| Changeset |
No. |
Date |
Contributor |
Comment |
|
| 49760363 | saikabhi | Hi,Welcome to OpenStreetMap. Are you sure about the location of Graham Reserve? It looks like a residential area on the map to me. Can you please review?ThanksAbhishek |
| aharvey | It looks good to me from the LPI Imagery (it's the area in between the dual carriage way of Palace Street.Though I'd tag it as leisure=park instead, as leisure=nature_reserve is "A protected area of importance for wildlife, flora, fauna or features of geological or other special interest.&q... |
| aharvey | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=nature_reservehttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park |
|
| 41606327 | aharvey | Looks like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6393754 already existed before, we should keep that way and just update the geometry. Or at the very least delete the old way when adding one with geometry not snapped to the road. |
| Warin61 | Thanks for finding that. Fixed. What was I thinking back then? |
| aharvey | also for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45646092https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/438360193I think it's better to tag a multiuse pitch as sport=netball;basketball than having two overlapping ways, after all there is only one pitch, it just happens to serve two different sports. |
| Warin61 | Netball and basketball have slight different sizes of court. And where they share a surface they have different line colours too. The line colours can be tagged correctly if they are separate ways ... but not if they are ; separated sports. I have done one where there are tennis, netball and bas... |
|
| 6404798 | Warin61 | Multipolygons don't do shared ways on outers.. So these might be best as simple separate ways. Doing this generates a warning - overlapping railways. I think that is ok - platforms do share segments. |
| aharvey | I'm okay with them being separate ways.Physically the whole area is one platform, but logically (in terms of the network and naming) each side is a different platform.So for simplicity, I'm happy with these being separate ways, without the relation with a shared border that way we have tags ... |
|
| 43110299 | Warin61 | Hi,Multipolygon relation 6664382 - the Westfield building. Multiplygons don't like shared segments, I think this would be better as a key building:part. The landuse declaration would be better as the larger area of Chatswood - on the basis of one feature one element in OSM.So I have changed th... |
| aharvey | This looks okay. I'm happy to have landuse=retail a little wider, but I favour keeping landuse polygons no larger than 1 block to avoid overlapping roads etc. |
|
| 49058574 | tonyf1 | Hi. You have deleted some features. It looks suspicious but I am not familiar with Sydney so its hard to know. Can you please give information on why these features were deleted. Thanks. |
| aharvey | Removing http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/9922132/history was probably good since it's also mapped https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/499234807.But without justification for removing all those POIs and no response here in 17 days, I'm going to revert this. If there features really aren't there an... |
| chris_o | Hi guys, very sorry for the lack of response. I was not aware that removing nodes would affect map for everyone - as I thought it would just change my "instance" of the map.I initially removed the nodes as I was trying to make a "clean" looking map for a project I was working... |
| aharvey | That's okay, at least now you know. I've already fixed up the deletions. |
|
| 49289356 | aharvey | It looks like you've deleted some things like the building and bunkers which I suspect are still present on th ground and hence shouldn't be deleted, eg http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/211410476/history and http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2214182659/historyI would suggest abandoned:building=b... |
| aharvey | I've gone ahead and restored the deleted features from this changeset. If you have done a ground survey and know the current use/state of the building please update it's tags. |
|
| 12191575 | aharvey | I'm not sure about UNSW as a neighbourhood, UNSW is a university area and it's already tagged as a university. So I'm tempted to remove https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1822379544 |
|
| 49261124 | aharvey | I wonder if this was entered by the business or by a 3rd party SEO business. Either way please these on how to tag accepted payments and opening hours:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:paymenthttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hoursas the way you've entered them isn't ... |
| CloCkWeRX | I tweaked the tagging |
|
| 48758677 | aharvey | I see you changed https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/491089771 from highway=construction to residential. Based on your source tag, it doesn't look like a ground survey, did you?Unless you did a ground survey I think you should leave it as I tagged it. |
|
| 48077563 | tonyf1 | Hi. You appear to be mapping the underground stormwater drainage system. Maybe they would be best tagged as man_made=pipeline rather than waterway=drain considering that they are underground. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Ddrain |
| tonyf1 | Hi, you quote Source: Hurstville City Council Drain Map. Is this your source for all these drains? Is its licence compatible with OSM? |
| aharvey | @Spookylad, it doesn't seem the license of your source is compatible. Unless you can point us to further details about the license, could you please revert these changes and instead add data from ground survey or other sources which can be used in OSM. |
| Spookylad | Sorry I didn't have much time to review and finish the details. I removed the non park drainways, and I will continue to map Empress Park correctly. The drainways from the park are a mixture of Tunneled and underground/hidden. How do I go about tagging each of those aspects appropriately? I can take... |
| tonyf1 | Thanks for your reply. You should delete anything that is not compatible with OSM's licence conditions. Reading the wiki, I don't think that drain or culvert are the right tag. man_made=pipeline location=underground substance=water seems the best fit but I haven't seen what's on the ground.\... |
|
| 36061199 | aharvey | It seems you added a bunch of duplicates here? eg. you added https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/386754319 but it already exists at http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/199009076.Could you fix these up by deleting your copy in favour of the existing. If you want to make improvements then you can edit ... |
|
| 47860192 | aharvey | I see you've moved some features away from being imagery aligned to being aligned to the topo map.Honestly I'm not sure which is more correct here, but some part of my GPS trace seem to line up with the imagery more than the topo map.I compared my GPS trace of the area https://www.openstreet... |
| aharvey | Your change also caused a self intersection with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/475592320 |
|
| 46997002 | Warin61 | Way 475592320 crosses over itself. So it does not render well ... OSM inspector calls it a 'self intersection'. |
| aharvey | Thanks for noting this, it looks like it's happened as a result of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47860192 I'll move the discussion over there. |
|
| 47852994 | aharvey | The LPI Base Map has a name for this one, is it signposted on the ground? |
| erikgagajackson | yes there is it is "Merrylands Memorial Park", signpost can be seen if you are walking past on Windsor Rd |
| aharvey | Thanks, please feel free to add the name to this part then if you've confirmed it on the ground. |
|
| 47852917 | aharvey | The LPI Base Map has this named "Charles Mance Reserve", is it signposted as "Memorial"? |
| erikgagajackson | Yes the signpost says "Charles Mace Reserve, Centenary Memorial" https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-33.8384856,150.9898651,3a,75y,203.88h,78.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2Ur_dY_21VQYulm5yD9i-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 |
| aharvey | Okay, but you can't copy from Google Maps or Google Street View.Feel free to add the name from ground survey or from the LPI Base Map (different background map option in the iD editor) |
| erikgagajackson | sorry about that. i actually live next to this i have seen it at ground level i will edit the name |
|
| 47858919 | aharvey | The running track and the roads should only share nodes where they cross. Given we have high resolution imagery here could you retrace this with a more accurate location and avoid having it run down the middle of the road? (assuming the track I can see in the imagery is what you're mapping)The l... |
|
| 47634880 | aharvey | Thanks for adding this, I've unglued the building from the roads, created entrance nodes to mark out exactly where the entrances are and what they are for. Please note that 24hrs isn't a supported value for opening_hours, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/opening_hours. Is it "24/7"?... |
|
| 47635423 | aharvey | Hi,Thanks for adding this.A pointer for next time, a building generally shouldn't share nodes with the street it faces, as roads are center lines and buildings are for the footprint of the building only.I've fixed this up in http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47644250 |
|
| 43146930 | aharvey | What were you trying to do with the parking lot here?It looks like a multi story parking lot but I don't understand what your tags mean. highway=path but foot=no? parking=underground but no amenity=parking? service=spur? All combined on the same way?What are you trying to map here? |
|
| 38280899 | Leon K | The source:maxspeed applies to the ways but putting it on every node is overkill. |
| samuelrussell | I agree, I firmly remember discovering my error after upload and chasing down nodes with source:maxspeed applied to them to correct. |
| aharvey | You've also added maxspeed=40 to pedestrian footways which have no maxspeed signs from ground survey. I've fixed up one of them. |
|
| 40289524 | aharvey | Hey there, this track is present. I physically surveyed it. If something exists on the ground then it's fair game to be in OSM. Regardless of if it's dangerous or not. You can read up on two of the tags which I'd already included on this track https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale#Values... |
|
| 47138016 | aharvey | These bays have been changed between natural=water and natural=bay many times in their history, unfortuantly most renderers don't yet support natural=bay areas. Even the wiki notes that "they should not be rendered in solid color indicating water themselves".What's the harm in leaving ... |
| aharvey | Let's discuss over at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-March/031856.html.In the meantime I've reverted this change. You'll see in the history that I tagged this as natural=bay a few years ago and think this is the best way to tag, unfortunately it's a big area and the curre... |
| jptolosa87 | You're wrong, all renders support natural=bay. This is the approved tag by the community for mapping a bay area. Here you can see an example of a successful rendering: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/nOQObviously, to obtain a correct render, the polygon should be inside a water polygon or in the ocean.... |
| aharvey | Thank you, I can see that makes sense, the bay area should either be within the ocean or some other waterbody like a lake, river, etc. So the blue water rendering would come from the waterbody or ocean and the natural=bay area is there to label the area.I disagree with tagging the insides here a... |
| jptolosa87 | According the description of natural=coastline it should be placed exactly in the mean high water spring i.e. IMO more or less here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-33.9765/151.0237Is better to solve the "conflict" consulting the different sources about this topic.Check the conc... |
| jptolosa87 | Furthermore, note that in the description of natural=bay you can read the next text: "The edge of a bay towards land should coincide with the coastline" in the section 'how to map'. |
| jptolosa87 | But technically the wiki doesn't prohibit the usage of waterway=riverbank into the sea. Then, if the sources doesn't convince you, we can use both tagging: natural=coastline & waterway=riverbank + tidal=yes |
| aharvey | This is going to be an uphill battle , so I'm going to pivot and look into using something like coastline=pelagic from wikipedia "A pelagic coast refers to a coast which fronts the open ocean, as opposed to a more sheltered coast in a gulf or bay." on the oceanic coastline because I need s... |
| jptolosa87 | Definition of the natural=coastline is independent of locally established divisions. boundary=* tag supplies the second purpose. Your point view is incompatible with the OSM basic principle "Map what's on the ground". |
| aharvey | Exactly, I'm trying to ensure the natural=coastline tag and other tags are reflecting the natural environment on the ground based on my ground surveys of the area.As I mentioned on the tagging thread for me, based on on the ground surveys and local knowledge Botany Bay (http://www.openstreetmap.... |
| jptolosa87 | Of course, is interesting to differentiate the type of a coastline. Unfortunately there are no a tag for this purpose yet. The tag natural=coastline is only used to mark mean high water spring and it doesn't capable to differentiate the type of seawater. We can create a new tag based on your ground ... |
|
| 41206957 | aharvey | How did you check for duplicates?eg. you added https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4333395907/ but it already existed as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6396344I've been seeing a lot of duplicated features from your Base Map imports. |
| Warin61 | I checked for duplicate nodes .. not certain that I did check ways (too long ago to recall) .. and probably not relations. This change set 3/8/16 so 'my' node would have been that date .. relationship dated 9/7/16 so ~ a month previous. Humm I did a recheck some time ago on duplicates .. but aga... |
| Warin61 | Humm scanning ... found 1 add the day before by you .. from Imagery .. deleted mine and add the name from the base map. Another is displaced by 200 metres .. I'll do some more looking tomorrow (and think about the displacement). |
| Warin61 | Ok .. found 7 that I have deleted. About half of those are mine. Did not answer your question of how I checked for duplicates .. I think at that time I was using the OSM cycle map .. that appeared to have the best rendering of camp sites ... but it may have been slow to render new data .. thus I m... |
| Warin61 | Over 187 camp sites manually scanned. 78 deletions .. not all camp sites but most of them. Not all 'mine'. 230 objects modified .. some 'camp_sites' to pitches as the camp site is already tagged .. again not all mine. |
| aharvey | > So these duplicates you have noted ... were they only campsites? Or anything else? I keep finding issues across all your LPI Base Map imports.eg. I just deleted http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4380404863 since it was already mapped as http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/691125312>... |
| Warin61 | I have looked back at my lookout files (I did not bother with check my old campsite files .. but I'd not think I was consistent from one feature type to another .. hopefully improving all the time) .. and cannot find a duplicate for tuckers lookout ... so the checking was done. Did something else go... |
| Warin61 | Looking back at my old files for lookouts ... each node carries a tag "fixme=check for duplictes and web links" .. and each node was manually checked against the osm map background for the duplicate.. then those were uploaded to OSM having deleted each fixme tag as they were done. However... |
| aharvey | The existing node has been there for the past 4 years http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/691125312/historyNext time it would be great if you could post on the mailing list your intention to do an import and we can check the process to make sure things like this aren't missed.Another one I jus... |
| Warin61 | Arr .. I see now.What you are deleting are displaced things. My experience with LPI data suggest in many instances it is better than the data in OSM despite the mappers attribution of 'source=survey' or 'source=gps'. How do I know that ? In the instances of roads i have used the Strava heat ma... |
| aharvey | Not all data is equal. Different types of features like roads vs lookouts could dramatically vary in accuracy, even within the same feature types, the accuracy in the LPI Base Map can and does vary.Since we don't know the where each feature in the LPI Base Map came from, I don't think it should ... |
|
| 43937704 | aharvey | For https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/455660812 is it really named "Unmarked track"? There is a tag for unmarked tracks, trail_visibility=no. |
|
| 30207586 | aharvey | When you named Pindar Pool, you cited a copyrighted source, I think it's best to use survey or local_knowledge souces. |
|
| 46799476 | aharvey | You'll need to add some tags to this to say what is is, check out https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:healthcare |
| aharvey | The LPI Base Map says "The Hills Shire Council" is here, is that what's there now? |
|
| 46799325 | aharvey | Hi, what information are you trying to add? Do you need any help? |
|
| 46737409 | aharvey | like your other changesets, don't add a name unless there is a proper name. Also you can just use access=private, and remove all the mode specific keys. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access |
| aharvey | Also part of the driveway way overlaps the road, which should be fixed. And is it really oneway? |
|
| 46737178 | aharvey | the amenity=bench already describes this as a bench, so save the name tag only when the bench has a special name. |
|
| 46737159 | aharvey | Is this really a grit_bin or is it https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dwaste_basket ?Also since there is no name, just leave it out per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only |
|
| 46207193 | aharvey | You've only connected these two new roads here to the footpath, was that intentional? They aren't connected to Captain Cook Drive? |
| Erin Evans | Not intentional at all. First time using open street map, so still figuring out how to use it. I've now connected the rods to Captain Cook Drive. |
| aharvey | No worries and thanks for your edits here, very much appreciated and welcome.The way you've mapped it now, it means you can turn left but not right into Dune Walk. And you can turn both left and right into Foreshore Boulevard from Captain Cook Drive.Dune Walk is very close to that existing s... |
| Erin Evans | Yes that's correct - left only into Dune Walk, but you can turn left and right from Foreshore Boulevard. I've had to add two sets of lights for both directions of road, even though there is only one set of lights due to cutting through the medium strip.The service road you're referring to - is t... |
| Erin Evans | I believe I've just managed to amend the parking aisle to extend beyond Dune Walk as is now in real life. I've also removed traffic lights at the park's entry, as well as removed the cycleway through the centre. |
| aharvey | > Yes that's correct - left only into Dune Walk, but you can turn left and right from Foreshore Boulevard.Good.> I've had to add two sets of lights for both directions of road, even though there is only one set of lights due to cutting through the medium strip.That's okay, this is ... |
|
| 41531576 | aharvey | Really? |
| TheSwavu | Must've been the least interesting visit to Sydney if this was the highlight.Has this moved recently? I always remember it being in a building you could enter from Hickson Road. |
| aharvey | I'm not sure of the exact location, I might have misplaced it when I originally added it. |
|
| 46362967 | aharvey | What's that untagged area you added? What are you trying to map here? |
| nammala | Removed the untagged ways aharvey. |
| nammala | Hi lufyx,Welcome and thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap (OSM). OSM is the real map of the world . Please do add data which is on the ground .Let me know if you need anything regarding mapping.Regards,nammala |
|
| 15352688 | aharvey | It looks like you created this way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/209792992You've mapped it as a shared cycleway, however nothing on the ground indicates it can be used by cyclists. It looks like a normal footway.I was going to change it over, but wanted to ask you first if you had any th... |
| dbaupp | I suspect it may've been accidental; duplicating the tags on the real cycleway on the other side of the oval. |
| aharvey | I'll change it back to footway since nothing on the ground indicates it's a cycleway. |
|
| 31404526 | aharvey | What was your source for the location of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3539619525 ?There is a waterfall which looks like this https://www.flickr.com/photos/136319147@N08/32986671125/in/datetaken-public/, which I've mapped at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4693266583 confirmed the locati... |
| dhx1 | My source was the NSW government map: http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/ which shows the falls as being further upstream. I haven't been there in person though as you have, and don't have GPS tracks, so cannot confirm the map is correct. Have you been along the section further upstream of Clover Falls (i.e... |
| aharvey | Thanks for that.I've uploaded my GPS track at https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/aharvey/traces/2358807. I didn't go further upstream of what I think is Clover Falls, so I wouldn't know.Looking online, it seems what I went to is the same falls others label as Clover Falls, given I have the G... |
|
| 46121780 | aharvey | I don't think the water=fountain tag applies here, if its just a drinking fountain https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Ddrinking_water.Also the name tag shouldn't include a description https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only. "Drinking fountain" is ... |
|
| 46125296 | aharvey | I made some improvements to this in http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46149906See the coworking_space tag https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcoworking_space |
|
| 46033795 | aharvey | I reverted this https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46092581 as I'm pretty sure this is a fictional park. |
|
| 46067558 | aharvey | You might want to add the club=sport tag https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:club%3Dsport to indicate that this feature is a sporting club. |
| aharvey | along with the sport=rugby_union or rugby_league tag https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sport |
|
| 45996110 | aharvey | This looks like a residential home, is it really a cosmetics shop named "home"? |
| CloCkWeRX | Could have meant http://www.revivebeautyclinic.com.au/ (presumably at the shopping centre up the road); or maybe https://www.facebook.com/maryannesbeautypadstow/ ... but that's in a different spot. |
|
| 45735387 | aharvey | Hi was https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/117338675/history demolished?Or is the building still there? |
| TheSwavu | Apparently it's gone bye-bye:http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/sydney-imax-cinema-at-darling-harbour-to-be-demolished-20160824-gqzs83.html |
|
| 45764495 | aharvey | I see you've added the footpath here as highway=pedestrian. Check out the wiki at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpedestrian which describes that tag as "Roads mainly / exclusively for pedestrians".These look like the sidewalk which is tagged as per https://wiki.opens... |
|
| 45765153 | Warin61 | Hi,Some comments;1) No name ... so the change set description is wrong.. Possibly 'Add building" ? 2) Building is not 'square' as in the corners are not square... in ID select the object (the building) and press the 'S' key .. see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Shortcuts#Modifyin... |
| aharvey | PS. If you're adding multiple buildings at the same time you can add them all then hit Save at the end so you only have one changeset adding a whole block of buildings. |
|
| 45745708 | aharvey | I can't see this footway on the imagery you've used. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/471477415Could you comment back here to let us know your source? |
| nevw | I deleted it. Missed this one when cleaning up the area previously. |
|
| 45576209 | aharvey | Hi,The convention is to use Title Case rather than ALL CAPS. |
|
| 45551093 | Warin61 | Welcome to OSM.As well as the LPI Imagery there is the LPI Base Map .. that gives you the boundaries for the park - you can use that base map data to make the park into an area .. it looks much better on the map. |
| aharvey | Sorry, I only just saw this note after changing it to an area. |
|
| 45453465 | aharvey | Hi,In regards to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/468549230/history check up on the wiki for the building key https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building.The building key is for the outline the each building. An area like this should be tagged landuse=residential.Since there are a ... |
|
| 41790141 | aharvey | A lot of the nodes you've added here are duplicates of things already mapped. Eg The Star casino is already mapped as a tourism=attraction at http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/16597926Wet N Wild Sydney at http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/314946608Potentially others too. Why did you create the... |
| Warin61 | Would have checked these for duplicates at the time of entry ... will recheck on the two you are concerned with for speed. |
| Warin61 | Ok - Way: The Star (16597926) Had no tourist=attraction when I added node 43749057538 ... so not a 'duplicate' at the time? When you added tourist=attraction to this way ... that was the duplication .. delete the node? I am not certain that the whole building is a tourist attraction. Way 31494... |
| Warin61 | Quite usefull. I have reviewed the western and northern ones. Some are resorts - better tagged tourism=resort. A few are similar - used web search to resolve names and function. Some are duplicates. I have added some details to some - websites, opening hours, a few made into ways with boundaries. So... |
| aharvey | >Ok - Way: The Star (16597926) Had no tourist=attraction when I added node 43749057538 ... so not a 'duplicate' at the time? When you added tourist=attraction to this way ... that was the duplication .. delete the node? I am not certain that the whole building is a tourist attraction. Sorry... |
| Warin61 | One hand washes the other. I need some clear time to do the rest of these. Possibly this afternoon.As I said, I think I only checked them for duplication of tourism=attraction and not other things and that has lead to this problem. Still learning. |
| Warin61 | That took longer than I thought! Some deletions, many changes. I have taken some to be tourism=resort for example. Others I have expanded to be ways. Many have added website links. Anyway .. all reviewed now, |
|
| 43751940 | aharvey | are you sure there is a bus stop here? |
|
| 43753002 | aharvey | I've reverted this changeset, there is no bus stop here in the middle of central station. |
|
| 37303132 | aharvey | Regarding https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/398656117 the signage on the ground indicates the southern extent of the NP extends further. Do you think it's okay to update it to match the on the ground data? Also I suspect the boundary for the rest is simply mean high water mark, so can it be joined t... |
| Warin61 | Hi,No problem extending to the south for ground truth. Possibly the LPI data is out of date here?On the waterline... looks like the LPI boundary is the low water mark ... I'd leave that alone unless you have some evidence otherwise? It would make some sense for the low water mark boundary as a p... |
| TheSwavu | I put the suburb boundary in before we had access to the LPI data and I was using best guess as to what the ABS boundaries were on the ground, hence using the coastline.Interestingly the NPWS boundary isn't consistent with the cadastre around the coastline, which is a bit odd because the propert... |
| Warin61 | Looking at the 'water boundary' you can compare the LPI Base Map to the LPI or bing Imagery and see that the water level is above where this boundary lies... so I would assume that this boundary is low water mark. I think 'coastline' is taken at high water mark? Looking at the NSW NP website for... |
| aharvey | >As to the southern boundary it is currently correctly aligned with the cadastre so unless you happen to have found the survey pegs I'd say that's the best available information.There is a NPWS sign 70m from the currently mapped boundary. I suspect they just put the sign up outside the NP. I ... |
| Warin61 | The LPI is where surveyors go to get the legal boundaries! LPI base map has those boundaries... look at your own property to see it. I know it is good for me and at least some of my relatives (where I have checked). Snapping things together is ok .. if they deserve to go together! I have had to ... |
| aharvey | >The LPI is where surveyors go to get the legal boundaries! LPI base map has those boundariesI believe that except for newer LandXML submissions a surveyor will use the distance/bearing measurements on the plan, not the digital cadastre, as the digital cadastre you see in the LPI Base Map has... |
| Warin61 | Fruther reading on [1} "The database is constantly maintained or updated on a daily basis from registered plans (including E-Plan), registration of land transactions in NSW and changes in administrative boundaries as gazetted. The data is up-to-date to within 10 working days from when a plan is... |
| TheSwavu | 1. After typing in my comment the other day I was pondering why the boundaries are that way at Barrenjoey and I've realised that the boundary follows the low tide mark. (Also means that the lighthouse reserve must of had a combination of high/low tide boundaries). 2. I'd also previously looked u... |
| TheSwavu | Depends on what you mean by the basemap. The meta data is for the underlying data so if you extract the data rather than tracing then it's up-to-date to within 10 days. I don't know how often the tiles that get served for the visual map are re-rendered so it may take some time for it to show up on ... |
|
| 44900971 | aharvey | Is it appropriate to use http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:land_area here? |
| Martini097 | It could be. I was primarily trying to revert a seemingly arbitrary change to type=multipolygon that was causing an issue in a renderer |
| aharvey | Sorry I thought you created the relation, I couldn't look at the full history as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4095122 has an application error. Given it's up to version 198 I'm not surprised. |
| Martini097 | Yeah, that was my struggle as well. I couldn't view the history or any changes related to it, and the only relevant page i could find was on boundaries. I see/have no issue with you changing the tags to fit relation:land_area as it does seem to fit better |
|
| 44750097 | aharvey | Is the St in "Warne St Park" an abbreviation for street? See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Abbreviation_.28don.27t_do_it.29 |
| MW369 | Yep, fixed. Thanks! |
|
| 44951625 | aharvey | If this is a shopfront you might want to add shop=copyshop https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dcopyshop to it. |
|
| 43883541 | aharvey | Hi there, club and sport a different tags, I've fixed this up see http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4395466707/history |
|
| 39058536 | aharvey | I don't believe leisure=park is appropriate for http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/415194166. I think it should simply be landuse=residential. |
|
| 16163505 | aharvey | Where did you find the name "Ferndale Park Loop"? I can't find any signs with that name, I can find signs with "Ferndale Walk Track". If I don't hear back I might swap it over to map what's on the ground. |
| dbaupp | I don't remember; I guess it may've changed in the three years since I mapped this. |
|
| 25744404 | CloCkWeRX | Do you know if the bridge (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/771693) is actually there still? |
| aharvey | The bride is there but it's a pipeline not a footbridge. I've fixed this up via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/43394284.Not sure why it was marked as a path in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/38993006 |
|
| 38993006 | aharvey | I noticed that you added highway=path for this https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/305534455. What was your source for this? I know first hand that it's a pipeline not a path. |
|
| 42472417 | aharvey | Howdy, you've added http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/444590126#map=19/-33.79729/151.18136 but this already existed in http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3993157057#map=19/-33.79742/151.18127 |
|
| 42490776 | aharvey | Howdy, it looks like you've added http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/444721625 but this already existed here http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3993157061. Could you fix this up, ideally retaining the original node for the history? Also is it correct to use indoor=room, since customers can't walk into ... |
| aharvey | You also have mapped out two McDonalds, but there is only one there. |
|
| 42493275 | aharvey | Howdy, any reason why the post office is mapped out as two features? AFAIK there is only a single post office here as one big room. |
|
| 39695761 | aharvey | Hi I've reverted this change because The Sydney Opera House is already mapped in OSM here http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4960757 |
|
| 41406029 | aharvey | I see another user has reverted this change, which I agree with.The reasons are that you added a new feature for the Sydney Opera House but it is already mapped in http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4960757And for the other viewpoint, it's name is not Watsons Bay, and the name tag is reserved ... |
|
| 39799159 | aharvey | I'm going to delete this as the Royal Botanic Gardens are already mapped in the relation -> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3744999If you wish to add the name:zh, add it to the existing relation. |
|
| 41000354 | aharvey | Hi there, it looks like the road was already there from Railway Pde to Colebome Av, so I removed a node at the end to avoid the doubled up road way. I also added bridge and steps tags to the footway. |
|
| 40034706 | aharvey | www.openstreetmap.org/way/425078113 looks to be overlapping residential properties. What's your source for this wetland? Perhaps this should just be added to the conservation parks/wetlands reserve ways there? |
| TheSwavu | And why did you add noname=yes to all of the admin_level=10 relations? And why did you delete the place tags? |
| moreton | Re sources for wetlands, swamps etc. As noted in the uploads, I have used 3 sources: (i) survey = visits to these areas in person to confirm mapped data; (ii) LPI map imagery; (iii) GA hydrology datasets (via geofabric). The mapped wetlands are mostly equivalent to GA hydrology datasets. The GA lice... |
| TheSwavu | So a few points then:1. You are doing an import without following the import guidelines:http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines2. Have you got explicit permission to use the GA dataset? 3. Combining place with admin_level=10 is not unusual:http://taginfo.openstreetma... |
|
| 39793586 | aharvey | Jintang Hai Fresh Restaurant ? Is this a hotel or restaurant, because you tagged it as a hotel. |
|
| 40195330 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40512164 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40195315 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40512163 where the changeset comment is: |
| SomeoneElse | In the process of the Landgate add and remove one of the roundabouts is now a bit deformed:http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/361673628/historyCould someone who's local patch it up so that it reflects reality? |
|
| 40195333 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40512166 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40171955 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40512168 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40195392 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40512157 where the changeset comment is: |
| SomeoneElse | I'm guessing that this wasn't actually part of the Landgate import and that the changeset comment was leftover by mistake?Currently Arthur Street (and Lord Street to the northwest) are a bit odd as they are secondary and primary roads that terminate rather than link up in any way.I've never been... |
| aaronsta | Hi there, yes I do think that is what happened Ill do a quick edit now and have a proper look at it later |
|
| 40201791 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40274990 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40201348 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40274991 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40203743 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40274988 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40200912 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40274996 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40202908 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40274981 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40197601 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40275233 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40199230 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40275080 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40206373 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40274410 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40197428 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40275291 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40205378 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40274717 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40202803 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40274969 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40203488 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40274978 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40205790 | TheSwavu | What was the point of this changeset? All you've done is deleted all of the source=nearmap tags. How do you know that these weren't from nearmap? What is source=aaronsta supposed to mean? |
| aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40274548 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40198017 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40275222 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40199712 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40275025 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40204199 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40274985 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40206035 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40274549 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40204886 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40274721 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40199609 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40275027 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40204680 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40274907 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40203578 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Could you explain what "MINOR: FIX SOURCES" means? This is a changeset with a large area, and it'd be nice to know what had changed without having to refer to third-party tools.Best Regards,Andy |
| GinaroZ | Had a look at the history of some nodes/ways and it seems like this changeset has removed "source=nearmap" from them |
| TheSwavu | Yeap this is one of many bulk edits this user has done where they have deleted source=nearmap for no apparent reason. |
| aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40274965 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40199773 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40275024 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40200684 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40275003 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40206195 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40274545 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40203352 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40274992 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40203635 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40274963 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40204783 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40274720 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40204617 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40274910 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40204341 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40274919 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40204561 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40274913 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40204500 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40274914 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40206754 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40274398 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40205189 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40274718 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40205709 | TheSwavu | What was the point of this changeset? |
| aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40274543 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40207001 | aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40266451 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 40207793 | pnorman | Hello,you seem to be doing a mechanical edit of some kind. In OSM mechanical edits need to be documented and you need to consult with the community first. Was this done here? |
| Warin61 | In this changeset, looks to be removing the source=nearmap tag ... in bulk. WHY? |
| aharvey | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 40258772 where the changeset comment is: |
|
| 39834539 | aharvey | I've moved this translation to the "Prince Henry Cliff Walk" way as that, the walk isn't where this POI was placed (that's the Underfalls Walk) |
|
| 38453189 | aharvey | You tagged this one https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/409276633 as a library, but it's not. I've fixed it up now, this is a restaurant and the library is round the corner. The LPI Base Map is wrong here. |
|
| 38610902 | samuelrussell | Kudos! Do these sites have relationships? Could those relationships be mapped? |
| aharvey | They don't have relationships, they are all independent. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Darchaeological_site lists other kinds of sites but not middens so I've used site_type=shell_midden for these. I would say they names should be moved to the description key, but I didn't make th... |
|
| 34204428 | riblit | I would suggest that leisure=nature_reserve is incorrect as a Nature Reserve and a National Park are different gazetted entities with separate use restrictions. |
| aharvey | I'm tempted to agree with you. I think that boundary=national_park is sufficient. However at mostly in Australia I would have thought that National Park implies "protected area of importance for ildlife, flora, fauna or features of geological or other special interest, which is reserved and man... |
|
| 27663231 | aharvey | It seems leisure=nature_reserve was changed to leisure=park in this changeset. This isn't appropriate for the Heathcote National Park as it's not consistant with the usage of leisure=park at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark (See also the note at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wik... |
|
| 108027 | aharvey | I'm removing http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/316587786 because I'm fairly certain there is no picnic_site at the exact location of the node, and there is a better positioned picnic_site nearby which is probably what this node was meant to map. |
| Warin61 | tagged created_by=www.campsaustraliawide.com they have a copyright message on their web site ... do you have permission to use their data?? Node: Gunnedah South RA (316587591) is far off the highway .. and well away from anything like a campsite .. deleted. |
|
| 19839073 | aharvey | I would like to revert this (ie. remove name=cliff) because they aren't named "cliff", and it's causing issues for downstream data users expecting the name in the name tag. |
| SomeoneElse | There's a discussion of what should go in the name tag at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only . I don't believe that "cliff" makes sense here. |
| aharvey | I've gone ahead and reverted this changeset (which only added the name=cliff tags) in changeset 33385884 |
| swanilli | Two points:1. I have stood there. It is definitely a cliff. It definitely makes sense to me.2. There seems to be a lamentable tendency of some people to mistake Wiki guidelines as Gospel or some other divine authority. They are not. They are just what the name says, guidelines. The issue is what... |
| aharvey | Hi Swanilli,1. I'm not disagreeing about there being cliffs here, hence the natural=cliff tags still remain.2. Regarding my comment about downstream data users, I can only quote my personal example which is [1]. I'm extracting names of features and using these in the walk description, and no... |
|
| 14291716 | aharvey | Hi Mike,What does the 50m mean at Eagles Nest Lookout? It's too low for altitude... |
| MikeAus | When I visited there 2 years ago, the only signpost at the turnoff had written in it "Lookout - 50m" (i.e. 50 metres). - has this changed ? |
| aharvey | I'm not sure if it's changed.What you describe seems to indicate that the lookout is 50m from the sign, which is informative, rather than forming part of the name. The name tag should just contain the actual name, ie. "Eagles Nest Lookout".What do you think? |
| MikeAus | If I need to direct someone to this lookout in an emergency, it's no good saying "Take the turnoff to Eagles Nest Lookout". But if I say "take the turnoff Lookout 50m", they will know they are at the correct turnoff. |
| aharvey | Perhaps http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign would be better suited then, it allows you to capture the information about the "Lookout 50m" better. You could also put in the description tag of the lookout a note about the "Lookout - 50m" sign.The reason... |
| MikeAus | The need of the Emergency Services I work with, is for OSM to enable quick, error-free navigation to an incident. If the sign says "Lookout 50m", then that's what needs to appear on the map. |
|
| 30443147 | aharvey | Hey did you mean to remove the highway=tertiary or the lcn=yes? Because your comment indicates the latter but you actually did the former. |
| inas | Oops. Yes. Looks like you've fixed it up? |
| aharvey | Nope, I haven't fixed it. I did pass a footway through the street, so I did make an edit after you, but didn't touch the tags. Are you right to correct? |
| inas | yep. done. |
|
| 29465055 | aharvey | Does the road still physically exist? Would it be better to tag it as access=no and place a barrier= node? |
|
| 30325785 | aharvey | Just a question, when you said your source was Topo? What specifically was this source? |
| NathanaelB | NSW Government topographic map which I referred to to draw my poly. |
| aharvey | Aren't the NSW Government Topo Maps Copyright All Rights Reserved? I know the paper ones I have are and it appears the online ones at http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/sixmaps/LPITopoMap/MapServer are too.Were you able to get these under a license compatible with deriving informati... |
| NathanaelB | I drew the poly and referred to paper map for some of the boundaries for less than 10% of the nodes plus my own on-the-ground survey and GPX data and reused the estuary shorelines and coastline nodes for the rest. Don't think that constitutes breaching copyright. |
|
| 16855609 | aharvey | In this changeset you've added the name "Platform 2&3" to the railway landuse area covering the whole station. What were you intending to do here? Can you fix this? |
|
| 29372749 | aharvey | It looks like this changset deleted the intersection http://osmhv.openstreetmap.de/changeset.jsp?id=29372749 so I've reverted it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/30300449What were you trying to do in this changeset? Remove the cycleway=share_busway from Elizabeth Street? |
|
| 14080990 | aharvey | Could you please explain the reasoning for adding these? Is it for a specific router?There are some issues with these, for example the one you added at Heathcote station is wrong because there is no path running along the way you added. |
|
| 28970592 | aharvey | Regarding way 302242009 [http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/302242009] the name tag is used to tag the names of things [http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Name] not provide a description or access restrictions, please use that tag instead [http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:description] |
| nildes14 | In my view this is a safety issue and safety must come before all other concerns. Please read the name and consider what it means! Tagging it description= relegates it to invisibility in all normal OSM rendering. Removing the caution is a moral not stylistic decision. Until OSM has a visible tag... |
| aharvey | According to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_use_name_tag_to_describe_things it is good practice not to abuse the name tag in this way, and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_renderer The default OSM rendering is not the only user of OSM dat... |
|
| 11057695 | aharvey | Why is this named footbridge? Is there actually a sign labelling it? It seems to me like foot=yes + bridge=yes + highway=path is enough to indicated it is a footbridge. |
|
| 20026268 | aharvey | Regarding way http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/256790444 the name tag is reserved for just the name, ie. Dunns Leap Track. The extra information although on the sign isn't part of the way's name so shouldn't be in the tag value. This information can go in a description tag, however, it is best to ta... |
|
| 22494667 | aharvey | When you tried to remove the turn restrictions forhttp://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2766091http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3746660it appears you just removed the tags from the relation, leaving a relation with no tags but still containing the members. To remove the turn restricti... |
|
| 18447856 | aharvey | In this changeset you changed a pipeline to a road. I won't revert it because you made another change at the same time, but I will fix this mistake. |
|
| 15217104 | aharvey | For way 866109501, I wouldn't class it is trail_visibility=bad (Path sometimes invisible, route partly pathless), as I found markers frequently along the trail, which sometimes had to be searched for which according to the wiki is trail_visibility=good (Next marker always visible, but sometimes has ... |
| aharvey | Oops that's way 86610951 |
|
| 27079948 | aharvey | Why is http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/314796230 named Pond? I couldn't find any sign or otherwise on the ground to support this. Shouldn't it just be water=pond without a name tag? |
| swanilli | It was definitely there on 17 Nov 14. It is mentioned in Wildwalks track notes and visible in Google maps (zoom in here: -33.491738, 151.225933). Maybe it had dried up when you visited.Let's face it, it's a small pond. I gave it the generic name "Pond" so it would be more visible. Now ch... |
| aharvey | I meant I couldn't find a sign that named the it "Pond", I agree that the water does exist, it's just the name is wrong. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Name specifically the example of "closed pub (due for demolition): do not describe the object in lieu of a name."I w... |
| aharvey | I've updated this based on the name tag being just a description already provided by water=pond. |
|
| 21676316 | aharvey | Hi,When you split the Lane Cove River into two multipolygons... they are still the same river, just with a weir in it, shouldn't it all be part of the single multipolygon? |