already in use for a bit of further information and could be used here.:origin has never been used on another object (that's why I found it and edited)"Just a word or name" seems a bit strict: In many cases that would just be a copy of the name of the object. A s... | |
| 5 | 2025-01-18 06:42 | TheSwavu ♦544 | The requirement that the tag value be a name or just a word was added by one user in Sep 2021 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Aname%3Aetymology&diff=prev&oldid=2200202 with (as far as I can tell) no discussion on the forum or the tagging mail list.As it currently st... | |
| 152656927 by Chris Evest @ 2024-06-14 03:40 | 1 | 2025-01-16 21:00 | aharvey | This has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161433740 since it seems they do exist in some form on the ground. Tag improvements welcome. |
| 152520870 by Chris Evest @ 2024-06-11 01:51 | 1 | 2025-01-16 21:00 | aharvey | This has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161433740 since it seems they do exist in some form on the ground. Tag improvements welcome. |
| 152317733 by Chris Evest @ 2024-06-06 07:50 | 1 | 2025-01-12 08:13 | Ewen Hill ♦407 | Hi Chris, can I ask where Strava is rendering this please? If it is the heat-map, then deleting these will not impact on the heat map. If it is in the Route-Planner, this is updated monthly and so will still be present until perhaps March. I would suggest that tagging these appropriately is far far ... |
| 2 | 2025-01-12 22:48 | Chris Evest ♦4 | Unfortunately I have been down this "track" before with suggestions and discussions that came to nothing. After a month of going nowhere with any of the platforms (including OSM) it was decided to simply delete them before they propagated. In this instance the lines do not seem to propa... | |
| 3 | 2025-01-13 01:37 | aharvey | Hello again, we've discussed this previously at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144773386.Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can't_I_delete_this_trail%3F and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_... | |
| 4 | 2025-01-13 09:05 | Ewen Hill ♦407 | Thank you Chris for the detailed reply. I have been a long term resident of Ferny Creek and have a fairly strong knowledge of Strava. Both Andrew and I are keen to find some common ground with you and try and find the best way forward. If you want to discuss any new edits, please reach out via a mes... | |
| 5 | 2025-01-16 21:00 | aharvey | This has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161433740 since it seems they do exist in some form on the ground. Tag improvements welcome. | |
| 152317520 by Chris Evest @ 2024-06-06 07:44 | 1 | 2025-01-16 21:00 | aharvey | This has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161433740 since it seems they do exist in some form on the ground. Tag improvements welcome. |
| 152317270 by Chris Evest @ 2024-06-06 07:37 | 1 | 2025-01-16 21:00 | aharvey | This has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161433740 since it seems they do exist in some form on the ground. Tag improvements welcome. |
| 161260354 by Chris Evest @ 2025-01-12 03:33 | 1 | 2025-01-16 06:04 | Ethan Grobin ♦12 | Please don't vandalize the map, see here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F |
| 2 | 2025-01-16 08:57 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161408810 | |
| 3 | 2025-01-16 19:32 | Chris Evest ♦4 | The vandals are those who cut illegal tracks through National parks, destroying the environment and habitat.I am simply upholding Parks department policy. | |
| 4 | 2025-01-16 20:38 | aharvey | > The vandals are those who cut illegal tracks through National parks, destroying the environment and habitat.Correct.> I am simply upholding Parks department policy.And I'm simply upholding the OpenStreetMap community policy.Parks Victoria can do more if they want to work... | |
| 158236526 by Chris Evest @ 2024-10-23 04:42 | 1 | 2025-01-16 08:59 | aharvey | These ways have seen been re-added by another user, which is disappointing that this changeset happened and could not have been reverted sooner. The original contribution by @DM9 was lost now. |
| 161260335 by Chris Evest @ 2025-01-12 03:31 | 1 | 2025-01-16 08:57 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161408810 |
| 161260246 by Chris Evest @ 2025-01-12 03:19 | 1 | 2025-01-16 08:56 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161408810 |
| 161260233 by Chris Evest @ 2025-01-12 03:17 | 1 | 2025-01-16 08:56 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161408810 |
| 161260228 by Chris Evest @ 2025-01-12 03:17 | 1 | 2025-01-13 01:48 | aharvey | I've left a comment at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161227094 to try and gather more information. |
| 2 | 2025-01-16 08:56 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161408810 | |
| 161408810 by aharvey @ 2025-01-16 08:55 | 1 | 2025-01-16 08:56 | aharvey | While it seems the tagging could be improved, it's also clear that in some shape or form the ways can exist in OSM, so reverting to bring the ways back. Further work needed to determine the best way to tag these. |
| 161365102 by computerOwl @ 2025-01-15 02:55 | 1 | 2025-01-15 12:04 | aharvey | See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Dual_carriagewayThere's no separation here, I'll revert this one. |
| 2 | 2025-01-15 12:05 | aharvey | further Austlink is the building, do they actually have a company office here? | |
| 3 | 2025-01-15 12:05 | aharvey | and um, not good to delete an existing feature, to just re-add your own | |
| 161365835 by computerOwl @ 2025-01-15 03:56 | 1 | 2025-01-15 11:39 | aharvey | addr:postcode and addr:state are not necessary here since we have the boundaries of these in OSM already.The addr:housenumber and addr:street can all be derived from the addr details on the center https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/256702729/history there's no need to repeat this on each fea... |
| 2 | 2025-01-15 11:41 | aharvey | plus you've messed up the branch https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10711420922/history | |
| 142848239 by TheSwavu @ 2023-10-20 04:16 | 1 | 2025-01-15 10:16 | aharvey | Shouldn't name:en=Bennelong Point ? Otherwise we can't distinguish the different parts of the dual name?I was then going to update name:etymology to name:en:etymology so the tagged etymology correctly relates to the right name between the two dual names.I was planning on going thro... |
| 2 | 2025-01-15 21:05 | TheSwavu ♦544 | name:en is the name that should be rendered for an English speaking audience. Australia is predominately an English speaking country, as a result the value of name and name:en should be the same. If you don't think Bennelong Point / Dubbagullee is the most common name in English for this POI ... | |
| 149170156 by Rindinadya @ 2024-03-26 10:41 | 1 | 2025-01-15 04:00 | aharvey | Thanks indeed the old name was officially discontinued https://proposals.gnb.nsw.gov.au/public/geonames/ecf1c667-60a9-471d-8be6-c9030c014a80 then the new name was officially assigned https://proposals.gnb.nsw.gov.au/public/geonames/791f60fa-e11a-4ad4-a530-1b0b693e5472 by the Geographic Names Board. |
| 137262191 by Tom Brennan @ 2023-06-12 22:26 | 1 | 2025-01-15 03:24 | aharvey | I'm still noticing a lot of duplicated streams here, for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/210580351 which it looks like you've extended to duplicate on top of the existing stream?I realise this is from a year ago, but if it's an issue from your workflow it would be good t... |
| 2 | 2025-01-15 03:33 | aharvey | I think I've fixed up all the ones I could see for now. | |
| 3 | 2025-01-15 05:57 | Tom Brennan ♦15 | Sorry, it's been over 18 months so I'm not sure what the problem with my workflow was. I suspect some failure in my extract to pull the existing data down off the server. It's hard to make sense of the errors otherwise. It looks like most of the problem ones had an existing stream but... | |
| 161227094 by aussierider75 @ 2025-01-11 04:56 | 1 | 2025-01-13 01:46 | aharvey | Another user has reverted your additions of MTB routes in the area based on the claim that these are unauthorised.The current guidance for signposted closed tracks is at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths which maps them ... |
| 2 | 2025-01-13 03:10 | aussierider75 ♦1 | Hi, yes, I was supposed to label them as abandoned=yes but forgot. When I get the time I’ll go onto each of them and add that. | |
| 3 | 2025-01-13 04:49 | Chris Evest ♦4 | We had this argument a couple of years ago. These are not abandoned or disused. They are illegal and at least 1 goes straight through the habitat of a creature that only exists in to streams in the park.They only exist because some mountain biker with a battery powered chainsaw created them. Th... | |
| 4 | 2025-01-13 04:54 | Chris Evest ♦4 | Last time I discussed this issue I requested that an "illegal track" designation should be created that would not show them unless in edit mode and would not allow them to be re-instated without the permission of someone representing the Parks department.One final word. These areas of... | |
| 161199513 by SharingTheBees @ 2025-01-10 10:32 | 1 | 2025-01-10 10:43 | aharvey | You can also set ref=266 |
| 161049025 by seancarmody @ 2025-01-06 09:13 | 1 | 2025-01-09 05:24 | aharvey | sorry to be blunt but you've just dumped your way on top of the existing ways. Given this was already existing, you'll need to make any changes to the existing ways instead of a new one. I'll clean this up. |
| 2 | 2025-01-09 05:28 | aharvey | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161156261 I've deleted the duplicate you've add, but wasn't sure about the tags, please go ahead and update the tags and/or geometry of the existing ways as needed. | |
| 3 | 2025-01-09 05:33 | seancarmody ♦1 | No problems with bluntness! I will have a look at the changes you’ve made: I had started to suspect I’d gone about this the wrong way. Also, just stumbled onto the path/footway/cycleway debate. Do you have a view on that? | |
| 4 | 2025-01-09 06:22 | aharvey | My view is that cycleway should be primarily built/designed/signposted for bicycles, footway should be primarily build/designed/signposted for walkers and path for anything not really built at all just people started walking/cycling there and the ground / track formed. | |
| 5 | 2025-01-09 20:59 | seancarmody ♦1 | Thanks - makes sense | |
| 6 | 2025-01-09 22:42 | nevw ♦1,978 | +1 | |
| 123564950 by radiotrefoil @ 2022-07-13 13:05 | 1 | 2025-01-08 12:24 | aharvey | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1078210123/history looks like https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dannexe is the defacto tag now |
| 2 | 2025-01-09 06:00 | radiotrefoil ♦109 | Good to know, thanks. I'll have a look for the ones I did recently. Any plans for an iD preset? | |
| 3 | 2025-01-09 06:19 | aharvey | lets see https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/pull/1422 I just want it there so we can translate it as "Granny Flat" | |
| 161052859 by LizzieROZ @ 2025-01-06 11:13 | 1 | 2025-01-07 01:37 | aharvey | Thanks. I've cleaned this up in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161079913You needed to split the street at that point and delete the section which isn't really a road. Then I added noexit=yes to make it clear you can't exit there. |
| 161056903 by LizzieROZ @ 2025-01-06 13:05 | 1 | 2025-01-07 01:33 | aharvey | If you've surveyed to confirm, then this looks good.I tried to check on the imagery at https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=777669173118627&focus=phobut I think it's unlikely there are steps based on this. |
| 161070556 by VLD190 @ 2025-01-06 18:48 | 1 | 2025-01-07 01:26 | aharvey | https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/173411374the tag is highway=cycleway not highway=cyclewaysI'll fix this |
| 2 | 2025-01-07 19:21 | VLD190 ♦15 | Hello aharvey,Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I value my accuracy to the highest standards and I appreciate that you fixed the issue, and it will not happen again.Best regards,- David | |
| 160974140 by ITBeyond-Michelle @ 2025-01-04 05:27 | 1 | 2025-01-06 05:01 | aharvey | The name=* tag should only contain the name https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_onlyI've corrected these in my changeset at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160974140https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1342563707https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/635998948 |
| 2 | 2025-01-06 06:33 | ITBeyond-Michelle ♦5 | Hi thankyou for checking these and I do hope i didnt cause too much trouble but I dont recall any of my updates being to the name field at all - my project was verification of road type, surface, access tags etc but I dont believe any name changes were made. Perhaps Ive overlooked something or made ... | |
| 3 | 2025-01-06 06:47 | aharvey | These two, you can see in the historyhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1342563707/historyhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/635998948/history | |
| 161044820 by aharvey @ 2025-01-06 05:42 | 1 | 2025-01-06 05:42 | aharvey | please let me know if this is wrong, I couldn't find much detail on the wiki |
| 100866715 by neomanic @ 2021-03-11 22:10 | 1 | 2025-01-01 08:52 | aharvey | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/916024901/history is now paved |
| 159521567 by Lockstar @ 2024-11-24 05:50 | 1 | 2024-12-23 01:53 | aharvey | I've partially reverted this change in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159521567 to restore the bus stop to a location not glued to the park boundary |
| 160086385 by computerOwl @ 2024-12-09 10:32 | 1 | 2024-12-10 09:40 | aharvey | footway=sidewalk should only be used on footpaths where they run along side a road, many of these here are walkways to access the buildings, no alongside a road and therefore shouldn't be footway=sidewalk. |
| 2 | 2024-12-23 00:54 | aharvey | I've fixed this. | |
| 160231990 by MrYodaylay @ 2024-12-13 05:49 | 1 | 2024-12-23 00:24 | aharvey | looks good. |
| 160491282 by TheSwavu @ 2024-12-22 05:58 | 1 | 2024-12-22 23:57 | aharvey | https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/11505453837 entrance=main but noexit=yes? surely that's a bit conflicting? I've added the driveway now for connectivity. |
| 2 | 2024-12-23 01:34 | TheSwavu ♦544 | I'm working off aerial imagery and there is nothing visible here. Guess I missed the entrance tag, although that's not alway conclusive either. | |
| 152747580 by ❤️🔥 @ 2024-06-16 07:08 | 1 | 2024-12-22 23:49 | aharvey | hi you've duplicated the ferry terminal, https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/11984957950 was added on top of the existing one at https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/3947706201It looks like the node you added was also part of the pier way, so it snapped the the ferr... |
| 2 | 2024-12-24 05:21 | ❤️🔥 ♦364 | hmm that's really weird, thanks for fixing it. no idea how it happened... | |
| 139786935 by Cecilia11111 @ 2023-08-12 12:58 | 1 | 2024-12-18 01:34 | aharvey | What are all the name tag values for these buildings? It should only be used if the buildings have a proper name. |
| 137897455 by Tom Brennan @ 2023-06-28 22:42 | 1 | 2023-06-29 00:37 | Warin61 ♦2,664 | Hi,Some of these waterways are used as admin boundaries. Would it be better if the 2 features were entered as separate ways? |
| 2 | 2023-06-29 03:15 | Tom Brennan ♦15 | I'd say so. Do you have any suggestions as to the best way to do this? | |
| 3 | 2023-06-30 07:01 | Warin61 ♦2,664 | The official gov data is 'PSMA' available on the OSM Australian Data page. Get that as the basis of replacing any creek boundaries. When you work on a creek .. download the OSM creek, then 'File' 'download along' -(I set it to 1m distance and not more than 1 km) an... | |
| 4 | 2023-06-30 08:25 | Tom Brennan ♦15 | Thanks, I will see if I can work out a process.In the meantime, you identified that some boundaries had moved. What tool(s) did you use for that? | |
| 5 | 2023-07-01 07:42 | Warin61 ♦2,664 | When they 'move' they usually brake and show up on https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=151.13628&lat=-33.74316&zoom=8&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cint... | |
| 6 | 2024-12-17 23:16 | aharvey | I just noticed that a bunch of these added were already existing, and now we have duplicates. | |
| 7 | 2024-12-17 23:27 | aharvey | I fixed what I could find in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160326846 | |
| 160234969 by vicmap_import @ 2024-12-13 08:03 | 1 | 2024-12-14 10:26 | mueschel ♦6,567 | Hi,you used keys like "addr:flats10" in this import. Adding a number directly after the key is uncommon - it's much more usual to add it after a colon like addr:flats:10. Could you check & change that? |
| 2 | 2024-12-14 12:12 | aharvey | I raised this question at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:addr:flats#Exceeding_255_characters previously. Is there anything you can point me to that indicates the :2 :3 etc. key suffix is in use already for overflowing tag values?On another note, thinking about this more, perhaps th... | |
| 3 | 2024-12-14 12:22 | aharvey | I found https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12419076028 as one feature imported with addr:flats10. Could we move this discussion to the community forum or a GitLab issue at https://gitlab.com/alantgeo/vicmap2osm/-/blob/master/README.md or the import page talk, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk... | |
| 4 | 2024-12-14 12:32 | mueschel ♦6,567 | Here's the wiki entry about long values in general:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multiple_values#Numbered_suffix_in_keyYou can always check Taginfo for specific tag:https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/addr:flats#similarIf you check e.g. addr:flats:1 you see that is in use sin... | |
| 5 | 2024-12-14 22:21 | TheSwavu ♦544 | Hi mueschel,Would you please move this discussion the the OSM Community forum. Either https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/122863 or the original discussion https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/122628 Thanks. | |
| 6 | 2024-12-14 22:25 | TheSwavu ♦544 | Or if you want to go old school there is the talk-au mail list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-May/014622.html | |
| 7 | 2024-12-17 22:44 | aharvey | discussion moved to https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/vicmap-address-import-progress/122863/4 | |
| 160185742 by ❤️🔥 @ 2024-12-11 21:17 | 1 | 2024-12-11 22:59 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | Think you need to also update the start & end dates! :-) |
| 2 | 2024-12-11 23:01 | aharvey | I missed your comment Graeme. I just updated them to match the months listed on the website, exact dates would be better if you know that flaming heart? | |
| 3 | 2024-12-12 19:57 | ❤️🔥 ♦364 | good point, thanks for fixing it andrew. I'll check the signage next time I walk past, in case there's more accurate dates | |
| 4 | 2024-12-12 22:33 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | Just wondering about it. Is it set-up in the same spot each year? If so, it may be better to use lifecycle tags (disused maybe?) when closed, rather than deleting it all, then remapping it again? | |
| 5 | 2024-12-13 07:28 | ❤️🔥 ♦364 | I'd hope that by next summer the construction here will be finished, but who knows. I guess we can decide in 5 months when it closes | |
| 157692595 by Tewuzij @ 2024-10-09 23:30 | 1 | 2024-10-10 07:52 | mcliquid ♦1,852 | Hi and thank you for your contribution!Please note for the future: changesets should be local.To avoid conflicts and as a courtesy to reviewers, it is recommended to:• combine changes in a small geographical area (within a city, district or province)• keep changes within the sa... |
| 2 | 2024-12-10 10:17 | aharvey | Looks good @TewuzijI disagree @mcliquid, for a change like this, its better to keep it together as all the changes are related, as it makes it easier to review, comment on, etc. | |
| 158913371 by shamuoo1 @ 2024-11-08 22:10 | 1 | 2024-12-10 09:59 | aharvey | please take care to not remove the branch information from the name eg. https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/444590133In my view it should bebranch=Chatswood Interchangebrand=McDonaldsname=McDonalds Chatswood Interchange |
| 159768708 by aharvey @ 2024-11-30 10:25 | 1 | 2024-12-10 01:36 | RedAuburn ♦221 | Hi! there was a bit of confusion about the razed buildings along Cowan Road due to imagery being out of date (resolved now) - is the area now a brownfield? If so, explicit mapping would help avoid confusion :) |
| 2 | 2024-12-10 02:28 | aharvey | good suggestion, I've mapped the area as brownfield, but this is from some drone imagery from August 2024. I'm not sure if construction has started yet. | |
| 150734565 by Hannah_F_ @ 2024-05-01 05:53 | 1 | 2024-05-02 15:35 | ratrun ♦231 | Hello,please stop duplicating highways just for tagging cycling information where separate cycling infrastructure is already mapped. I'm going to remove those duplications soon.thanksratrun |
| 2 | 2024-05-02 22:50 | Hannah_F_ ♦5 | Hello Ratrun,I'm not sure what you mean by "duplicating highways". Could you please explain further?I believe I have tagged significant changes in on-road cycling infrastructure (such as traffic on both sides of the cycling lane or the beginning and end of cycling lanes) as gu... | |
| 3 | 2024-05-03 05:10 | ratrun ♦231 | Hello Hannah,here is one example: Your duplicated new way is this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1278694757 , but this road is already mapped here https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/671789980#map=17/-37.82372/144.67432 . There are three problems with this approach: the road is duplicated,... | |
| 4 | 2024-05-03 06:12 | Hannah_F_ ♦5 | Hi Ratrun,The road has not been duplicated. I have only added tags to the existing road section to describe the on-road cycling lane. This is not the same as the off-road cycle path that runs parallel to the road. The tags on the road feature are describing the cycling lane painted on th... | |
| 5 | 2024-05-03 06:37 | ratrun ♦231 | Hi Hannah,thanks for your explanation. Now that you pointed me on it I could spot the cycle markings on the road surface via the Bing images. But you did duplicate the roads as explained above. Otherwise I wouldn't have spotted your changes. You can see it when you closely watch in JOSM by zo... | |
| 6 | 2024-06-04 08:48 | SpecializedRider ♦18 | I'm also finding this as well. For example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1278695637 has no history other than creation of the way by yourself and it's not in the correct relation anymore. I understand it might be unintentional but there's almost never a reason to delete data and t... | |
| 7 | 2024-06-04 09:25 | SpecializedRider ♦18 | Additional comment/proof: In the list below, you will see "v1" next to hundreds of items, which means it is a brand new item in this changeset. I'm not sure why this is occurring , but please find a different way of working to avoid this, otherwise future change sets will simply be re... | |
| 8 | 2024-12-04 00:00 | aharvey | I've cleaned up a few of these and this one. It does appear Hannah you're working with the best intentions to improve the tagging, but the way you've made these changes has introduced data issues due to the duplication of the ways. In JOSM what you'll need to do is add a node to ... | |
| 156806408 by martiandeath @ 2024-09-19 07:52 | 1 | 2024-09-20 10:57 | tastrax ♦1,145 | I think pedestrian signals should not use traffic_signals=signals but traffic_signals=pedestrian_crossing as per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_signalsI noted this at the Davey/Elizabeth intersection |
| 2 | 2024-09-20 11:00 | tastrax ♦1,145 | Actually - I am not even sure you need the signals on the pedestrian crossinghttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals#Traffic_signals_for_pedestrians | |
| 3 | 2024-09-20 12:32 | martiandeath ♦2 | I think traffic_signals=pedestrian_crossing is only for signalised pedestrian crossings - "A traffic light that only turns red to let pedestrians cross" (first link) - , not for pedestrian crossings at junctions, and I think it is ok to have traffic_signals=signals where the stop buttons a... | |
| 4 | 2024-11-21 00:08 | aharvey | I've never come across this kind of mapping before, so I was surprised that the wiki suggests this. I would think the way being tagged crossing=traffic_signals, and splitting the crossing way so that only the kerb to kerb section is crossing would be sufficient. | |
| 129248069 by jbh10a @ 2022-11-22 17:00 | 1 | 2022-11-23 00:48 | Warin61 ♦2,664 | Hi,I have reduced the Convention Center area so it no longer over laps the fountain. I do question as why the building is layer=1 ... is it not at 'ground level'??? Deleted Convention Centre building - as there is already a building there. That building is separated into a number of ... |
| 2 | 2022-11-23 01:11 | kurisubrooks ♦54 | Not really sure why the landuse "commercial area" was deleted as it does serve a purpose, could I ask your reasoning behind this? Also please remember when using imagery that certain things may be aligned to differing offsets, hence Warin's comment about the fountain. Thanks! | |
| 3 | 2024-10-28 01:56 | aharvey | I agree with Kurisu here, the commercial landuse can be useful for some data consumers to show residential/retail/commercial/industrial landuse. Given no response in 2 years I've reinstated it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158436901 | |
| 158192928 by billybobbyjoe @ 2024-10-22 02:34 | 1 | 2024-10-23 00:18 | Warin61 ♦2,664 | Cease!!!!I do not believe these are 'unincorporated areas'!NSW lists only 2, TWO, 'unincorporated areas.The 'National Report' states "datain this report that relates to local government may not be directly comparable to that forlocal governing bodies.&qu... |
| 2 | 2024-10-23 00:25 | Warin61 ♦2,664 | The maps avalible (see here https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/territories-regions-cities/local-government/publications/national-reports) do not have the resolution that you have been using ... so what maps are you using - please provide one link to one of the maps. | |
| 3 | 2024-10-23 01:29 | billybobbyjoe ♦5 | Anywhere not defined by DCS as a local government area is an unincorporated area. The National Report national map provides the names of the different groupings of unincorporated areas (South Coast, Central Coast, Mid-North Coast and Northern Rivers). DCS boundaries indicate where specifically in th... | |
| 4 | 2024-10-23 01:31 | billybobbyjoe ♦5 | I'm using SixMaps, an application for displaying DCS data. I go up the coast and identify the islands not defined in LGAs, thus making them unincorporated areas. | |
| 5 | 2024-10-23 02:43 | aharvey | Either way I think a change of this scale is worth discussion first, especially when there may be different opinions within the community.I'm fine with a revert, followed by a discussion, best to do that on talk-au or https://community.openstreetmap.org/ not here.> this data is free ... | |
| 6 | 2024-10-23 07:41 | Warin61 ♦2,664 | SIX maps are a no no...Use the DCS Base Map that should be available in your editor ... possibly under 'imagery' 'map'... Note this does not identify 'unincorporated areas' ... -------------------Do these areas you have identified have a local population? If n... | |
| 7 | 2024-10-24 04:31 | Warin61 ♦2,664 | Part revert to restore non crossing of ways. | |
| 157406512 by Supt_of_Printing @ 2024-10-03 07:51 | 1 | 2024-10-08 04:51 | aharvey | This has swapped back and forth 12 times so far https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/892863645 please take into account the community consensus and best practice guidance. Per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name it's clear to me that the common and on the ground usage is &q... |
| 2 | 2024-10-08 04:54 | kurisubrooks ♦54 | +1 This sounds like the best solution to me. Unnecessary edit war when such a simple solution exists. | |
| 3 | 2024-10-08 05:27 | Supt_of_Printing ♦40 | The name of a location, street, etc. can't and shouldn't be determined by "community consensus" (how is this determined anyway? Has there been a survey of the local community?) unless that community consensus has been successful in convincing the legislators or officials who make... | |
| 4 | 2024-10-08 06:29 | kurisubrooks ♦54 | From the definition of Key:name, "The primary name: in general, the most prominent signposted name or the most common name in the local language(s)." Despite the gazetted name remaining as the "official" name, the station's signposted name is "Wattle Glen". You c... | |
| 5 | 2024-10-08 07:35 | Tomaussie_17 ♦7 | Supt look at the sign on the train station and report back as to how it is spelt. | |
| 6 | 2024-10-08 09:16 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | PTV's GTFS feed and Vicmap Transport (both permitted data sources) have it as Wattle Glen. | |
| 7 | 2024-10-08 12:18 | woodpeck ♦2,425 | DWG here. Please use "Wattle Glen" as the name tag until photo evidence shows the station signage to be "Wattleglen". (Ticket#2024100810000261) | |
| 8 | 2024-10-08 21:28 | aharvey | > community consensusI'm talking about the OpenStreetMap community, this was discussed at https://discord.com/channels/413070382636072960/926020366927790130/1292754771077365801 and the community consensus there is that OSM's standard on the ground rule should apply here, which is &... | |
| 9 | 2024-10-08 21:29 | aharvey | > community consensusI'm talking about the OpenStreetMap community, this was discussed at https://discord.com/channels/413070382636072960/926020366927790130/1292754771077365801 and the community consensus there is that OSM's standard on the ground rule should apply here, which is &... | |
| 137478235 by AndrewS @ 2023-06-18 13:13 | 1 | 2024-09-02 03:46 | aharvey | Thanks for your edits here, though I noticed you've used a lot of multipolygon relations eg. the parking areas, which I feel make editing more complicated. Is there a reason these couldn't just be ways which share nodes so the boundaries are snapped together? |
| 2 | 2024-09-02 09:08 | AndrewS ♦28 | I don't recall exactly, but I usually try to do enclosed areas as relations, eg the Fairfax walk carpark to the east has to be a relation as it's fully enclosed by the natural wood area. The other car parks to the west are also enclosed but with an accompanying grass area (yes, this then m... | |
| 3 | 2024-10-01 05:41 | aharvey | Sorry for the late reply. You can have overlapping ways which share nodes (that helps with the topology and keeps it neat and tidy). That would be simpler here, you can also reuse a way as relation inner. eg. car park as a way, and re-use that as a wood relation inner. I think shared nodes between d... | |
| 157279602 by aharvey @ 2024-09-30 05:31 | 1 | 2024-10-01 00:31 | Warin61 ♦2,664 | Hi,Would it not be 'better' (what ever that means) to join between the natural features to form a closed relation??? At the moment this relation throws errors .. |
| 2 | 2024-10-01 05:33 | aharvey | Yeah absolutely. I was going to do that, but as a first draft found it easier to just sketch out the rough location first. Improvements welcome. | |
| 3 | 2024-10-01 09:51 | TheSwavu ♦544 | Hi, I've looked at the GNB description. It seems to be a little vague about where the southern boundary.What do you think about https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1319834762 as a candidate? | |
| 157028467 by Matrose115 @ 2024-09-24 08:47 | 1 | 2024-09-25 07:01 | aharvey | Generally OpenStreetMap practice is to "map what's on the ground" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what's_on_the_groundIn this case, from the imagery it does indeed look like there are footpaths existing here, seems doubtful the council removed them.S... |
| 2 | 2024-09-25 07:02 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/157035383 | |
| 139586332 by shashp @ 2023-08-07 23:07 | 1 | 2024-09-21 23:57 | aharvey | hi you've extended the school zone much wider than what I can see on the ground, you've mentioned you've based this on a survey and local knowledge, but are you sure there was signage at all the entrance points where you start the school zone from? |
| 2 | 2024-09-22 00:03 | shashp ♦5 | I applied the updates based on what a local user provided. I do not live there to observe it personally. If you know better you can update it as this change was made 1 year ago. Good luck have fun! | |
| 3 | 2024-09-22 23:57 | aharvey | Thanks for the reply, I've tweaked it to align with what I can see. | |
| 156800130 by fwonp @ 2024-09-19 03:34 | 1 | 2024-09-19 03:38 | aharvey | hi, could you avoid hitting save in iD after every single object added? You can map out many objects, then just save at the end to create one changeset. |
| 154693578 by SteveJames1199 @ 2024-08-01 13:08 | 1 | 2024-09-19 00:41 | aharvey | Hi, I just wanted to point out that SIX Maps still include some non CC BY terms https://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/js/sixmaps/app/coreTerms.html which we'd prefer to err on the side of caution and not use directly.The data via https://www.spatial.nsw.gov.au/products_and_services/web_services and the... |
| 155917852 by TheSwavu @ 2024-08-29 09:21 | 1 | 2024-09-12 04:20 | aharvey | My understanding is that highway=crossing is for street crossings per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=crossing and should not apply if a footpath simply crosses a driveway. In this changeset I see a few instances of highway=crossing be applied on the junction of a highway=service and... |
| 2 | 2024-09-12 04:29 | aharvey | some discussion https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dcrossing#When_should_a_sidewalk/service-road_crossing_be_tagged_with_highway=crossing? | |
| 3 | 2024-09-12 07:56 | TheSwavu ♦544 | How is a driveway crossing not unmarked? How is a drive crossing a footpath not a crossing? Why does this say https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:crossing%3Dunmarked a driveway is an unmarked crossing? How is tagging a crossing hurting the map? | |
| 4 | 2024-09-17 10:20 | aharvey | I'm not saying driveway crossing is not unmarked, my thoughts are highway=crossing probably shouldn't even apply at all.What I just posted on the Talk page is I guess I see a distinction between crossing a road and crossing a driveway, with a crossing on highway=primary you're cro... | |
| 5 | 2024-09-17 10:22 | aharvey | To add, eventually we could have every house in OSM with a driveway mapped, do you agree we should have every single one of those driveways crossing a footpath, tagged as highway=crossing? | |
| 6 | 2024-09-17 20:37 | aharvey | I did not realise there has been a whole discussion on this point already at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-feature-proposal-continuous-crossings/105478 | |
| 67379973 by swanilli @ 2019-02-20 06:57 | 1 | 2024-09-10 01:15 | aharvey | Given these roads just service small block residential houses, and don't connect to anywhere else I feel they should be classified as highway=residential. Do you think this is okay? |
| 124139461 by ortho_is_hot @ 2022-07-27 12:34 | 1 | 2024-09-04 02:41 | aharvey | are you sure the school zone was removed at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/755189316/history#map=19/-33.878906/151.236409 ? From all the imagery sources I can see it's still there. |
| 155537275 by aharvey @ 2024-08-21 04:52 | 1 | 2024-08-26 09:23 | ❤️🔥 ♦364 | hey, if not construction, how would you tag this? https://0x0.st/XtHN.jpg |
| 2 | 2024-08-26 22:13 | aharvey | hmm admittedly I made this change based on the towers being complete, which I was thinking shouldn't be marked as construction if complete. Based on your photo I think we should at least convert https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1068760239 back to construction landuse. Do you think that works? | |
| 3 | 2024-08-26 22:15 | aharvey | Just looking on their website> Residences One – Construction complete, ready to move in > Residences Two – Construction to be completed September 2024 > Watermans Residences – Construction to be completed December 2024 | |
| 4 | 2024-08-28 10:44 | ❤️🔥 ♦364 | sounds good, thanks for updating it | |
| 152483789 by northchun @ 2024-06-10 07:20 | 1 | 2024-06-11 11:20 | tastrax ♦1,145 | Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country and regional code +61 x xxxx xxxx, +61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number.For freecall numbers that work whilst overseas (ie 13 13 13) use +61 X... |
| 2 | 2024-08-26 03:10 | aharvey | hi northchun, you'll find that in Australia, common practice has been to map out roundabouts as a circular way and tag them as junction=roundabout. I realise this does conflict with https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=mini%20roundabout?uselang=en but due to this longstanding practic... | |
| 155731884 by northchun @ 2024-08-25 11:17 | 1 | 2024-08-26 03:01 | aharvey | Are you sure this is not signposted for use by bicycles? Because this was previously tagged bicycle=designated (explicitly signed for bicycle use) and this changed it to bicycle=yes (bicycles okay to use but not designated as for bicycles).I realise this is old imagery but https://www.mapillary.co... |
| 152107545 by ❤️🔥 @ 2024-06-01 06:59 | 1 | 2024-08-21 09:46 | aharvey | Is this not serviced by https://www.boathouseferryco.com.au/timetable? |
| 2 | 2024-08-21 21:24 | ❤️🔥 ♦364 | based on that timetable it seems like they only operate between Patonga and Palm Beach, which I haven't changedThe section I removed was https://osm.org/way/255733718 , there's nothing but water taxis here right? | |
| 3 | 2024-08-22 00:09 | aharvey | You also removed the ferry route from the way to Palm Beach https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/247939475 since then TfNSW have re-added it, but now the two tags conflict, so I'll remove the intermittent:route=ferry tag you added based. I agree that I believe Brooklyn to Patonga is ... | |
| 4 | 2024-08-22 12:04 | ❤️🔥 ♦364 | oops, sorry about that, thanks for sorting it out... | |
| 153875079 by Lockstar @ 2024-07-12 23:22 | 1 | 2024-08-13 12:10 | aharvey | I feel this is a bit unnecessary to split the way, it complicates the data model when a simple tag on the way to say there is a median barrier would have worked.But regardless the lane tagging was not correctly updated, which I've now fixed. |
| 153643977 by Lockstar @ 2024-07-07 01:05 | 1 | 2024-08-13 03:59 | aharvey | Please take care moving features when editing with iD as it will snap unexpectedly. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3018096089/history#map=19/-33.81230/151.17152 was incorrectly snapped to the tunnel in this change. I've fixed it now. |
| 91168597 by gsm81 @ 2020-09-20 08:30 | 1 | 2024-08-13 01:32 | aharvey | Given these are not current military installations, only historical I believe we should use one of the lifecycle prefixes https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix |
| 154875295 by sudface @ 2024-08-06 04:41 | 1 | 2024-08-07 06:47 | aharvey | I've restored https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2921282680/history which was deleted here, and merged in your changes, it's important to try and retain the history of existing objects when you are making improvements to the data. |
| 154727924 by aharvey @ 2024-08-02 09:56 | 1 | 2024-08-03 09:03 | samuelrussell ♦50 | How does this edit control for State controlled roads and non-LGA controlled roads in the LGA that are marked by OSM as residential? |
| 2 | 2024-08-03 09:22 | aharvey | It doesn't. It tries to make some assumptions that mostly residential roads are controlled by the LGA and will mostly be 40km/hr. However we know that might not always be true so best to always explicitly tag maxspeed on each way.As I understand it, these tags for setting the default aren&#... | |
| 3 | 2024-08-03 10:21 | samuelrussell ♦50 | I get concerned about inherited properties where our typology and the external authorities typologies don't match. My concern doesn't mean that it is improper. A better match would be road-type residential && controller CoS for example if we're going to work inheritance regu... | |
| 4 | 2024-08-03 22:36 | aharvey | What about if we did something like this?def:operator=City of Sydney&highway=residential;maxspeed=40 | |
| 5 | 2024-08-04 05:57 | samuelrussell ♦50 | If we are able to do something like that, it would clear my concerns entirely: any failed inheritance would be from a lack of the way controller being adequately specified. (CoS on Parking for example tries desperately to remind people that it doesn't control a variety of streets) | |
| 6 | 2024-08-05 01:17 | aharvey | That syntax does conform to the proposal at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Defaults so I'll change it. | |
| 143889108 by Lockstar @ 2023-11-11 07:25 | 1 | 2024-04-10 00:48 | aharvey | hi, I've moved the ref=0634 tag back onto the traffic signals nodes after it was re-modelled. I can't see any documentation on the type=site site=traffic_signals relation, did you come up with this scheme or was there some documentation somewhere you referred to? |
| 2 | 2024-04-10 00:52 | aharvey | secondly, I feel the name "TfNSW Traffic Controlled Site X" is a description and not a proper name per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_onlyIf feel the information would be better encoded with https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref for the number and http... | |
| 3 | 2024-04-10 07:22 | Lockstar ♦26 | Hi, thanks for the feedback - this information is data I've held for a long time originally obtained from the DMR/RTA in the 1980s and gradually added to over time. The reference to "Traffic Controlled Site #" is how RTA/RMS/TfNSW have typically referenced them hence my use of it. I... | |
| 4 | 2024-07-24 04:23 | aharvey | "data I've held for a long time originally obtained from the DMR/RTA in the 1980s" is likely not a compatiable source for use in OSM due to copyright. We have a license to use the open data from https://data.nsw.gov.au/data/dataset/1-52821edb8608470abf117897b6ef7385 which may be used.... | |
| 5 | 2024-07-24 08:19 | Lockstar ♦26 | Comments noted - thanks for the feedback. The data held is compatible with and the same as the digital spatial data you've referenced. My work involves a gradual review and update rather than a bulk upload. The majority of the data is existing in OSM with only minor tweaks/updates required t... | |
| 153776297 by SHB2000 @ 2024-07-10 09:55 | 1 | 2024-07-11 00:28 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | Hi, do we have permission to use that information? According to the document itself, it's under copyright so we'd need explicit permission to use it in OSM. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153776297 |
| 2 | 2024-07-12 00:31 | SHB2000 ♦16 | I've always been under the impression that simple facts don't meet the threshold for originality, but if I am mistaken, do feel free to revert. | |
| 3 | 2024-07-16 11:27 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154001143 | |
| 153527897 by Meead Saberi @ 2024-07-04 05:46 | 1 | 2024-07-05 06:52 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16362 |
| 2 | 2024-07-05 09:43 | Meead Saberi ♦3 | Apologies for the overlook. We did follow the OSM technical guidelines on bulk data upload such as human validation, conflation, removing duplicates, and use of appropriate tags. What we overlooked is the discussion with the local community and getting the Wiki page up for our organized/automated ed... | |
| 3 | 2024-07-08 02:26 | aharvey | It's hard to review these without the source images you used, but from what I can see in the imagery we have around https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12032276774 you have placed 4 trees, but I can only see the eastern 2. Are these new plantings? Or false positives? | |
| 4 | 2024-07-08 02:45 | Meead Saberi ♦3 | The source images are available here: https://map.footpath.ai/#center=17.82/-33.893735/151.263428You are right about the case here. Upon checking again, I can see that 2 are trees but the other 2 should have been coded as plant boxes (man_made=planter), not trees. | |
| 5 | 2024-07-08 04:02 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | Meead, unfortunately, that doesn't fill us with confidence that the rest of your edits can automatically be accepted as correct. Also, by your published Terms of Use, I would think that we are unable to even look at your data to confirm anything. | |
| 6 | 2024-07-08 04:27 | aharvey | I mixed this one up with the tree edits, but still from my perspective these kinds of edits border in the region between an import and an enthusiastic mapper. An enthusiastic mapper taking a lot of photos and mapping in OSM from those photos is core to OSM and we don't expect the data to be per... | |
| 7 | 2024-07-08 05:06 | Meead Saberi ♦3 | We totally understand the concerns here. None of our contributions have been "automated uploads". While we do automated detection from the imagery we collect, we still do human verification. We have only uploaded the data that we have high confidence in its quality. Some mistakes still rem... | |
| 8 | 2024-07-08 06:05 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | That's all great, thanks. I'm sure people would love to be able to view your imagery for mapping purposes! Most important thing is to follow those guidelines & talk before starting a new process. As mentioned previously, it would be a good idea to start up your own thread here: https:/... | |
| 147921577 by Lockstar @ 2024-02-26 08:47 | 1 | 2024-06-26 03:45 | aharvey | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1254815681 I can't see any footpath here, with nothing on the ground I would suggest we delete this one. Thoughts? |
| 2 | 2024-06-26 04:30 | Lockstar ♦26 | Agreed - placed in error, should be deleted. Thanks. | |
| 3 | 2024-06-26 04:45 | aharvey | done | |
| 149252903 by slice0 @ 2024-03-28 06:46 Active block | 1 | 2024-03-28 07:31 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | Are you able to explain why you’ve dropped the main road out of a town from primary to tertiary? --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149252903 |
| 2 | 2024-03-28 07:38 | slice0 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 3 | 2024-03-29 00:19 | slice0 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 4 | 2024-03-29 00:31 | slice0 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 5 | 2024-03-29 09:58 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | Considering the roads placement within a smaller, close to country town, those factors are less important in determining a roads classification. If you actually took into consideration the roads use, positioning, compared it to other roads nearby, and even just observed those roads, they’d be ... | |
| 6 | 2024-03-31 04:59 | aharvey | I don't have any local knowledge here, but the physical attributes here are less important (and are mapped as their own objects or tags on the ways for data consumers to consider), based on importance in the road network with this road appearing as the main connector to the town tells me it sho... | |
| 7 | 2024-03-31 05:18 | slice0 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 8 | 2024-03-31 05:21 | slice0 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 9 | 2024-03-31 05:27 | slice0 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 10 | 2024-03-31 05:54 | slice0 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 11 | 2024-03-31 06:07 | slice0 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 12 | 2024-03-31 06:48 | slice0 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 129760120 by Harsimranjit Kaur @ 2022-12-05 23:25 | 1 | 2024-01-30 11:22 | mrpulley ♦170 | Just wondering what the "NSW Speed data" source is? I've recently been through here, and The Lakes Way is still maxspeed 80 (not 100). I didn't check Old Soldier's Road on my recent trip, but on Google Street View, it's maxspeed is still 90 (not 100). |
| 2 | 2024-01-30 22:47 | Harsimranjit Kaur ♦4 | Hi Mrpulley,'NSW Speed Data' is the data I get from 'https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/speed-zones' and 'https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/road-segment-data-from-datansw'. According to this data, when coming from Pacific Hwy, The Lakes Way is a... | |
| 3 | 2024-02-08 23:06 | aharvey | Hi Harsimranjit,A few things, if you're only relying on this dataset, then I don't think you should be replacing existing speed limits data in OSM, as how would you know this dataset is correct and OSM is not?What you could do is use this data to as a hint to check other sources li... | |
| 4 | 2024-02-14 09:08 | mrpulley ♦170 | Just letting you know that I will be going through your changesets, and doing reversions to many of them (mainly the 'NSW Speed data' ones), because of the above issues. For some changesets, the source isn't clear, so I'll probably ask some questions on those changesets when I co... | |
| 5 | 2024-06-14 10:52 | mrpulley ♦170 | You may have noticed that I ended up not reverting any of your changesets at the time. I've checked some of them in-person on my recent holiday. Regarding this changeset, The Lakes Way is definitely maxspeed 80 (as mentioned above). Old Soldiers Road does not have a speed zone sign on survey at... | |
| 35164162 by aharvey @ 2015-11-08 07:52 | 1 | 2024-02-05 17:36 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,632 | Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2283042065/history has access:bicycle that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)Would using bicycle access tag (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle ) be fitting at least equally well? |
| 2 | 2024-02-06 10:19 | aharvey | Yes, I have no idea why I did it that way, fix now. Thanks for flagging. | |
| 146558606 by kylesey @ 2024-01-22 15:30 | 1 | 2024-01-22 20:42 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | Hi Kylesey, have we got permission to use this person's video? Something being on YouTube doesn't automatically give us permission, and I haven't seen this account be mentioned as one who's given us permission. --- Published using OSMCha: h... |
| 2 | 2024-01-23 11:49 | kylesey ♦2 | No I didn't ask - should I? Or do we just delete the changes? I just wanted to get more of the Aus network speeds filled in, Brisbane has nothing and Adelaide had barely anything. | |
| 3 | 2024-01-23 15:58 | slice0 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 4 | 2024-01-23 17:30 | woodpeck ♦2,425 | OpenStreetMap Data Working Group here. slice0 is wrong, fortera_au has accurately reported the general consensus in the project - we do not use third-party sources unless permission has been given. If you wish to use someone's video on YouTube to add speed limits then you have to obtain permiss... | |
| 5 | 2024-01-23 20:36 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | If you have a look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources, there’s a couple of YouTube channels we have permission to use, and you can see how another mapper has reached out to ask for permission, I’d encourage you to reach out to this channel and ask, gives us an... | |
| 6 | 2024-01-24 00:20 | slice0 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 7 | 2024-01-24 00:27 | slice0 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 8 | 2024-01-24 00:50 | woodpeck ♦2,425 | I won't "pretend to be a lawyer". OSM is not in the business of interpreting copyright law; we simply don't use content unless we (a) have personally done the survey, or (b) have permission - either directly from the owner or where the owner has put their stuff under a license th... | |
| 9 | 2024-01-24 00:58 | slice0 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 10 | 2024-01-24 04:20 | aharvey | > OSM definitely is cautious about using data sources and I have always respected thatdid you end up reverting those SA speed cameras you added from these non-compatible sources you mentioned at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-April/014539.html , honest question I could... | |
| 11 | 2024-01-24 04:38 | aharvey | fortera just pointed out that this source is on data.sa.gov.au and therefore falls under the existing DataSA waiver. | |
| 12 | 2024-01-24 04:47 | slice0 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 13 | 2024-01-24 05:00 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | The license on their website ic CC-BY 4.0, which means attribution is required. We can't provide that directly so we need a waiver (like we have for DataSA) that states attribution through the Wiki is acceptable instead of direct attribution where we use the data. | |
| 14 | 2024-01-24 05:07 | slice0 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 15 | 2024-01-24 05:09 | slice0 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 16 | 2024-01-24 05:12 | fortera_au ♦1,068 | I was just pointing out how CC-BY alone isn't enough for OSM and how we require the waiver. | |
| 144773386 by Chris Evest @ 2023-12-04 23:50 | 1 | 2023-12-05 01:02 | aharvey | Hi Chris,That's cool, I think we all agree that NPA don't approve tracks being created without approval.That said if they have been created without approval and exist in some form, then we have ways to map those as such. We have a section documenting community guidelines at https:/... |
| 2 | 2023-12-05 01:38 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | Please also see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F | |
| 3 | 2023-12-05 09:45 | Chris Evest ♦4 | Hi,This particular track was generated by mountain bikers illegally over the past two years, in some cases using chainsaws, there are at least 4 other tracks of this nature in this area which OSM has yet to document, and hopefully will not. My contacts within the NPA have also been deleting track... | |
| 4 | 2023-12-05 09:47 | Chris Evest ♦4 | I will check with NPA to determine is Abandoned may be a better way of dealing with these tracks to prevent others from simply re-entering them. | |
| 5 | 2023-12-06 04:28 | Chris Evest ♦4 | I have confirmed with Parks Victoria and they have confirmed that deletion is there preferred method for dealing with tracks that are not defined on official maps or as part of the management plan.Marking a trail as closed may also be used but mainly for established trails or paths that are not pa... | |
| 6 | 2023-12-07 07:41 | TheSwavu ♦544 | What Parks Victoria thinks is irrelevant. The guiding principle in OpenStreetMap is to map what is on the ground https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ground_truth. | |
| 7 | 2023-12-07 09:38 | Chris Evest ♦4 | The reason Parks Victoria manage National Parks in Victoria is for the safe use of the facilities by visitors, to protect the environment for both native flora and fauna for the shared enjoyment of visitors.By creating illegal tracks the flora and fauna is destroyed and safety hazards are create... | |
| 8 | 2023-12-07 09:59 | aharvey | > By publishing these trails OSM is legitimizing them and encouraging their use.That's absolutely not the case, if things are entered into OSM correctly, then we publish data that says someone illegally created a trail here and it's use is not authorised. We are aiming to accurately... | |
| 9 | 2023-12-07 21:09 | Chris Evest ♦4 | I agree with you regarding their re-appearance. However, once a path as been deleted and commented as illegal, any re-activation could be regarded as tacit approval of the trail and acceptance of liability.However, I would rather fix the issue than get caught up with legal rubbish.It seems to m... | |
| 10 | 2023-12-07 22:39 | GeeMaps! ♦30 | But Chris, re " However, once a path as been deleted and commented as illegal, any re-activation could be regarded as tacit approval of the trail and acceptance of liability." If the track has been completely deleted, then there is nothign showing in OSM to say "Don't map here&qu... | |
| 11 | 2023-12-07 22:49 | Chris Evest ♦4 | The problem is we are chasing these trails down a rabbit hole. There are lots of applications that use OSM maps so it is more logical to fix the issue at the source. Hence my suggestions that we find some way of maintaining these trails on the database but hiding them from not only 3rd party app... | |
| 12 | 2023-12-08 00:50 | arctic-rocinante ♦35 | Hi Chris, my understanding is that such mechanisms already exist. For example, tagging a trail with “access=no” will cause AllTrails to display it in red with a “NO ACCESS” warning. There are also lifecycle prefixes such as “abandoned”, which I believe will stop m... | |
| 13 | 2023-12-08 01:09 | Chris Evest ♦4 | I was unaware of the "Abondoned" classification and that it "should" prevent trails from propagating to 3rd party apps.However, then trails were recently generated as "No Access" they still showed up on 3rd party apps and not all apps showed them as "No Access&... | |
| 14 | 2023-12-08 01:54 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | At least part of the problem with regard to recent changes is that while things update almost immediately in OSM itself, it's then dependent on when down-stream users e.g. AllTrails update their database, & then when individual users update the maps on their phone / GPS etc. So we could mak... | |
| 15 | 2023-12-08 23:04 | Chris Evest ♦4 | Not just Billy the BMXer now.Almost knocked down by Eric the Electric Motorbike the other day. At least you could hear the old 2 strokes coming, these things fly by at 40km/hr and you do not hear them coming.Sometimes I hate progress.... | |
| 144075493 by Chrissooo @ 2023-11-16 02:41 | 1 | 2023-12-05 01:49 | aharvey | Thanks for using the abandoned tagging prefix along with access=no. I can see there has been a lot of edit warring going on here, with trails being added, deleted, re-added, re-deleted. By having the way exist in OSM and tagged in this way hopefully we can prevent the edit warring, and clearly docum... |
| 144739075 by Lokxbxhhshajxj @ 2023-12-04 03:49 | 1 | 2023-12-05 01:07 | aharvey | hi the name should be the proper name only https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only and I wouldn't usually expect "Walking Track" to be used as a name if it's just describing it as a walking track. In this case foot=designated can be used to mark a track as... |
| 2 | 2024-02-05 10:58 | RSota ♦7 | Hi, many of the new tracks added in RJ Hamer Arboretum don't actually exist on the ground and are not visible. Examples are those from Rock Track to Dam Track, and Rock Track to Mathias Road. These may have existed previously but have long been abandoned and are now overgrown/blocked. I'd ... | |
| 3 | 2024-02-10 06:09 | RSota ♦7 | Today I visited some of these tracks in RJ Hamer Arboretum to search for them and can confirm they no longer exist. I'll update these ones as either abandoned or closed. | |
| 4 | 2024-02-15 20:55 | Lokxbxhhshajxj ♦1 | https://images.app.goo.gl/JbwrQqVdqUEHBBwU9 | |
| 5 | 2024-02-16 09:50 | RSota ♦7 | Hi, thanks for the link. Looks like that map is based on the official Parks Vic notes/map, which I managed to find after leaving my last comment. Problem is that park note was last updated in 2002 and doesn't reflect many of the changes that have happened in the last 22 yrs. Thankfully in this ... | |
| 136441523 by int03 @ 2023-05-23 07:05 | 1 | 2023-10-04 08:38 | aharvey | The ref=* tag https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref is usually a better number for reference numbers/codes than the name=* tag.The ref:sap_equip_id tag would probably be better as something like ref:npws to indicate it's NPWS own internal reference (there's an argument for not in... |
| 2 | 2023-11-21 02:01 | int03 ♦3 | Hi,I originally imported almost all the names with these changesets, but I've changed my mind since then. I'm feeling like the numbers are only useful for things like campsites, BBQ facilities and picnic sites that are likely to be referred to or reserved by number, and then in those ... | |
| 3 | 2023-11-21 04:34 | aharvey | Did you follow the import guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines by discussing with the community first and documenting your import plan? That should happen before doing an import, so these kinds of issues can be discussed before hand where it's easier to change.I ... | |
| 4 | 2023-11-21 04:36 | aharvey | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_onlyhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref | |
| 140202916 by Chrissooo @ 2023-08-21 22:40 | 1 | 2023-08-26 10:39 | paul1928 ♦12 | Hi Chris/Parks Victoria,I assume the trail has been forcibly closed/destroyed prior to removal from the map? |
| 2 | 2023-09-15 03:57 | aharvey | Hi Chris,Please also see the current community guidance on closed/unsanctioned trails at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths it's usually better to make it as disused and no access then delete it, especially where the... | |
| 3 | 2023-09-15 04:10 | Chrissooo ♦2 | Thanks for the feedback. This trail has been closed by Parks Victoria with barriers and physical removal to allow rehabilitation. The barriers and closures are continually removed, circumvented or reestablished by the public and so the trail has been deleted off OSM to prevent new users discoverin... | |
| 4 | 2023-09-18 03:10 | aharvey | In this case it's still better to leave the way in OSM and tag it as disused:highway=* and access=no. This would still remove the track from most user facing maps, while leaving it in the database to show there is a closed track present in the area. | |
| 5 | 2023-10-21 17:00 | edvac ♦221 | Dear Chrissooo,It's more than a month ago that you received the comments of these two users about the non-ideal deletion of tracks inside the Dandenong Ranges National Park, paths that are forbidden and out of limits to visitors.While we all understand clearly the reasons behind these d... | |
| 6 | 2023-10-24 05:01 | Chrissooo ♦2 | It's not really negotiable. These are illegal trails damaging the park, they are closed with barriers and disassembled. They should not be continually reinstated by OSM users because they enjoy walking or Mountain Biking on illegal trails. | |
| 7 | 2023-10-24 05:20 | paul1928 ♦12 | Your rules in the Park may not be negotiable, but the rules here on Openstreetmap are not the same as those in the Park. Many of the tracks you've deleted have not been barriered or disassembled as you claim and clearly still exist on the ground. This is why people keep re-adding them to the ma... | |
| 8 | 2023-10-24 05:29 | aharvey | Hi Chris,I'm not doubting or disagreeing with you that these are illegally constructed and closed to the public. I would just like to see OpenStreetMap data accurately reflect the ground truth and I advocate mapping these in OSM as closed or disassembled tracks in a way that allows downstre... | |
| 142787927 by Mlik Point @ 2023-10-19 00:22 | 1 | 2023-10-19 10:58 | aharvey | I don't understand, why can't they be split as @Ds5rUy did? Are you saying the Bing imagery here is wrong or you just don't agree with the mapping done by @Ds5rUy based on the imagery? |
| 2 | 2023-10-19 20:57 | Mlik Point ♦6 | That's why because of unconstructive edits, but I have reverted it to prevent abuse of splitting into two ways and change:lanes tag. | |
| 3 | 2023-10-20 01:54 | Ds5rUy ♦28 | I'm sorry, I haven't got the slightest clue what you are actually trying to say here. Would you please lay out in detail your reasoning and thoughts on this? | |
| 4 | 2023-10-20 04:46 | Mlik Point ♦6 | The reason is: It can't split into two ways, change:lanes tag also can't be added and turn:lanes seem to be incorrect. That's why it's unconstructive. | |
| 5 | 2023-10-20 04:56 | aharvey | Can you please explain why they can't be split and why you can't tag change:lanes? They must be split for different change:lanes to be applied. Could you also respond about if you disagree that on the ground matches Bing or it's your interpretation of how dt should be mapped based on ... | |
| 6 | 2023-10-20 05:02 | Ds5rUy ♦28 | Would you please substantiate your statements with any evidence that makes you believe that completely correct tagging following currently accepted best practices is incorrect? Or why you believe that a way can't be split into segments when different tags apply to them? Or why you categorically... | |
| 7 | 2023-10-20 05:11 | Mlik Point ♦6 | That said: "We can't split into two ways, the change:lanes tag also can't be added and turn:lanes are incorrect". That needs to be stayed here and its unconstructive edit (vandalism). | |
| 8 | 2023-10-20 06:08 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/15186 | |
| 9 | 2023-10-20 06:46 | Mlik Point ♦6 | This is invalid. First, the ways can't split into two. Second, the "change:lanes" can't be added and must not applied. Third and final, the "turn:lanes" is incorrectly advised. That's why I reverted the edit because of unconstructive edit (vandalism), and it must n... | |
| 10 | 2023-10-20 10:59 | aharvey | Sorry but just claiming this or that can't be done doesn't help with justification or other mappers understanding your motives. At this point there is a clear community consensus against your viewpoint, so the original state is being restored, please respect this. | |
| 11 | 2023-10-21 00:09 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | Again, what is your reasoning for "First, the ways can't split into two. Second, the "change:lanes" can't be added and must not applied. Third and final, the "turn:lanes" is incorrectly advised"?, as these are all perfectly valid options for mapping. & wit... | |
| 12 | 2023-10-21 00:10 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | Sorry, hit send without signing my comment: Graeme Fitzpatrick, OSMF Data Working Group | |
| 13 | 2023-10-21 00:43 | Mlik Point ♦6 | That's because of recent abusing of splitting into two ways, "change:lanes" must not applied and "turn:lanes" is incorrect: "through|slight_left;through|through|through". It's unconstructive edit (possible vandalism). | |
| 14 | 2023-10-21 01:00 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | Again, they are all valid. Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn & https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:change | |
| 15 | 2023-10-23 04:40 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | DWG reverthttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142997670 | |
| 141544174 by Mlik Point @ 2023-09-21 07:23 | 1 | 2023-10-19 11:36 | aharvey | Hi could you please explain what you mean by "can't be split"?. Ways need to be split to apply two different tag values, so it's common to have roads split when there are any physical changes in the road which are tagged. |
| 2 | 2023-10-23 04:40 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | DWG reverthttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142997670 | |
| 141503878 by Mlik Point @ 2023-09-20 09:29 | 1 | 2023-10-19 11:36 | aharvey | Hi could you please explain what you mean by "can't be split"?. Ways need to be split to apply two different tag values, so it's common to have roads split when there are any physical changes in the road which are tagged. |
| 2 | 2023-10-23 04:40 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | DWG reverthttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142997670 | |
| 142702991 by Ds5rUy @ 2023-10-17 09:18 | 1 | 2023-10-19 10:56 | aharvey | This changeset was reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142748502 |
| 142748502 by Mlik Point @ 2023-10-18 07:55 | 1 | 2023-10-18 11:22 | aharvey | Hi, could you please try to document your justification and reasoning behind a revert changeset in your changeset comments, it would really help the rest of the mapping community to understand your changesets.In the first instance it's usually best to raise a changeset comment before jumpin... |
| 2 | 2023-10-18 22:32 | Mlik Point ♦6 | It can't split into two ways, so I have reverted my edit. | |
| 3 | 2023-10-18 23:28 | aharvey | Not sure what you mean. This changeset reverted https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142702991 which wasn't yours. I'll go ahead and revert this one as I can't see any justification. | |
| 4 | 2023-10-18 23:33 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142786734 the original changes by Ds5rUy appear perfectly valid. | |
| 142382805 by Lockstar @ 2023-10-10 08:59 | 1 | 2023-10-11 10:21 | aharvey | Have you seen https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Traffic_signals_set_2 ? You might be interested. Ideally the signal nodes and the relation would have use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref set to the 4 digit code. |
| 122786070 by valleyboy99 @ 2022-06-24 06:38 | 1 | 2023-10-10 10:50 | aharvey | The name key is for the name only, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:description is a better option for descriptions to show to end map users. I've made the updates accordingly.For slightly overgrown you might want to consider applying a trail_visibility value. |
| 127845183 by valleyboy99 @ 2022-10-20 15:33 | 1 | 2023-10-10 10:45 | aharvey | I've changed this to description per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_rendererI'm keen to understand in more detail the rational behind this, and any references you can point to. I think from there it's worth raising a discussion about more suitable tags you cou... |
| 116519029 by Guy Hodgson @ 2022-01-24 00:13 | 1 | 2022-01-25 04:22 | aharvey | Hi could you please confirm the situation with these tracks, did they ever exist on the ground, or are they just closed but still visible? Or are they mostly overgrown and restored? |
| 2 | 2022-01-25 04:44 | Guy Hodgson ♦2 | Hi AHarvey,I believe they represented the GPS tracklog of someone traversing the landscape whilst not using any formed/maintained walking tracks to do so. As such I was tasked with removing them, as the Parks Service does not want these promoted. | |
| 3 | 2022-01-25 04:52 | Guy Hodgson ♦2 | Hi again AHarvey,I've now read the comments and links and realize that a different approach may be required. Can you please restore the GPS track logs that I attempted to delete. | |
| 4 | 2022-01-25 05:42 | aharvey | If it is off-track bushbashing with no visible path on the ground then they can be deleted, but if there is a visible path on the ground but just not an official walking track or maintained track then we can still tag that as informal=yes. If access is legally forbidden then we can mark it as access... | |
| 5 | 2022-01-26 09:24 | mrpulley ♦170 | Regarding the two deleted ways - I had been thinking about deleting them when I was there three years ago (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/63140199) but left them alone. I didn't see those tracks at the time, but left them in case I had missed them. | |
| 6 | 2022-04-18 12:03 | mrpulley ♦170 | I reviewed these ways a month ago - have just uploaded the change now (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119854924) - path near cliff is there, so I've marked it as informal=yes. I found traces of the one further from the cliff, but with the recent heavy rains the grass was very long, so ... | |
| 7 | 2023-09-18 23:47 | Firefishy ♦288 | Update. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service informally asked if these informal bushbashing tracks could be removed. I removed them in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141445146 | |
| 8 | 2023-09-19 06:06 | mrpulley ♦170 | Were those tracks officially closed, or are they still informal? I had thought the consensus was to leave the path on OSM, marked as informal=yes. If it has been recently closed, might be better to leave it in, marked as abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* (otherwise someone might come along la... | |
| 9 | 2023-09-19 10:46 | aharvey | Agree with @mrpulley here. If just not officially marked, then informal=yes, and if closed then use the lifecycle prefix if there's still some evidence on the ground.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths | |
| 10 | 2023-09-20 01:19 | Stephen Stenberg ♦1 | @mrpulley. From NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. These tracks per our request have been removed. Please do not add them back on. | |
| 11 | 2023-09-20 09:36 | mrpulley ♦170 | It's probably better to have something present on OSM, rather than deleting it. Otherwise, someone else could come along later and add it back in, not knowing there's been an issue. If the path has been formally closed, then access=no is an alternate tag to use. (This was used in a similar... | |
| 12 | 2023-09-20 09:38 | mrpulley ♦170 | Also, has there been a formal request directly to OSM 'behind the scenes' from NPWS regarding these paths, that I am not aware of? | |
| 13 | 2023-09-20 23:45 | Stephen Stenberg ♦1 | @mrpulley. The NPWS staff managing Aspley Falls asked for this track to be removed from OSM. My role within NPWS is Maps and Data and my team asked for these tracks to be removed. | |
| 14 | 2023-09-21 10:55 | mrpulley ♦170 | I've just sent an email to the talk-au mailing list to get a consensus on this. Way 29415025 was overgrown at my 2022 survey, so it's quite likely gone by now. The other three ways (29415022, 630040313, 1052666246) were present on the ground in 2022. | |
| 15 | 2023-09-21 12:05 | aharvey | Based on your survey mrpulley, at least in the latter 3 cases it sounds like there would be something on the ground, so in my view we should restore these under the lifecycle prefix with access=no to indicate the closure.To avoid an edit war, @Firefishy can you comment on if that would be proble... | |
| 16 | 2023-09-21 13:12 | Firefishy ♦288 | It is a tough one. The local staff really don't want the tracks displayed, they are fading on the ground and/or becoming overgrown. The one on the western side look just about noticeable on aerial imagery. The eastern tracks do not seem to be visible/defined on the ground. Having them tagged an... | |
| 17 | 2023-09-21 13:33 | aharvey | Not wanting something to show on the map is not a sufficient reason to not include it. I wouldn't rely on aerial imagery, many tracks which do exist won't show up as the imagery is not clear or there is simply too much vegetation cover. The lifecycle prefix is in my view the ideal solution... | |
| 18 | 2023-09-23 13:42 | aharvey | Some good discussion ongoing about this on talk-au https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2023-September/thread.html I'd encourage NPWS staff to chime in to the thread. | |
| 19 | 2024-02-13 12:16 | mrpulley ♦170 | Partial reversion done, as per discussion on talk-au mailing list. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147406352 | |
| 141398749 by Friendly_Ghost @ 2023-09-17 21:16 | 1 | 2023-09-18 02:17 | aharvey | I noticed you've removed the cliff at https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/179935736 but this cliff still exists, could you restore it? |
| 2 | 2023-09-18 09:04 | Friendly_Ghost ♦635 | Hi. Yes, I will restore it. Thank you for noticing.This mistake is the result of a bug in JOSM's relation toolbox plugin. I thought it only affected coastlines, but apparently it affects any natural=* way that is part of a multipolygon. I already have a safeguard for this that I apply t... | |
| 3 | 2023-09-18 11:55 | Friendly_Ghost ♦635 | I restored the cliffs: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141421482Please let me know if anything else has gone wrong. | |
| 4 | 2023-09-19 05:47 | aharvey | Thanks. | |
| 110373681 by aharvey @ 2021-08-28 10:00 | 1 | 2023-09-16 05:11 | Warin61 ♦2,664 | Hi,The DCS base map divides 'Mowbray Road' into 'Mowbray Road West' and 'Mowbray Road', the addresses along the road agree with the west naming. Ok to sufix the name with West as appropriate? |
| 2 | 2023-09-18 02:53 | aharvey | It probably is officially West, but all the street signage I can see doesn't mention West, so if following on the ground signage we would omit it. So I'm not sure... | |
| 3 | 2023-09-18 08:23 | Warin61 ♦2,664 | The building numbers support it all being one road - no duplications that I can see on a casual look. Humm ... I think alt_name may have to do. If the road signage gets changed ??? I used to drive along here some moons ago to get to and from work, only knew it as Mowbray Rd. . | |
| 139294137 by Claudius Henrichs @ 2023-08-01 10:56 | 1 | 2023-08-02 01:38 | aharvey | proposed is before construction, given the tracks are already constructed and the stations are under construction, I think we need something further along than just planned. So I support the change by kurisubrooks to turn the route back to construction. |
| 2 | 2023-08-02 07:21 | Claudius Henrichs ♦214 | Fine by me as long as it's not tagged like an active route as it was before my change.Although I would argue that a route rarely gets constructed, only it's infrastructure does ;) | |
| 137154805 by TanaponL @ 2023-06-09 21:47 | 1 | 2023-07-21 04:13 | aharvey | hi, could you document your process in doing this in more detail? On the surface it looks like an automated edit https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits which would be covered by the Automated edits code of conduct https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct which... |
| 2 | 2023-07-31 08:55 | TanaponL ♦1 | Hi aharvey, thank you for your interest. Our workflow should be semi-automated since we use computer vision models to detect street furniture and then manually verify every image and object by our team. We tried uploading our dataset from Sydney CBD via JOSM last month. This dataset is a product of ... | |
| 137089385 by TheSwavu @ 2023-06-08 09:52 | 1 | 2023-06-08 11:38 | aharvey | addr:unit is for specific addresses not ranges.addr:flats is for marking the ranges. |
| 51024844 by aharvey @ 2017-08-11 08:19 | 1 | 2023-03-12 02:04 | just_another_mapper ♦15 | Cheers for tagging the toilets, I was out on a ride yesterday and was busting to go, searched for toilets in OSM and these were nearby. Nice toilets too |
| 2 | 2023-03-24 13:41 | aharvey | glad to hear | |
| 132700483 by ITBeyond-Michelle @ 2023-02-18 01:42 | 1 | 2023-03-24 04:47 | aharvey | Same question as for https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/132700494, these are wide tracks accessible by vehicles therefore should be track. Furthermore bicycle=designated implies some signage or markings designating them for use by bicycles, could you point out where such signage was found? |
| 2 | 2023-03-24 04:50 | aharvey | For reference here is the trail head which only indicates foot and horse riding as designated https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1207284873025559 | |
| 3 | 2023-03-24 04:54 | aharvey | for these reasons this changeset has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/134048252 | |
| 4 | 2023-03-24 05:05 | ITBeyond-Michelle ♦5 | def horse, walkers and bikes only. No vehicles. Personal first hand use of this track and photos of sign. | |
| 5 | 2023-03-24 13:28 | aharvey | https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1207284873025559 has a vehicle gate, and the track certainly looks designed for maintenance or emergency service vehicles. The access tagging already specifies horse, walkers, bikes may use and authorised vehicles only. | |
| 132567680 by ITBeyond-Michelle @ 2023-02-15 07:20 | 1 | 2023-03-24 05:10 | aharvey | access=private means it's not legal even on foot, which is very rare in National Parks, did you mean motor_vehicle=private which implies authorised vehicles only but walkers may still access it? |
| 2 | 2023-03-24 05:13 | ITBeyond-Michelle ♦5 | don't believe I modified the access tag on this one | |
| 3 | 2023-03-24 13:25 | aharvey | See https://osmcha.org/changesets/132567680/ or for example this way https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/266742611You added access=private, which per my comment would exclude walkers. I'm not familiar with this area but I'd be surprised if that was the case, likely it is ju... | |
| 134048467 by aharvey @ 2023-03-24 05:06 | 1 | 2023-03-24 05:14 | ITBeyond-Michelle ♦5 | def cannot get vehicles into this track |
| 2 | 2023-03-24 13:23 | aharvey | hmm https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=315960919940097&focus=photo shows a gate designed for vehicles, the track itself is wide enough for it, and certainly looks like it was designed for it. | |
| 132700618 by ITBeyond-Michelle @ 2023-02-18 01:54 | 1 | 2023-03-24 05:07 | aharvey | This has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/134048467 as this is a track. |
| 132700596 by ITBeyond-Michelle @ 2023-02-18 01:52 | 1 | 2023-03-24 05:04 | aharvey | Thanks looks like the horse access is correct (I can't see any specific signage at the intersection, would need to check the main sign at the Perimiter Trail head) but https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=334410434732805 shows this is a track so I'll change it back to track leaving horse=ye... |
| 132700590 by ITBeyond-Michelle @ 2023-02-18 01:52 | 1 | 2023-03-24 05:01 | aharvey | this changeset has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/134048348 as this is a track. Feel free to improve further with tracktype and smoothness tagging. |
| 132700494 by ITBeyond-Michelle @ 2023-02-18 01:43 | 1 | 2023-03-24 04:45 | aharvey | hi what's your justification for changing these from track to path? From memory and from imagery they are still wide access tracks accessible by 4wd for emergency services and maintenance. |
| 2 | 2023-03-24 04:56 | aharvey | For the same reasons as in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/132700483 this changeset has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/134048283 | |
| 130980066 by morb_au @ 2023-01-07 12:55 | 1 | 2023-01-10 02:02 | aharvey | Hi Morb,As you can see at https://github.com/microsoft/Open-Maps/issues/49 the license and waiver to use this data has issues that need to be resolved. As such we must refrain from using QLDs DCDB data in OSM. |
| 129952488 by AntBurnett @ 2022-12-11 05:09 | 1 | 2022-12-13 01:50 | Diacritic ♦271 | Hi Ant!Unfortunately, the license for MetroMap is incompatible with OpenStreetMap's license, and it cannot be used when contributing to OSM.Since I informed you of this two months ago, You have continues to contribute a data using this incompatible source. This data may need to be redac... |
| 2 | 2022-12-13 03:32 | AntBurnett ♦16 | Hi Dian, thank you for this message. I did not see your prior message - apologies. Changeset 129952488 has been completely reverted. I have ongoing discussions with Metromap about how my organisation's license allows the use of their data for my various OSM-specific projects. I will seek their... | |
| 3 | 2022-12-13 07:55 | Diacritic ♦271 | Thanks Ant,Best of luck to you for resolving this issue. There are a lot of editors who would love to utilise Metromap as well. | |
| 4 | 2022-12-13 09:57 | AntBurnett ♦16 | Hi again Diacritic,I can confirm, after consulting with Metromap today, that my organisation has specific written permission to use Metromap imagery for NSW-based projects.I agree, it is wonderful imagery and is resulting in greatly improved geometries and outcomes for users in NSW.We ar... | |
| 5 | 2022-12-13 21:57 | melb_guy ♦4 | Sounds like progress. Is there any chance this can be expanded more broadly. I sent off an enquiry to MetroMap a few weeks ago with no response. Mapping in Victoria for example is being held back due to the lack of up to date imagery. | |
| 6 | 2022-12-13 22:42 | aharvey | Hi Ant, can you share any more detail? We would like to be sure that you do have the rights to publish Metromap derived data without restriction. A permission to use Metromap imagery for your own organisational projects, is not the same as rights to publish derived data without restriction. | |
| 7 | 2022-12-14 07:22 | tastrax ♦1,145 | Hi Ant, ask them specifically if you can use the imagery to digitise features into OpenStreetMap. I would love to see the response. | |
| 8 | 2022-12-14 09:22 | AntBurnett ♦16 | This discussion is getting quite a level of interest. It is clear that mappers appreciate the quality of the Metromap imagery and its usefulness to OSM communities around Australia. With respect to my use: I made it very clear how my organisation was intending to use their imagery with regards t... | |
| 9 | 2022-12-14 10:22 | tastrax ♦1,145 | Thanks Ant - I suspect folks are just concerned that the community cant verify what sort of permissions have been granted, for what sort of feature edits/digitising. Without seeing the actual permissions/licencing, we cant tell if your edits fit within the permissions granted to OpenStreetMap (not y... | |
| 10 | 2023-05-28 03:17 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | Hello Ant. We've just received another query re your use of Metromap info, so am following up to see what progress you made with the required documentation. If it's not confidential between you & them, we would also like a copy of it, to put everyone's minds at rest! Thanks, Graem... | |
| 11 | 2023-05-30 01:56 | AntBurnett ♦16 | Thank you, Graeme. We are now arranging for documentation on Metromap letterhead to confirm what has already been confirmed several times in email between my organisation and Metromap. | |
| 12 | 2023-09-05 23:20 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | Hello AB. Following up again on this documentation, thanks. | |
| 128972087 by ReinerMeyer @ 2022-11-16 06:36 | 1 | 2022-11-16 11:49 | kurisubrooks ♦54 | Hi there, it appears you're mass editing the removal of explicit oneway=no in the Sydney area. Can I please request an explanation? |
| 2 | 2022-11-16 21:21 | ReinerMeyer ♦43 | The oneway=no tag is a default value, therefore not necessary to use (see Wiki). | |
| 3 | 2022-11-17 03:41 | Ds5rUy ♦28 | Just because it's "not necessary" is not reason to remove it.The tag serves as documentation that someone actually reviewed the situation and made sure the road is not oneway. Something that is very common in inner cities like here.I'm not sure why there is an urgent need... | |
| 4 | 2022-11-17 11:20 | aharvey | Spot on Ds5rUy. While it's reasonable for data consumers to assume no as a default value, sometimes mappers will map it to be explicit if they have checked. Sometimes it might be easily mistaken as oneway=yes by armchair mappers so we'd add oneway=no to avoid it being tagged without a surv... | |
| 5 | 2022-11-17 12:09 | aharvey | reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129039096 I've retained some of the later conflicted changes around Market Street being split into two oneways. | |
| 128979610 by ReinerMeyer @ 2022-11-16 09:29 | 1 | 2022-11-16 11:35 | kurisubrooks ♦54 | Hi there, can I please ask why you've been going over my edits and removing footway=sidewalk from sidewalks, and deleting crossings and replacing them with highway=footway in the CBD area? Thanks. |
| 2 | 2022-11-16 12:35 | kurisubrooks ♦54 | You also removed shared path tagging from a designated shared path + cycleway. What are you doing man?? | |
| 3 | 2022-11-16 21:33 | ReinerMeyer ♦43 | Sorry we are doing edits in OSM at almost the same time right now and have been interfering.The sidewalk tag is used in conjunction with a road:highway residentialsidewalk=left/right/bothIf a footpath is explicitly entered, the sidewalk tag is not necessary (see wiki).highway=crossing ... | |
| 4 | 2022-11-16 21:53 | ReinerMeyer ♦43 | There are several ways to tag shared paths.This is especially common in conjunction with pedestrians and cyclists.There are traffic signs that indicate this as well. Then it makes sense to choose this combination:highway=pathfoot=designatedbicycle=designated.If the use of the common ... | |
| 5 | 2022-11-16 23:51 | aharvey | Hi Reiner,Reviewing your changeset, you've removed footway=sidewalk from the separately mapped highway=footway. It was correct beforehand so this will need to be restored.Separately mapped footpaths (highway=footway + footway=sidewalk) can coexist with the sidewalk tag on the road way, ... | |
| 6 | 2022-11-16 23:54 | aharvey | Honestly I can't see anything in this changeset we should keep and would suggest we revert it. | |
| 7 | 2022-11-17 05:32 | kurisubrooks ♦54 | Thanks for your help, @aharvey. As he mentioned, my tagging was in line with the Australian tagging guidelines, and also request that the two changesets be reverted. If you just want to flat revert them, I'd be glad to go over them both and add anything you added in order to minimise the task f... | |
| 8 | 2022-11-17 06:34 | ReinerMeyer ♦43 | Hi aharvey,thanks for the link about sidewalk.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sidewalk#Separately_mapped_sidewalksI have compared the English page and the German page.Not everything is translated 1:1 into German, but the core statement I refer to is identical in both language versi... | |
| 9 | 2022-11-17 06:52 | kurisubrooks ♦54 | Hi again, thanks for your willingness to understand from our perspective. Regarding a few things you've said, I'll break them up a bit so it's easier for me to respond to, and maybe for you to understand or to translate should you need (depending on your English proficiency).For s... | |
| 10 | 2022-11-17 08:16 | ReinerMeyer ♦43 | Hi Chris,Thanks for the detailed reply.Over my 13 years as an OSM mapper, a lot has changed in tagging, especially regarding micro tagging. There is so much that it is hard to realise what is a new feature, what is redundant because defined as default, what has even been tagged incorrectly. Espe... | |
| 11 | 2022-11-17 08:43 | kurisubrooks ♦54 | Hi Reiner,Glad my response was of benefit to you.A few things I would like to reiterate though - OpenStreetMap is a database, not a renderer. We do not map things/add data for things to be rendered for any specific renderer. Our jobs are to add as much detail as we can, wherever possible. Whet... | |
| 12 | 2022-11-17 11:25 | aharvey | > highway=footway and sidewalk=yes does not make sense.Agreed, but your changes remove sidewalk from road ways, not highway=footway. | |
| 13 | 2022-11-17 11:27 | aharvey | Sorry just on my previous post, I see you've done both, so while sidewalk=yes on the highway=footway doesn't make too much sense, you've also removed it from some other road highways. | |
| 14 | 2022-11-17 11:41 | aharvey | Actually I couldn't find any sidewalk=yes on highway=footway in your edits here. So based on the issues raised, I've reverted this changeset in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129037612I will note that it looks like many of these changes to were to address JOSM Validator issues... | |
| 128705556 by Picton2571 @ 2022-11-09 21:58 | 1 | 2022-11-10 02:46 | aharvey | Hi and welcome to OSM.Further to my comments on your note. The access=no tag shoudn't be set since generally the public can access this bridge. From what I could see on albit outdated imagery there is no special pedestrian or bicycle signage, therefore bicycle/foot shouldn't be designa... |
| 2 | 2022-11-10 02:49 | aharvey | You can see the changes at http://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/30738624 | |
| 126038894 by Mlik Point @ 2022-09-11 07:55 | 1 | 2022-09-11 09:33 | Diacritic ♦271 | Hi Mlik Data.In this edit, you've referred to TomTom data as a source.TomTom data is not compatible with OSM's data license and cannot be used. You must not copy data from incompatible data sources when contributing to OSM.Further, as discussed, these are descriptive names. The... |
| 2 | 2022-09-11 09:46 | ortho_is_hot ♦252 | Agree with Diacritic here, source is incompatible and descriptive names that are not reflected in the real world do not belong in OSM. If you keeping adding this stuff back then getting the Data Working Group involved will be necessary. | |
| 3 | 2022-09-11 22:33 | aharvey | Hi Milk Point,TomTom is not a compatible data source so we'll need to revert these changes.Further there is a community consensus around many of these name=* values not actually being names but rather descriptions (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:description) or destinations (ht... | |
| 4 | 2022-09-12 00:17 | Mlik Point ♦6 | According to the 7ways navigation app, there are non-descriptive names there at Melbourne Airport that was updated as of 1st of September 2022 by provider "megamaps.org".We need to put back those changesets on [https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/126009952] and make them so much be... | |
| 5 | 2022-09-12 05:55 | Diacritic ♦271 | Hi Mlik Point;The 7ways navigation app uses information sourced from OpenStreetMap; it is likely that the roads you are referring to are being sourced from the contributions you introduced yourself.Again, I'm confused as to why you believe a road name like "Value Car Park", wh... | |
| 125386716 by melb_guy @ 2022-08-26 05:07 | 1 | 2022-08-29 04:33 | Diacritic ♦271 | Hey Melb_Guy.Do we have permission to be using metromap data? I don't see it on the resources page on the wiki |
| 2 | 2022-08-29 05:10 | melb_guy ♦4 | The Terms of Use (https://metromap.com.au/documents/Aerometrex_Data_Licence_Agreement.pdf) states "You may incorporate data extracted from the Products in documents(e.g. project deliverables, reports, maps, brochures and otherprinted or Digital material) for any purpose as long as thesedo... | |
| 3 | 2022-08-29 06:21 | aharvey | "...so long as these documents are not offered for resale..."OSM's license allows for OSM data to be offered for resale, therefore the Metromap Terms of Use are not sufficient to use their imagery to derive data for inclusion in OSM. | |
| 118216860 by FuzzyJulz @ 2022-03-08 00:11 | 1 | 2022-07-24 08:07 | aharvey | highway=track is for "Roads for mostly agricultural or forestry uses." (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway) ie. for roads which you can drive a motor vehicle on. This is a single path track constructed for mountain bike use so highway=cycleway is best in my opinion, but I unde... |
| 2 | 2022-08-04 06:55 | FuzzyJulz ♦2 | It doesn't make a huge difference, but track is aimed at a small off road link, that is most likely for 2 wheel vehicles. The track designation doesn't imply quality or the vehicles that use it. Please review https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3DtrackAgreed however that mtb ... | |
| 3 | 2022-08-04 07:47 | aharvey | highway=track is for roads, these aren't roads, they are mountain bike tracks. But yeah highway=track doesn't imply quality of which vehicles that can use it. These already had mtb:scale:imba, but that alone can't be used to tell if it's a mountain bike track or not. | |
| 124090577 by Lp999 @ 2022-07-26 11:05 Active block | 1 | 2022-07-27 06:42 | aharvey | what's your source for the building type changes? |
| 122245893 by HighRouleur @ 2022-06-11 11:37 | 1 | 2022-06-16 22:01 | Diacritic ♦271 | Hey HighRouleur.Thanks for these edits to motorway_links across Melbourne.I think Batman Avenue is a bit different from the some of your other changes, and best left as a trunk road. It's not really a "link" road in the traditional sense, and it is used as a service entrance t... |
| 2 | 2022-06-17 23:01 | HighRouleur ♦65 | Hi Diacritic,Thanks for your comments. I tend to agree with your point about the sign, however this seems to be a slightly different arrangement to a typical on/off ramp arrangement. I’m looking at this from a cyclist perspective and the permissions associated motorway links (bicycles: n... | |
| 3 | 2022-06-20 22:48 | Diacritic ♦271 | It definitely is an unusual case!I see where you are coming from regarding bike access. There is a "Begin Tollway" sign south of Olympic Park Oval (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=543018103351921&focus=photo) which seems to imply that bikes can travel on Batman Avenue up until ... | |
| 4 | 2022-06-20 23:43 | HighRouleur ♦65 | I see where you are coming from. The presence of the crash barrier in the image would prevent a cyclist to get off Batman Avenue. The side walk that is on the south of Olympic and AAMI park has a “no bike” sign that where it meets Gosch’s park heading in the western direction hen... | |
| 5 | 2022-06-21 02:22 | aharvey | The bicycle access and highway classification are two independent settings. https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=543018103351921&focus=photo makes it abundantly clear that bicycles are only forbidden from that point onwards, so bicycle=yes can still remain up until that point. The issue that bicy... | |
| 6 | 2022-06-27 12:13 | Diacritic ♦271 | Adjusted back to trunk in 122907741 following Andrew's comments above. | |
| 59756186 by berms @ 2018-06-11 22:37 | 1 | 2022-06-12 11:25 | aharvey | Hi I realise this is an old change but what source/justification did you have for creating a bridge at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/596670708 ? Footways crossing waterways could be a bridge, or the waterway could be a culvert, or it could be a ford (creek crossing). Without a survey or very goo... |
| 120119176 by markw11 @ 2022-04-24 10:43 | 1 | 2022-05-09 00:00 | aharvey | I also restored the deleted inner way from https://osmcha.org/changesets/120119176 which represented that this ridge area is excluded from the tree cover area from the Bing imagery that looks roughly okay. Unless you know that this area is covered with trees and you really did intend to delete it? |
| 2 | 2022-05-09 05:35 | Warin61 ♦2,664 | I think you may have been trying to name a lake? | |
| 120119031 by markw11 @ 2022-04-24 10:37 | 1 | 2022-05-08 23:51 | aharvey | Hi welcome to OSM. In your edit here it looks like you've accidentally tagged the trees landuse multipolygon as a lake instead of the around the lake area that you improved the geometry for, you can see your changes at https://osmcha.org/changesets/120119031?filters=%7B%22users%22%3A%5B%7B%22la... |
| 120236037 by mapsamillion78 @ 2022-04-27 02:20 | 1 | 2022-04-30 07:28 | aharvey | I added the turn:lanes tagging and tweaked a bit per Maxar imagery which appears to show more recent changes to lanes https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120374112 |
| 117942944 by 19timber96 @ 2022-02-28 12:26 | 1 | 2022-04-30 03:43 | aharvey | It looks like you've added a driveway for the full admin boundary here at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3157838#map=19/-38.01944/145.39789 did you mean to just map the driveway next to it? |
| 102743450 by UggiePM @ 2021-04-11 15:06 | 1 | 2022-04-25 04:12 | aharvey | For the ways like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/929237617 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/929237615 I couldn't see any route signage if these have no formed path and no route signage then per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australia/Walking_Tracks these should likely not be mappe... |
| 2 | 2022-04-25 06:37 | UggiePM ♦3 | Hello Mr. Harvey, these tracks are a part of the "Taronga Zoo to Spit Bridge" walk (unofficial). Also, there's a "Harbour Bridge to The Spit Bridge walking track" which is official but these off-track paths are not included in that. I edited in those paths according to https... | |
| 119324167 by mapsamillion78 @ 2022-04-05 03:44 | 1 | 2022-04-05 05:39 | aharvey | It's generally considered better practice to use turn:lanes=* on the existing way rather than adding a new way where there is no physical separation, which does not seem to be the case here from what I can tell.I'll update the tagging to use turn:lanes |
| 2 | 2022-04-05 06:04 | aharvey | I've updated this in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119327254 | |
| 115234960 by supaluminal @ 2021-12-22 05:24 | 1 | 2022-03-09 23:15 | aharvey | hi I think it's better to use the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hazmat tag, so hazmat=no for this. Is there a reason for using access:conditional? |
| 2 | 2022-10-24 23:06 | TheSwavu ♦544 | @aharvey ... just discovered this through a QA warning. I agree that hazmat with a conditional would be better. | |
| 118091243 by Supt_of_Printing @ 2022-03-04 12:23 | 1 | 2022-03-05 04:41 | aharvey | This just looks like you're taking the piss. I believe Dian was just making the point that turn lanes shouldn't be split from the main way 100m up when it's just white paint that separates them, and instead you should use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn:lanes and similar ... |
| 2 | 2022-03-06 03:28 | Supt_of_Printing ♦40 | Hi aharvey,you're probably right, but out of frustration. I ask myself what the purpose is and keep coming back to one of the purposes being that of giving an indication of where and when to diverge. Whilst in the past I may have been a little too generous with the lead-in to a divergence, on... | |
| 117869922 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-02-26 05:52 | 1 | 2022-02-26 06:59 | aharvey | reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117869922 |
| 2 | 2022-02-26 07:00 | aharvey | per https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2941525 | |
| 117869930 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-02-26 05:54 | 1 | 2022-02-26 06:49 | aharvey | Hey Graeme, the note was for the missing steps from the path here up to the lookout. I left a note until we can get a gps trace to map it. So I've reverted this changeset in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117870564 and will re-open the note. Mapillary also shows no steps on the cyclepa... |
| 2 | 2022-02-26 06:59 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | Must be going too hard! I could swear I could see steps on that footpath! | |
| 117416318 by MapAnalyser465 @ 2022-02-15 03:06 | 1 | 2022-02-24 12:07 | aharvey | I've deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9506803261/history as that's not an appropriate use of place=plot per the wiki and we don't need to keep a node to show where the Sydney city node used to be. |
| 2 | 2022-02-24 12:09 | aharvey | I agree with repositioning the place=city Sydney node from the harbour to the CBD. The CDB is the centre so that's where the node should be. | |
| 3 | 2022-02-24 12:11 | aharvey | The only argument I can see for having it in the harbour is it may be a better labelling position cartographically (less clutter and easier to read), but that shouldn't be our focus, we should map it accurately as data first and foremost. | |
| 4 | 2022-02-26 01:11 | TheSwavu ♦544 | Is the problem that we shouldn't be using the same label node for the suburb as the city? | |
| 114847503 by L___I @ 2021-12-12 14:04 | 1 | 2021-12-18 06:57 | aharvey | Hey mate, I disagree with this a city is an area not a single point, in OSM I can see how to makes sense to tag both as a node and an area as one captures the area and the other the central point of the city. Since this is a major change I'll raise it on talk-au for discussion. |
| 2 | 2022-01-11 20:33 | L___I ♦43 | Hello aharvey, thanks for double checking the edit and for you message. Sorry for delayed reply. The tag was added without a comment about the reason in the past via change #81, see https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/relation/5750005Thanks for asking a wider group of people. Happy to know ... | |
| 3 | 2022-02-24 12:01 | aharvey | I didn't get around to asking on talk-au, but I noticed someone else restored place=city, which I think is more correct. I wouldn't call it double mapping because the node is part of the relation so data consumers can identify it as the same feature. So one feature, but two geometries, one... | |
| 117386144 by VileGecko @ 2022-02-14 10:10 | 1 | 2022-02-24 10:55 | aharvey | Thanks for this improvement! |
| 116743508 by Mister Levy @ 2022-01-29 13:12 | 1 | 2022-02-01 01:46 | ScottWalkerAU ♦136 | Hi - this is not the correct way to map Wolstenholme and Endeavour streets. It makes routing a direct line impossible. They were correct the way they were originally --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116743508 |
| 2 | 2022-02-01 02:04 | Mister Levy ♦2 | Ok fair enough. I had problem though when creating maps in QGIS. It was showing up as multiple streets with the same name. Do you have any suggestions to fix this problem? --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116743508... | |
| 3 | 2022-02-01 02:23 | aharvey | We'll revert this changeset to restore the original mapping. You'll need to handle any processing after obtaining OSM data on your end, it sounds like you're wanting to apply a dissolve operation on the name attribute. | |
| 4 | 2022-02-01 02:37 | ScottWalkerAU ♦136 | Reverted in changeset 116846451 | |
| 5 | 2022-02-01 03:07 | Mister Levy ♦2 | Thanks! That "dissolve operation" suggestion once I googled it worked perfect. --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116743508 | |
| 37753997 by Zulu99 @ 2016-03-11 08:35 | 1 | 2022-01-30 12:16 | aharvey | Hi, the highway=cycleway tag you added here to https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/45023175 was recently removed. Do you remember your source and what the situation was/is on the ground? |
| 2 | 2022-01-30 23:54 | Zulu99 ♦3 | Hello Andrew. I'm interested in how quickly you detected these changes. I would like to hear about what method you are using to do so. I see that highway=cycleway has been changed to highway=footway. This will stop the path being rendered in opencylemap.org correctly (and other maps). I've... | |
| 3 | 2022-02-01 01:46 | aharvey | Hi Zulu99, actually it was picked up by another mapper and reported to DWG.https://osmcha.org/ is probably the easiest option to monitor for changes to an area, you can setup a filter to limit what shows up and you can then monitor through OSMCha directly or via the RSS feed.I can see per th... | |
| 116771345 by HighRouleur @ 2022-01-30 09:40 | 1 | 2022-01-30 12:24 | aharvey | service=parking_aisle should only be on the section of the road which has parking spots accessible from it, in this case it looks like you've tagged a longer stretch of the road with this tag. Do you think it's better to split the way and only tag on the sections that this occurs? |
| 2 | 2022-02-01 09:05 | HighRouleur ♦65 | I have split the way and tagged the western side of the Birtchnell Lane as a service road in lieu of parking aisle.Refer changeset #: 116857890 | |
| 116772039 by HighRouleur @ 2022-01-30 09:51 | 1 | 2022-01-30 12:19 | aharvey | hi it looks like you've dragged the address node https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/2120364148 was that accidental, could you restore it if unintentional? --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116772039 |
| 2 | 2022-01-30 12:22 | aharvey | Looking at https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/91679681 on imagery it looks much more like https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service=alley as it provides rear entrance access, more so than https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service=driveway which mainly provides access to a sp... | |
| 3 | 2022-02-01 09:11 | HighRouleur ♦65 | Address node change was accidental and has been reverted. Refer changeset #: 116858142 | |
| 4 | 2022-02-01 09:18 | HighRouleur ♦65 | Agreed. Driveway changed to Alley.Refer changeset #: 116858475 | |
| 116611891 by HighRouleur @ 2022-01-26 07:39 | 1 | 2022-01-28 21:24 | tonyf1 ♦471 | Hi, the absence of signage indicating that bicycles are allowed is insufficient reason to to change it to a footway. What evidence do you have that its primary purpose is pedestrian? |
| 2 | 2022-01-28 21:28 | HighRouleur ♦65 | As per previous discussion around the matter, we are mapping what's on the ground.The Victorian rules state that cycling is only permitted where it is signed to do so, hence the absence of such sign means that it is not a shared path but rather a footway. | |
| 3 | 2022-01-28 21:31 | tonyf1 ♦471 | HiThis is not my understanding, your edits were referred to the DWG and they made a ruling that did not support your position. | |
| 4 | 2022-01-30 12:08 | aharvey | Hi Tony, HighRouleur, I'm investigating the dispute here with a fresh set of eyes. @HighRouleur did you confirm this on the ground or is it based on a particular data source? | |
| 5 | 2022-01-30 20:35 | HighRouleur ♦65 | Hi Aharvey, yes I confirmed this on the ground as I rode this area a few days ago. We did not venture into the park as there were no signs indicating that we were permitted on bikes. | |
| 116682069 by Scott_01 @ 2022-01-27 20:50 | 1 | 2022-01-28 16:46 | nmombo12 ♦66 | Thanks for contributing! What kind of imagery is this nearmap source that you're using? |
| 2 | 2022-01-28 18:23 | Scott_01 ♦1 | It's a paid mapping service with frequent updates. I use it to make updates to our General Motors OSM site features because it shows recent construction updates. However, I didn't realize that the API Key would be visible. I deleted it each time, but it apparently stays with the edit s... | |
| 3 | 2022-01-28 18:53 | nmombo12 ♦66 | Ah, that must be some nice imagery! My concern wasn't so much about the API key (which now that you mention should not be public), but the license compatibility. From the NearMap wiki page, edits which use NearMap aren't permitted even if you have paid for access to view the imagery.&q... | |
| 4 | 2022-01-28 19:07 | nmombo12 ♦66 | Link to wiki page for referencehttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NearMap_PhotoMaps | |
| 5 | 2022-01-28 19:12 | Scott_01 ♦1 | Most of the edits were of old OSM features that are actually visible from other ESRI layers (fences, shrubs and such). I just use the Nearmap because I had it, but I think you also have another more updated layer with these features too. Good to know. I'll use the other layers for making fut... | |
| 6 | 2022-01-28 19:19 | nmombo12 ♦66 | Yes! Oakland County, MI has a compatibly licensed imagery layer from spring 2020 with a very high resolution (around 7cm). It's a WMTS layer though so it's only usable in JOSM, not iD editor. Let me know if you'd like any help using it. | |
| 7 | 2022-01-28 19:33 | Scott_01 ♦1 | ok - Thanks for your patience explaining this. I'll download the JOSM editor going forward. I guess it's time to graduate up to a more sophisticated edit tool anyway... ; ) Thanks again - Scott | |
| 8 | 2022-01-28 19:46 | nmombo12 ♦66 | No problem! I've already written up some instructions for adding the imagery to JOSM for some other users. Once you're set up, message me and I'll send them over to you. | |
| 9 | 2022-01-30 11:49 | aharvey | Hi, to chime in here, I reviewed Nearmap's public terms and it does appear like even if you subscribe to their imagery that does not mean you have complete ownership of derived content (like tracing features) and can't then license this under OSM's license. So unless you can point out... | |
| 10 | 2022-01-31 13:50 | nmombo12 ♦66 | I reverted this changeset here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116824689I will attempt to recreate as many changes as I can using compatibly licensed imagery from Oakland County's MiSAIL exchange today. | |
| 11 | 2022-01-31 14:43 | nmombo12 ♦66 | Some changes restored using Oakland County imageryhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116826707 | |
| 12 | 2022-02-03 15:46 | Scott_01 ♦1 | I downloaded JOSM, updated the building outline using "MiSAIL Oakland County Imagery 2020" and uploaded. This layer should be fine for what I need to do. Thanks again! | |
| 63140199 by mrpulley @ 2018-10-02 22:05 | 1 | 2022-01-25 04:21 | aharvey | Some of your tracks from this changset were deleted recently in https://osmcha.org/changesets/116519029/ at the time of your survey were these tracks on the ground, just working out if we need to restore them. |
| 2 | 2022-01-26 09:24 | mrpulley ♦170 | Regarding the two deleted ways - I had been thinking about deleting them when I was there three years ago (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/63140199) but left them alone. I didn't see those tracks at the time, but left them in case I had missed them. | |
| 116520175 by Guy Hodgson @ 2022-01-24 01:48 | 1 | 2022-01-24 02:52 | nevw ♦1,978 | HiYou deleted many remote hiking ways, some of which were recently added by the mappers through survey.Instead of being deleted it would be likely be better to discuss with the mappers first or change the characteristics of the tags using description, visibility, etc, or adding lifecycle tags li... |
| 2 | 2022-01-24 02:59 | nevw ♦1,978 | Another tag that could be used is 'informal'https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal | |
| 3 | 2022-01-24 04:37 | Guy Hodgson ♦2 | Thanks for your feedback nevw,I received a request to remove these tracks from OpenStreetMap from the Ranger for Macquarie Pass National Park. The message to me is as follows:"As Ranger of Macquarie Pass National Park (New South Wales, Australia) I am writing to advise that these tracks e... | |
| 4 | 2022-01-24 05:09 | nevw ♦1,978 | Thanks Guy.Nev | |
| 5 | 2022-01-24 05:45 | Ds5rUy ♦28 | Hi Guy,there has been a lengthy discussion about this a few months ago on the talk-au mailing list, see the thread starting at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-October/015242.htmlMy reading of that thread is that there is a general consensus that such paths, if they exi... | |
| 6 | 2022-01-24 06:31 | tastrax ♦1,145 | I personally dont think there is a general consensus (as I have said many times). I have also laid out what could be a process going forward. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-October/015243.html | |
| 7 | 2022-01-24 06:32 | tonyf1 ♦471 | Hi Guy, welcome to OSM. Through no fault of your own you have landed in a very controversial place. Please join in the talk-au discussion at https://lists.openstreetmap.org Its a difficult discussion but I think worth the effort for both Parks services and OSM. | |
| 8 | 2022-01-25 04:16 | aharvey | Based on a comment at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-January/015551.html that the tracks do exist and based on the fact that these were all surveyed recently I'll restore them as existing on the ground. Where they have been officially closed this can be tagged as such, s... | |
| 9 | 2022-01-25 04:50 | Guy Hodgson ♦2 | Thanks for restoring them AHarvey,I've now read the comments and links and realize that a different approach may be required. | |
| 10 | 2022-01-26 09:47 | mrpulley ♦170 | These ways definitely exist (the fire trail and the access to some private houses): 238041069, 773692685, 773692684, 347707476. The short trail 439443961 and the short stairway 773692681 definitely exist. The remaining way 347707596 was there on survey in early 2020. Just looked at the National Park... | |
| 116091380 by slice0 @ 2022-01-13 05:49 Active block | 1 | 2022-01-13 08:48 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116096916 on behalf of the DWG as a mass automated edit without prior community consultation, while discussion of the change can take place. |
| 116091398 by slice0 @ 2022-01-13 05:49 Active block | 1 | 2022-01-13 06:21 | Ds5rUy ♦28 | This undiscussed, undocumented mass edit that didn't follow the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct is introducing a huge amount of incorrect data to the database and should be reverted.public_transport=platform doesn't automatically go onto every highwa... |
| 2 | 2022-01-13 06:32 | slice0 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 3 | 2022-01-13 06:34 | slice0 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 4 | 2022-01-13 07:32 | Warin61 ♦2,664 | The mass edit should have been discussed. The 'rules' do state that these kinds of edits need to be discussed, as such the Australian talk list should be the first port of call. See https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au | |
| 5 | 2022-01-13 07:35 | tastrax ♦1,145 | I can assure you slice0 that very few bus stops in my state easily accommodate wheelchairs and easy access into buses. I am also not sure its a legal requirement unless works are occurring in and around the bus stop which MAY trigger the requirement for an upgrade and yes, I did read the document th... | |
| 6 | 2022-01-13 07:42 | Warin61 ♦2,664 | As per tastrax .. most Australian laws are state based, as such 'bus stop' laws may well vary from state to state, just as traffic laws do. | |
| 7 | 2022-01-13 08:47 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116096786 on behalf of the DWG as a mass automated edit without prior community consultation, while discussion of the change can take place. | |
| 86795841 by Tim Gates @ 2020-06-18 01:26 | 1 | 2022-01-04 02:10 | aharvey | Hi, I surveyed this area and only found a lookout slightly north of the one you added (which I've now added) and didn't find any bench. The path you added went through a locked gate into the pony club so I wasn't able to check? Are you sure there was a bench there and the track you ad... |
| 2 | 2022-01-10 03:10 | aharvey | I've removed the bit of path here to match my gps trace and what I found from my survey. | |
| 110105021 by Mayank_B @ 2021-08-23 09:56 | 1 | 2021-11-25 23:41 | jakecopp ♦43 | Hello, I drive on this road a lot and it's not a toll road - it turns into a toll road west of the Marsh st Intersection (to the left). Could you explain why you tagged it as such? Thanks :) |
| 2 | 2021-11-26 03:02 | aharvey | I've reverted this changeset, resolving the conflicts to remove the toll on this section of the M5/General Holmes Drive. | |
| 113106240 by tessparksaus @ 2021-10-29 05:26 | 1 | 2021-11-24 08:21 | aharvey | Hi https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:privacy is not a standard tag, the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access tag looks like a better fit. access=yes can be used to indicate public access is permitted, though usually not added as assumed by default, it's still fine to add it to b... |
| 2 | 2021-11-25 21:50 | aharvey | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/227348319/history you've tagged privacy=public but it was originally mapped as access=private. Is that road open to the public or restricted? | |
| 3 | 2021-11-25 21:51 | aharvey | I've re-tagged these using the standard access=yes tag. | |
| 4 | 2021-11-25 21:57 | aharvey | I've reinstored the Uluru Climb using the was lifecycle prefix to indicate that it's not there anymore but was. Useful for other mappers and some data consumers for the time being. | |
| 113107812 by tessparksaus @ 2021-10-29 06:15 | 1 | 2021-11-24 08:17 | aharvey | From what I can tell most of these roads had correct classifications already (especially the service, residential ones). Tertiary when not within a city is usually for roads which link smaller towns and villages. |
| 2 | 2021-11-25 01:49 | ortho_is_hot ♦252 | Also the roads here https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/757861362 are probably better off as service or unclassified imo | |
| 3 | 2021-11-25 21:46 | aharvey | I reverted this as these are still mostly service roads and not tertiary and the one segment added already existed as a track so became a duplicate. Please feel free to discuss further here. | |
| 113103001 by tessparksaus @ 2021-10-29 02:30 | 1 | 2021-11-24 06:01 | aharvey | Hi Tess, I invite you to join the discussion at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-November/015349.html about using macrons in name:en.Or if you don't want to join the mailing list if you had any comments on the discussion you wanted to voice here instead? |
| 113107300 by tessparksaus @ 2021-10-29 05:57 | 1 | 2021-11-23 12:15 | aharvey | hi your change here removed natural=bare_rock (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=bare%20rock) from Kata Tjuṯa (https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/relation/7474225). I've re-instated it. |
| 111889860 by HighRouleur @ 2021-09-29 22:26 | 1 | 2021-10-01 00:58 | MatthewSeale ♦15 | Hi, ref way 506056033 you have tagged a 66kV power line as highway=footway. The 66kV line is part of a relation to the 66kV distribution route from Fishermans Bend Terminal Station to Albert Park substation, and has tags for cables, circuits, voltage and wires. and power poles marked as nodes. Th... |
| 2 | 2021-10-01 06:10 | adamh ♦25 | There are 30 modified ways in this changeset, mostly path->footway tag changes.What does this have to do with the changeset comment of "updates to cycling permission to align with Victoria Road Regulations" ? | |
| 3 | 2021-10-01 09:22 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | I have issued a zero-hour block for this user.https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5358 Marc Zoutendijk OpenStreetMap Foundation Data Working Group | |
| 4 | 2021-10-01 09:51 | HighRouleur ♦65 | Hi The change to the powerline was accidental, apologies for the inconvenience. | |
| 5 | 2021-10-01 10:00 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | Please see also the other comments to your changesets:https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=11210886as well as the discussion on talk-au:https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-September/014989.html Marc Zoutendijk OpenStreetMap Foundation Data... | |
| 6 | 2021-10-01 10:18 | HighRouleur ♦65 | Hi Marc,I hadn’t realised that notification had been going to my junk mail hence why wasn’t aware of comments on the change sets. In response to the discussion on talk-au raised by Tonyf1, I note that in the State of Victoria, Australia it is illegal to ride a bike on a footpath ... | |
| 7 | 2021-10-01 11:32 | aharvey | hi HighRouleur, on the talk-au thread about this, there is discussion going on so I invite you to join in. One point of discussion was some people can legally ride on the footpath (children) and marking bicycle=no as a default legal restriction makes it impossible to capture places where no body can... | |
| 8 | 2021-10-01 11:52 | MatthewSeale ♦15 | Thank you HighRouleur. The 66kV power line tagging has been reverted. | |
| 9 | 2021-10-01 12:27 | HighRouleur ♦65 | Thanks aharveyI’m new to OSM, so still getting my head around how all the forum chat works. I can see and read all the discussions that are occurring but haven’t yet figured out how to post. Any help? | |
| 10 | 2021-10-01 12:28 | tonyf1 ♦471 | Hi HighRouleur. Most if not all of your foot/cycle changes are not in "road related areas" (See rules 11-13 of the Road Rules) and not covered by the Victorian no riding on footpaths rule. It is possible that I am wrong, I am not a lawyer, but there is sufficient doubt about this to ask yo... | |
| 11 | 2021-10-01 12:54 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | HighRouleur, see my PM to you about joining the mailing list. | |
| 12 | 2021-10-02 00:03 | HighRouleur ♦65 | Hi Tonyfi,In relation your comment, there has been significant discussion in the Melbourne Bikepath cycling community recently relating to permissions about types of paths than can be ridden. Some members have also sought clarification from Vic Police on the rules. It has been made clear to the ... | |
| 13 | 2021-10-02 00:18 | tonyf1 ♦471 | Hi HighRouleur. Thanks for further clarifying your understanding of the law. This is probably a discussion best held on the talk-au list rather than here, because of its complexity. You say "unless there is specific signage to indicate that bikes are permitted, then bikes are not permitted"... | |
| 14 | 2021-10-02 01:45 | HighRouleur ♦65 | Thanks Tonyf1I have just subscribed to talk-au however I haven’t seen further discussion or I’m not sure how to post as I’d be keen to resolve this. | |
| 15 | 2021-10-02 02:38 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | Hi. Simply send an e-mail to < talk-au@openstreetmap.org > with an appropriate title - "Cycling on Vic footpaths" would seem good! Replies will then appear in the list & you can then respond to them by clicking on the "Reply-All" button. Graeme | |
| 16 | 2021-10-02 08:59 | adamh ♦25 | There's archives of talk-au at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/ | |
| 17 | 2021-10-15 21:08 | tonyf1 ♦471 | Reverted by Changeset: 112560047 | |
| 109541997 by aharvey @ 2021-08-12 01:28 | 1 | 2021-09-19 07:16 | ivanbranco ♦2,697 | Hi aharvey,what's the meaning of disguised=yes to this way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/972413605 ? |
| 2 | 2021-09-19 09:16 | aharvey | There were a bunch of pot plants and other material put there so it was not obvious there was a path here, probably the nearby resident placed these here to disguise the legally accessible path. If you didn't know there was a path (and didn't see the sign) you'd think you were walking... | |
| 107174158 by jakecopp @ 2021-06-29 23:53 | 1 | 2021-09-01 06:00 | aharvey | I deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8878498384 because the vacinnation centre is already tagged on the building way. |
| 109293173 by Tom Brennan @ 2021-08-07 05:20 | 1 | 2021-08-20 13:37 | aharvey | For https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/971051966/history, the wiki documents service=alley as mainly rear access https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Dalley, whereas this is more a shared driveway which I've been taging as service=driveway, however it seems the wiki indicates service... |
| 2 | 2021-08-21 02:10 | Tom Brennan ♦15 | Agree this is slightly different from most of the other "alley"s in the area. The service tags are somewhat problematic. I don't know that my post in talk-au helped resolve much though! | |
| 109732658 by Tom Brennan @ 2021-08-16 07:40 | 1 | 2021-08-20 13:23 | aharvey | I opened https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2812838 because from memory when I added the steps they stopped at the playground and didn't connect to the other path. |
| 2 | 2021-08-20 13:25 | aharvey | PS. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5123393949 I fixed up the tagging for a crossing island. | |
| 3 | 2021-08-21 02:15 | Tom Brennan ♦15 | Cool re crossing island. iD was complaining, so I was just trying to resolve the complaint! Poorly... | |
| 101100748 by Ben360 @ 2021-03-16 07:50 | 1 | 2021-08-03 02:15 | aharvey | Hi the shared path you added at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/917699708 is overlapping the road which is incorrect. I've moved it to be adjacent from the road if you wanted to have a look and make sure it's correct? Otherwise some photos of what's there would help. |
| 37681671 by TheSwavu @ 2016-03-08 08:53 | 1 | 2021-07-31 11:39 | aharvey | In the GNB Berowra Creek suburb https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/117103168 is discontinued and is now part of the existing Berowra Waters suburb. Do you think we should either just delete this node or change it to was:place=hamlet? Though if the locals still call it Berowra Creek I guess it still ... |
| 2 | 2021-08-02 04:37 | TheSwavu ♦544 | We have kinda co-opted any existing place nodes to also label bounded localities. If the bounded locality goes away then the existing place node would just stay. Looking at the GNB database it would appear that Berowra Creek was only a bounded locality name, so if you do want to keep the hamlet ... | |
| 3 | 2021-08-02 04:51 | aharvey | I don't have the local knowledge to know what it is called now. Only per the GNB, addressing data, and admin boundaries, "Berowra Creek" only exists as the watercourse name, not as a named place. | |
| 4 | 2021-08-02 04:56 | TheSwavu ♦544 | Oh OK. In that case maybe just go with your was:place idea. | |
| 5 | 2021-08-02 09:20 | aharvey | Yeah but on the other hand, people live there and it matches the wiki description for a hamlet, so regardless of the official name it's still a settlement, so in that sense was:place=hamlet doesn't seem right. Maybe I'll just leave it as is for now then, since the admin boundaries you... | |
| 3985697 by CraigRat @ 2010-02-27 05:17 | 1 | 2021-07-28 06:38 | aharvey | Hey mate, I just noticed that this way you contributed for Mt Saddleback Track exactly matches the geometry appearing in Land Tasmania's Transport Segments open data.Just curious did you create this originally yourself from GPS, and they sourced it from here in OSM or did you source it from t... |
| 2 | 2021-07-28 06:44 | CraigRat ♦1 | Done with my trusty Garmin Oregon back in the day. Unpleasant walk, you'll notice I didn't quite get to the top..... got bitten by jackjumpers up top... Crikey, that was 11 years ago! | |
| 3 | 2021-07-28 06:50 | CraigRat ♦1 | Trace is here:https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/CraigRat/traces/633599 | |
| 108392041 by aharvey @ 2021-07-22 02:24 | 1 | 2021-07-22 02:24 | aharvey | comment should have been https://maproulette.org/challenge/20137/task/101563718 |
| 100081543 by Lamb0 @ 2021-02-27 03:14 | 1 | 2021-07-22 00:08 | aharvey | Hi typically we don't map temporary popup things like this which are just open for one day every few years per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_temporary_events_and_temporary_featuresFurther it looks like the geometries are quite a bit off. I'll remove the ... |
| 80991330 by LHBfans @ 2020-02-14 06:41 | 1 | 2021-07-18 09:19 | aharvey | I tried to access Merlon Pathway, but couldn't find it without risking trespassing. It was very unclear where was private and where was public, and didn't look accessible. I guess I just needed to push on and if I found myself in someones house by accident then apologise. Have you physical... |
| 2 | 2021-07-19 01:57 | LHBfans ♦3 | Thanks for your query. The Merlon Pathway is indeed a piece of public land. It has been intentionally disguised by the adjoining owners to look as though it belongs to them and to deter members of the public from using it. A group of interested local residents have a project to identify and map the ... | |
| 3 | 2021-07-19 03:53 | aharvey | Thanks! I'll have to revisit for another attempt. I would have suggested we add that to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:description which is used to provide additional information to the end map user, but it's limited to 255 characters.I'd consider changing access=permissi... | |
| 108004671 by Jack465 @ 2021-07-14 23:17 | 1 | 2021-07-15 02:15 | aharvey | Have you seen StreetComplete https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete#readme helps survey details of these houses. And if you instead add them as generic building=yes then on the ground it will ask if it's detached, duplex, terrace, apartments etc. |
| 2 | 2021-07-15 02:19 | Jack465 ♦6 | Yeah I have seen that application before. My plan was to first add them all as houses, and then go back along and add the street number for each one, and bulk edit to add street name, suburb, post code etc. I know the area I'm mapping very well, so determining duplex, apartment etc won't b... | |
| 108006048 by BobS1949 @ 2021-07-15 00:55 | 1 | 2021-07-15 01:51 | aharvey | A bubbler you could also use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Ddrinking_water --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108006048 |
| 107767229 by Jack465 @ 2021-07-11 03:44 | 1 | 2021-07-12 06:00 | aharvey | if the gate can still be opened by emergency services, national parks staff etc then better to set as motor_vehicle=private, motor_vehicle=no means there is no access even for those legally allowed. |
| 2 | 2021-07-12 06:03 | Jack465 ♦6 | Noted, thanks for that. I will edit it this afternoon to reflect the correct permissions | |
| 3 | 2021-07-12 06:15 | Jack465 ♦6 | Has been updated in 107812627, thanks @aharvey. | |
| 106624036 by TheSwavu @ 2021-06-19 09:21 | 1 | 2021-07-09 02:57 | aharvey | You're really on the ball with these updates, nice work! |
| 2 | 2021-07-10 00:49 | TheSwavu ♦544 | It had been 9 months I figured it was time to check. CAPAD 2020 came out a couple of months ago, that's taking much more work to update. | |
| 75375946 by huonw @ 2019-10-07 12:58 | 1 | 2021-07-07 01:13 | aharvey | I don't think https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/732339055 and similar should be tagged as leisure=park. A park http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park is an area of open space for recreational use. I can't go here to kick a ball around, sit around, or throw a picnic, so I don&#... |
| 2 | 2022-02-06 03:23 | huonw ♦5 | (Thanks for waiting for the reply.)I don't think the "open space"/"kick a ball" rules-of-thumbs match with the description on that page. In particular, the area you note I think fits into "managed greenery, located within settlements and nearly always open to genera... | |
| 96074081 by Tech Dec @ 2020-12-18 13:37 | 1 | 2021-07-07 01:07 | aharvey | Hey you do realise many of these contact details were already tagged under the contact:* prefix? |
| 106251797 by navigatorcraig @ 2021-06-12 12:33 | 1 | 2021-07-03 11:47 | aharvey | oh interesting I didn't realise there was a track along the creek here connecting the other tracks. I'll have to check it out. |
| 107119800 by Edward Sampson @ 2021-06-29 04:46 Active block | 1 | 2021-06-30 11:12 | aharvey | I've removed the overlapping beach sections here and split them into a few with different names. |
| 107120422 by Edward Sampson @ 2021-06-29 05:00 Active block | 1 | 2021-06-30 11:07 | aharvey | hi it looks like you've added two overlapping beaches here so I've removed one so we have just the single beach. The south beach you've set the name as Mm could you please explain that? |
| 2 | 2024-06-30 03:11 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | DWG reverthttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153353681 | |
| 107120443 by GiwiSyd @ 2021-06-29 05:00 | 1 | 2021-06-30 10:59 | aharvey | It's good practice to try and modify existing objects rather than deleting and adding new ones to retain the history https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_history. In iD you can right click the node and select disconnect. |
| 107124945 by ZenBiddist @ 2021-06-29 06:20 | 1 | 2021-06-30 10:53 | aharvey | 1. May I suggest https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility it sounds like it might be bad or intermediate.2. Per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_use_name_tag_to_describe_things the name should be the proper name only, the one you entered can be added as a... |
| 2 | 2021-06-30 12:55 | ZenBiddist ♦1 | Thanks, I’ll add trail visibility when I’m at a desktop computer. As for the title denoting the fact that it’s a scramble rather than a path - this is a purely pragmatic safety choice. If no warning is given in the title visible on offline map apps, some runners and walkers might f... | |
| 107180444 by Edward Sampson @ 2021-06-30 04:34 Active block | 1 | 2021-06-30 10:49 | aharvey | Hi please see the comment on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107117225, the beach is already mapped. I have retained your area but used the JOSM replace geometry tool to retain the history from the original node and bring in the additional tags. |
| 2 | 2024-06-30 03:11 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | DWG reverthttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153353681 | |
| 107177008 by LPlots @ 2021-06-30 03:08 | 1 | 2021-06-30 10:41 | aharvey | What's E473?I'll change the surface to using a ; as value separator. |
| 107177245 by LPlots @ 2021-06-30 03:15 | 1 | 2021-06-30 10:39 | aharvey | This looks like the name of the Harbour not the beach, if the beach doesn't have a name then it can be left blank. |
| 107180448 by LPlots @ 2021-06-30 04:35 | 1 | 2021-06-30 10:37 | aharvey | I updated the name to the proper name "Chinamans Beach", Green Point is separately mapped as a headland. |
| 107180517 by LPlots @ 2021-06-30 04:36 | 1 | 2021-06-30 10:35 | aharvey | Given Gerringong Harbour is the name of the Harbour not the beach, I'm not sure we should apply this name to the beach? If the surface is a mixture of sand and gravel, then surface=sand;gravel would be the best way to tag this as it's machine readable and the common practice for multiple s... |
| 107117225 by Edward Sampson @ 2021-06-29 03:30 Active block | 1 | 2021-06-29 03:40 | aharvey | Hi this feature already exists at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/765088610 so I've removed the duplicate one you just added. |
| 2 | 2024-06-30 03:11 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | DWG reverthttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153353681 | |
| 107117228 by Daryl Radivojevic @ 2021-06-29 03:30 | 1 | 2021-06-29 03:38 | aharvey | Does this facility analyze the samples or just collect them. Usually these customer facing facilities are just for sample collection so better tagged as https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:healthcare%3Dsample_collection |
| 2 | 2021-06-29 09:53 | Daryl Radivojevic ♦1 | After looking closely at the website, it seems this site only does sample collection. | |
| 87799546 by ortho_is_hot @ 2020-07-10 06:50 | 1 | 2021-06-24 01:17 | aharvey | FYI addr:flats is to list out the unit numbers at the address, not a total count of units. building:flats is for the count of units in the building. Per the wiki. |
| 2 | 2021-06-27 14:36 | ortho_is_hot ♦252 | Nice catch didn't notice that one, will go through and correct occurrences tomorrow.Thanks,ortho | |
| 106773854 by mueschel @ 2021-06-22 11:37 | 1 | 2021-06-23 11:02 | aharvey | This looks good to me. |
| 106757847 by FFFaye Li @ 2021-06-22 07:34 | 1 | 2021-06-22 07:50 | aharvey | Hi welcome to OSM, the scrub area you added was already existing at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/788214827 and the railway area isn't scrub so I've reverted this changeset. What were you trying to do with this change? Maybe I can help? |
| 106542493 by Herdefel @ 2021-06-17 16:40 | 1 | 2021-06-22 02:56 | aharvey | addr:unit is used to represent a single unit, this apartment block would contain multiple units probably with a number, so addr:unit is not the right place for the building number. You could just use name on the building like you have or addr:housename on the building.You can use addr:flats to lis... |
| 106571402 by Herdefel @ 2021-06-18 07:23 | 1 | 2021-06-18 10:08 | aharvey | Unless you know it's wrong you should retain the prior tags like building:levels and building=residential --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/106571402 |
| 102857323 by TheSwavu @ 2021-04-13 09:36 | 1 | 2021-06-11 08:03 | aharvey | In the Vicmap Address data, all the addresses at Melbourne Park south of the train line have 3004 however your boundary here follows the Yarra. However when I check some venues in that area online their websites still list as 3000 postcode, so based on this I think we should ignore Vicmap and leave ... |
| 2 | 2021-06-11 11:37 | TheSwavu ♦544 | I can't claim any special knowledge. I just split the Melbourne suburb at the Yarra on the assumption that posties would not be crossing back and forward to do deliveries. | |
| 99706628 by george@RPA @ 2021-02-22 02:45 | 1 | 2021-02-26 06:34 | SekeRob ♦1,433 | HiI corrected a typo on your suburb code line and OSM now wants to know what the point really is. If it is to mark a suburb, a key like place=suburb is needed as well.Let me know. ciao |
| 2 | 2021-06-10 02:38 | aharvey | I'll remove this node because the shopping centre is already mapped at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/115809851 and per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#One_feature.2C_one_OSM_element there should only be one element in OSM for this. | |
| 3 | 2021-06-10 02:41 | aharvey | On second look, I've left the node which has an address and just removed the tags for shop=mall and name since these are already mapped. If the address here is for the whole shopping centre then add it to the existing Westfield outline, otherwise if the address is just for this location here it... | |
| 103135368 by Smitology @ 2021-04-18 12:31 | 1 | 2021-06-08 03:16 | aharvey | This was reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/103302927.I agree with the revert in that this route is a lower ranking compared to Pacific Highway. One being the main route which connects major cities in Australia, the other being a smaller connecting road to join major centres wit... |
| 105845151 by okwithmydecay @ 2021-06-04 14:32 | 1 | 2021-06-05 03:53 | aharvey | I don' |
| 2 | 2021-06-05 03:57 | aharvey | I don't think this is how it should be done, because this tagging of a building=train_station area inside of a building=roof area implies you have a building inside and then a another completely different roof structure over the building. Usually it would only happen if there is a gap between t... | |
| 3 | 2021-06-05 09:38 | okwithmydecay ♦33 | I get what you mean, what was I was trying to capture is there is a large roof and the building underneath it is only doesn't take up the full width as you can see in these pictures https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Killara+station&title=Special:MediaSearch&type=image | |
| 4 | 2021-06-06 10:24 | aharvey | Yeah I suspected that, actually while I don't think overlapping buildings like this is the right way to do this, I'm not sure if there is consensus around how it should be done, so I'll leave it as you've done. | |
| 105807360 by jakecopp @ 2021-06-04 02:55 | 1 | 2021-06-05 04:02 | aharvey | Thanks for confirming, when you say north of town hall, is that north of Market Street? |
| 2 | 2021-08-23 12:30 | jakecopp ♦43 | Sorry I missed this. The cop said bicycles are allowed when no curb between light rail track and the "pedestrian street". North of Druitt St there is no barrier so I believe it is legal. I definitely find it confusing. | |
| 105658352 by minus34 @ 2021-06-01 06:38 | 1 | 2021-06-01 23:16 | aharvey | It's rare that bicycle access is not permitted unless it's a motorway or bus only lane, is there a no bicycles sign? |
| 2 | 2021-06-02 01:29 | minus34 ♦3 | I can't confirm the legal status and will change the access. FYI - the new western footpath will be a shared path so not sure if they will ban bikes or not.Also, would be great if OSM had a cycling safety flag for road segments. This would be a 0... | |
| 3 | 2021-06-02 12:14 | aharvey | I believe unless there is a no bicycles sign then legally cyclists can use it so it shouldn't be bicycle=no, though if there is a bicycle lane then cyclists need to use it unless unsafe. Though if it's a bicycle lane, then we need bicycle=yes to indicate that the lane can be used. An off r... | |
| 4 | 2021-06-03 02:26 | minus34 ♦3 | Thanks Andrew, I assumed the safety metric had been raised before, but yes - too subjective! | |
| 105686010 by DR_Mapper @ 2021-06-01 15:34 | 1 | 2021-06-01 22:04 | aharvey | hi, welcome to OSM. Thanks for your edit.I tweaked the tags here to be more consistent with how this is typically mapped and tagged. |
| 2 | 2021-06-02 15:10 | DR_Mapper ♦1 | Hi Andrew,Thank you. Both for the welcome message and for the adjustment. I actually came across your profile a couple of days ago.I think that it will take me a while to learn how to do this properly. Especially as things do not seem to look or behave as I expect them to. Maybe they will on... | |
| 105592190 by rkurzawa @ 2021-05-31 03:43 | 1 | 2021-05-31 09:25 | aharvey | Did you survey https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/288436548 ? From all the imagery it is still appearing. |
| 2 | 2021-05-31 13:12 | rkurzawa ♦6 | Imagery is a couple of months old. Memorial avenue’s long awaited duplication has begun and road has been blocked off as its in the way of the to be constructed westbound lanes. | |
| 3 | 2021-06-17 02:47 | tastrax ♦1,145 | Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country code +61 x xxxx xxxx, (+61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles) or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_G... | |
| 105561516 by ozhiker2 @ 2021-05-30 10:17 | 1 | 2021-05-30 22:35 | aharvey | FYI I think https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/948639252 usually would be mapped tertiary_link, open for discussion if these should be or not, but it's what's commonly done. |
| 105455831 by Fauzan IRM-ED @ 2021-05-28 02:19 | 1 | 2021-05-28 10:30 | aharvey | hi, I've also sent a note to the MapRoulette Challenge author, but I'll also ask you, how do you know there is actually a ford here and there's not a foot bridge? |
| 2 | 2021-05-30 09:46 | aharvey | I removed the ford=yes because you can't know if it's a ford or there is a bridge here from imagery, best to leave untagged so it can be set once surveyed. | |
| 3 | 2021-05-30 23:00 | Fauzan IRM-ED ♦22 | Hi aharvey, thank you for your info and correction. Will more careful about objects like this.Kind regards. | |
| 105554589 by bertboy @ 2021-05-30 05:20 | 1 | 2021-05-30 09:26 | aharvey | Hi, could I also check why foot=yes was removed? Do you know if foot access is permitted here? Best to have it explicitly tagged yes or no. |
| 105554568 by bertboy @ 2021-05-30 05:18 | 1 | 2021-05-30 09:25 | aharvey | Hi just checking why access tags were removed? For highway=track, it's a good idea to explicitly tag motor_vehicle, bicycle and foot access. |
| 105452223 by Fauzan IRM-ED @ 2021-05-27 22:22 | 1 | 2021-05-28 11:59 | aharvey | not sure why this building was deleted, re-instated in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/105452223 |
| 2 | 2021-05-28 15:38 | Adiatma IRM-RV ♦109 | Thank you Sir for your revert (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/667097224).It is like overlapping with this building (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/528002669). | |
| 3 | 2021-05-29 01:00 | aharvey | Oh I see, thanks. so your edit was correct. I re-deleted this one now. Because your changeset comment mentioned crossing water bodies I didn't realise you'd removed this because it was duplicate, sorry. | |
| 4 | 2021-05-29 01:23 | Adiatma IRM-RV ♦109 | Got it. No problem Sir. Thank you for flagging this. | |
| 94745408 by radiotrefoil @ 2020-11-25 05:02 | 1 | 2021-05-27 03:40 | Diah IRM-ED ♦53 | Hi, 2hu4u. I deleted this area (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/877381537) because the tag and usage are not quite right. Thank you |
| 2 | 2021-05-27 03:48 | radiotrefoil ♦109 | Hi, can you explain further and link your changeset with the deletion? Thanks | |
| 3 | 2021-05-27 04:19 | Diah IRM-ED ♦53 | Of course. I think the usage of the area and highway tags is different and you can check their usage here (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Main_Page). Both of them can't combined in a single tag. If you have other reasons, please submit. Thank you | |
| 4 | 2021-05-27 04:42 | Diah IRM-ED ♦53 | Sorry, I deleted several areas with the same tag. | |
| 5 | 2021-05-27 05:15 | radiotrefoil ♦109 | Hi, thanks for the clarification, I was tagging the area:highway based on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway | |
| 6 | 2021-05-27 06:14 | Diah IRM-ED ♦53 | Oh, I'm sorry. Thanks for the information. I'll return to the original condition. | |
| 7 | 2021-05-28 13:28 | aharvey | I've reverted https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/105388046 which should have restored these now. | |
| 105384291 by Fadlilaa IRM-ED @ 2021-05-27 00:51 | 1 | 2021-05-28 13:16 | aharvey | reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/105384291 ways are on different levels so shouldn't share a common node |
| 2 | 2021-05-28 15:26 | Adiatma IRM-RV ♦109 | Thank you Sir for your revert (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/504331829) and your information.Kind regards. | |
| 105385061 by Diah IRM-ED @ 2021-05-27 01:47 | 1 | 2021-05-28 13:13 | aharvey | I don't see the issue with layer=0 here, it's making it clear someone with knowledge knew this as ground level, or at least level 0 relative to other layer tags. Without it you don't know where you've checked and where you haven't. |
| 2 | 2021-05-28 14:16 | Adiatma IRM-RV ♦109 | @aharvey Hello Sir. Thank you for your feedback. I have double-checked this (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer) and agree with you about layer=0. Should be reverted here (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/105497388)Kind regards. | |
| 105384967 by Diah IRM-ED @ 2021-05-27 01:41 | 1 | 2021-05-28 13:10 | aharvey | how do you know this is really a building passage? It's too hard to tell from the imagery so I'll revert. Please don't just blindly "fix" iD warnings, mostly they need a survey to check what the issue is, is it the road not tagged correctly, the road in the wrong location, t... |
| 2 | 2021-05-28 13:11 | aharvey | reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/105384967 | |
| 3 | 2021-05-28 14:24 | Adiatma IRM-RV ♦109 | @aharvey. Thank you Sir for your revert.We should stick more to your suggestion "Please don't just blindly "fix" iD warnings..."Kind regards. | |
| 105384852 by Fanny IRM-ED @ 2021-05-27 01:32 | 1 | 2021-05-28 13:08 | aharvey | reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/105384852 it's impossible to tell from Maxar if this is a bridge or not |
| 2 | 2021-05-28 15:43 | Adiatma IRM-RV ♦109 | Thank you Sir for your revert this (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/239305046). I do agree with you. Also from imagery, it is not like a bridge around a building. | |
| 105388046 by Diah IRM-ED @ 2021-05-27 03:57 | 1 | 2021-05-28 12:49 | aharvey | reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/105388046 due to deletion of valid area:highway=* tags |
| 2 | 2021-05-28 14:28 | Adiatma IRM-RV ♦109 | Thank you Sir, for your revert on this(https://osmcha.org/changesets/105493086/)Kind regards. | |
| 105402298 by Talitha IRM-ED @ 2021-05-27 07:19 | 1 | 2021-05-28 12:05 | aharvey | the original intent here was more likely to have steps, so I've reverted and removed the overlapping path |
| 2 | 2021-05-28 15:55 | Adiatma IRM-RV ♦109 | Thank you Sir, for your info & revert. It is always good to refer to the original intent. | |
| 105455224 by Elisabeth IRM-ED @ 2021-05-28 01:32 | 1 | 2021-05-28 11:52 | aharvey | I reverted this because it doesn't make sense to have a slipway at the end of a pier, and from the imagery the piers are next to the slipway.I did a second changeset to update based on imagery. |
| 2 | 2021-05-28 15:21 | Adiatma IRM-RV ♦109 | @aharvey. Thank you Sir for your info and revert (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/948142387). It is very clear information from you. | |
| 105455519 by Anisa IRM-ED @ 2021-05-28 01:58 | 1 | 2021-05-28 10:40 | aharvey | hi from the imagery it looks like there may be a path here, so I don't think it's right to delete. |
| 2 | 2021-05-28 11:46 | aharvey | looks like you've reinstated this, thanks. | |
| 3 | 2021-05-29 01:38 | Adiatma IRM-RV ♦109 | Thank you Sir for flagging this. Found no issue so far. | |
| 105456467 by Miftah IRM-ED @ 2021-05-28 02:54 | 1 | 2021-05-28 11:42 | aharvey | If the path leads to the shelter, then it should connect, so I've reconnected. |
| 2 | 2021-05-28 16:22 | Adiatma IRM-RV ♦109 | Thank you Sir, for your edit (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/node/8774900126).Kind regards. | |
| 3 | 2021-05-30 23:50 | Miftah IRM-ED ♦16 | Thank you Sir for your information and correction. Kind regards. | |
| 105460438 by Talitha IRM-ED @ 2021-05-28 04:46 | 1 | 2021-05-28 10:52 | aharvey | hi from the imagery it's not clear these are actually bridges |
| 2 | 2021-05-28 11:38 | aharvey | reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/105460438 | |
| 3 | 2021-05-28 16:07 | Adiatma IRM-RV ♦109 | Thank you Sir, for your info and revert (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/366747918). Will more careful about objects like this.Kind regards. | |
| 105460498 by Talitha IRM-ED @ 2021-05-28 04:47 | 1 | 2021-05-28 10:52 | aharvey | I've been there, surveyed this, it's not a tunnel. |
| 2 | 2021-05-28 11:37 | aharvey | reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/105460498 | |
| 3 | 2021-05-28 16:17 | Adiatma IRM-RV ♦109 | Thank you Sir for your revert and info.The previous editor also mentions this info came from a survey (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/16161496). We should aware of this.Kind regards. | |
| 105460554 by Miftah IRM-ED @ 2021-05-28 04:48 | 1 | 2021-05-28 10:53 | aharvey | these paths go to the waters edge so should connect |
| 2 | 2021-05-28 11:36 | aharvey | reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/105488443 since this disconnected the lookout and the path, and because the paths probably do go to the waters edge | |
| 3 | 2021-05-28 16:24 | Adiatma IRM-RV ♦109 | Thank you Sir, for your clear explanation and your revert (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/332750251).Kind regards. | |
| 4 | 2021-05-30 23:51 | Miftah IRM-ED ♦16 | Thank you Sir for your information and correction. Kind regards. | |
| 105461286 by Diana IRM-ED @ 2021-05-28 05:00 | 1 | 2021-05-28 10:58 | aharvey | the building deleted here shows up on the DCS imagery, and it's unclear on other imagery. |
| 2 | 2021-05-28 11:34 | aharvey | reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/105461286 | |
| 3 | 2021-05-28 15:16 | Adiatma IRM-RV ♦109 | @aharvey Thank you Sir for your revert. Really appreciated it.Kind regards. | |
| 105461911 by Diah IRM-ED @ 2021-05-28 05:11 | 1 | 2021-05-28 11:10 | aharvey | https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/589839759 probably goes continue to go into the shelter, the warning in iD doesn't mean the path must be moved |
| 2 | 2021-05-28 14:55 | Adiatma IRM-RV ♦109 | @aharvey. Hello Sir. I do agree with your feedback. Since the original user said it come from survey (https://osmcha.org/changesets/59146433/), it probably goes continue into the shelter.I modified it back (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/105499148).Kind regards. | |
| 105455530 by Diah IRM-ED @ 2021-05-28 01:58 | 1 | 2021-05-28 10:32 | aharvey | hi, I don't see the point in tag fiddling source:geometry and source:position they mean the same thing and both are common. |
| 2 | 2021-05-28 15:15 | Adiatma IRM-RV ♦109 | @aharvey. Hi Sir. You are correct. I checked these links (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/source:geometry#wiki) & (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/source:position#wiki). It will open the same Wiki page (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Asource%3Ageometry).Let me double-... | |
| 3 | 2021-05-31 00:15 | Diah IRM-ED ♦53 | Hi @aharvey. thanks for reviewing my work. Sorry for my fault and thank you for giving me advice about this. | |
| 92227741 by Pavani09 @ 2020-10-09 10:06 | 1 | 2021-05-13 10:47 | aharvey | FYI you've added a level crossing between a railway tunnel and a surface road. I've fixed this now, but the question is, has this happened in other locations too? |
| 103600984 by rkurzawa @ 2021-04-26 04:10 | 1 | 2021-04-26 12:03 | aharvey | You might want to check out the NSW Floods imagery which is probably the most recent for this area. Should be coming into editors soon. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103600984 |
| 103618237 by Fiftyfour @ 2021-04-26 08:21 | 1 | 2021-04-26 12:00 | aharvey | Actually in this case you can set the building type as semi, I just updated this one so you can see. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103618237 |
| 103191492 by felixrulz @ 2021-04-19 10:57 | 1 | 2021-04-20 11:38 | aharvey | Are you sure there is a camp site here? I can't see anything from the imagery. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103191492 |
| 2 | 2021-04-21 07:49 | felixrulz ♦1 | I think it's correct. We camped there the other day. I think the person I camped with found it on a camping website... Maybe wikicamps? | |
| 101131194 by wefwefweffy @ 2021-03-16 15:48 | 1 | 2021-04-16 03:16 | aharvey | Hi, I don't have the local knowledge here but what exactly is the "Lower Western Foreshore" referring to? According to google a "foreshore" is "the part of a shore between high- and low-water marks, or between the water and cultivated or developed land.", so it... |
| 2 | 2021-04-16 03:18 | aharvey | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/917870231 are you sure that's a beach? It looks more like a tidal flat which is tagged as https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:wetland%3Dtidalflat | |
| 102291994 by aharvey @ 2021-04-05 01:27 | 1 | 2021-04-06 21:54 | Warin61 ♦2,664 | Ug. The multipolygon relation shares outer segments .. so that is an error. I have deleted the relation and combined th eouter ways into one way. So now the single building is one way - truly singular. |
| 2 | 2021-04-07 04:25 | aharvey | Thanks, that's what I intended. | |
| 101694915 by Lonesome Valley @ 2021-03-25 07:08 | 1 | 2021-03-25 07:49 | aharvey | There were two buildings here deleted, from what I can tell there are still here, is that not the case? |
| 101636043 by Lonesome Valley @ 2021-03-24 10:16 | 1 | 2021-03-25 05:43 | aharvey | hi was this via a survey? A few questions,1. Why is the SBS office marked as works "an industrial production plant"? Is this not an office anymore?2. Why were the buildings on Parks Road deleted? Are there no longer there? They are visible on the most recent ESRI imagery.3. Is landus... |
| 2 | 2021-03-25 07:11 | Lonesome Valley ♦1 | Hi A. Harvey,thanks for reviewing my work.To 1.) and 3.) "I thought these are mostly commercial office _buildings_, not industrial production plants. "I was struggling to find a tag. Is there any _area_ tag for offices, or postal facilities?The wording for man_made=works to... | |
| 3 | 2021-03-25 07:43 | aharvey | 1/3. Yes the area tag for offices is landuse=commercial. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse=commercialThe postal facility, I'd still tag this as landuse=commercial I think it' mostly fits better based on the wiki descriptions for commercial and industrial.2. I added th... | |
| 101633590 by Lonesome Valley @ 2021-03-24 09:47 | 1 | 2021-03-25 06:30 | aharvey | A lot of these where you've add works landuse appear to be office buildings, and not works per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made=works. Could you provide more detail about your changes please? |
| 101377566 by TheSwavu @ 2021-03-20 08:04 | 1 | 2021-03-22 09:00 | aharvey | How do you decide the extent of this watershed? ie. why Sydney Coast-Georges? I would assumed you'd have a watershed for each coastal outlet but looks like a few have been combined here, how was that decided? If we start saying it's okay to map watersheds that could end up being a lot of a... |
| 2 | 2021-03-22 09:25 | TheSwavu ♦544 | It's an AWRC catchment boundary, which is what the industry uses. See http://www.bom.gov.au/water/about/riverBasinAuxNav.shtml | |
| 101232483 by Jorisbo @ 2021-03-18 06:33 | 1 | 2021-03-18 10:56 | aharvey | could you elaborate on the motivation for the change? Was it just that shoulder:access:bicycle=yes is assumed as default? Even then it doesn't hurt to have it. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101232483 |
| 2 | 2021-03-18 12:12 | Jorisbo ♦143 | Hi Aharvey, Thank you for the reply!Its the combination of multiple things together which made my algorithm highlighted the place.If you like to revert it (no problem) maybe we can find a combination of tagging which fits best.a) The section was 'orphaned' tagged as shoulder:access:b... | |
| 3 | 2021-03-19 11:11 | aharvey | Overall I don't think the tag really adds much as it's a fair default assumption, but still somebody decided to add it, so removing it should be thought out.I think the originally mapper was trying to say that bicycles can use the shoulder here. Which would be the default so they certa... | |
| 101203850 by VLD167 @ 2021-03-17 16:58 | 1 | 2021-03-18 10:58 | aharvey | hi protection_title should be "National Park" not national_park. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101203850 |
| 2 | 2021-03-18 16:00 | VLD167 ♦2 | Hi Andrew, thanks for the heads up. I'd been primed on this tag looking at examples from Great Britain 😅 | |
| 101014956 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2021-03-15 03:08 | 1 | 2021-03-15 09:55 | aharvey | I added access=private to indicate they aren't accessible to the general public. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101014956 |
| 2 | 2021-03-16 01:55 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | Thanks Andrew! I was wondering if they (& everything else) needed it as the whole area of the Base is already "Private"? | |
| 3 | 2021-03-16 02:13 | aharvey | I see what you mean, but I don't think it's harmful to mark everything inside as private too, just avoids uncertainty and makes it easier for data consumers. | |
| 4 | 2021-03-16 05:48 | Fizzie-DWG ♦32,122 | OK. Lot's more changes to make then! | |
| 100230388 by grizzlysmit @ 2021-03-01 20:59 | 1 | 2021-03-02 07:57 | aharvey | hi there were a number of tagging issues here, so I've fixed those up. If you need a hand with mapping this area, feel free to post back here I can try to help. |
| 100230941 by grizzlysmit @ 2021-03-01 21:16 | 1 | 2021-03-01 22:31 | fiscal ♦23 | Hi grizzlysmit,thanks for fixing this error: OSM is still full of them (and Australia severely lacks _local_ mappers – large parts of the landuses were done by "mechanical turks" [paid Serbians in reality]).Now you may learn to straighten a building outline by (simply!) pressin... |
| 2 | 2021-03-02 06:02 | aharvey | Hi, the building:flats is usually better placed on the building outline way, not on the residential landuse plot. The value should indicate the number of units there are in the building, so should be more than 1. | |
| 98937159 by Stephen Males @ 2021-02-09 01:23 | 1 | 2021-02-10 08:35 | aharvey | I upgraded the tagging to be a shared path allowing pedestrians access. |
| 98962725 by Aussie_Dave_04 @ 2021-02-09 09:26 | 1 | 2021-02-10 08:24 | aharvey | um what's up with https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/566854983 ? |
| 28853792 by Warin61 @ 2015-02-15 00:01 | 1 | 2021-02-08 23:53 | aharvey | Per https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2529948 it doesn't look like a tennis court, are you sure it's a tennis court? |
| 2 | 2021-02-09 04:05 | Warin61 ♦2,664 | It was a tennis court.. since my Grandparents time. It was a tennis court in my childhood. 6 years ago? Probably a tennis court then. Have they changed it? It looks like they may have. Certainly it had very little use when I lived close by. | |
| 98395661 by mitchelldm @ 2021-01-30 00:35 | 1 | 2021-01-30 03:15 | aharvey | Looks good. Just that we should remove cycleway:both=no when using cycleway=share_busway as they are contradictory. |
| 2 | 2021-02-07 00:33 | mitchelldm ♦8 | Good point! Thanks, I missed that. |