cleary have been discussed with 51 replies of this contributorcleary have been discussed with 51 replies of this contributor| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 32218701 by cleary @ 2015-06-26 05:48 | 1 | 2025-02-17 01:48 | nevw ♦1,984 | Hi cleary, I noticed what appears to be an access gate but tagging is unclear.https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3618906272#map=19/-23.401848/144.180508 |
| 2 | 2025-02-17 05:46 | cleary | That was a careless error by me. I have now corrected it to barrier=cattle_grid. I do not recall any gates on that road and, looking at satellite imagery, it appears to be a cattle grid. Further, my abbreviation for cattle_grid was "ca" and I appear to have transposed the letters when I w... | |
| 3 | 2025-02-17 10:50 | nevw ♦1,984 | Thanks mate….an impressive memory. | |
| 68942691 by cleary @ 2019-04-06 04:28 | 1 | 2024-09-15 02:05 | GeeMaps! ♦30 | Question asked at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4061332 Is this really a canal, or should it be a ditch? |
| 2 | 2024-09-15 06:22 | cleary | I had visited the general area around Deniliquin and Moulamein in the past and observed farmland, canals, wetland, waterways etc. but this particular location is not open to public access. So, like you, I have to rely on satellite imagery. Most of the farmlands in this area have irrigation canals ca... | |
| 29010611 by cleary @ 2015-02-21 22:58 | 1 | 2024-02-15 10:18 | mrpulley ♦171 | Regarding https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/234876550 - I know your edit was a while ago, but can you confirm the current maxspeed? The reason I ask is that there is a user (possibly from overseas) maxing maxspeed changes from 'NSW Speed data', but there have been multiple problems with th... |
| 2 | 2024-02-15 21:24 | cleary | I saw recent discussion on talk-au list about this issue. I'm sorry but I cannot assist regarding speed limits. I have mainly concentrated on roads, farms, waterways and, while I have mapped some speed limits, I don't think I have travelled on this road again since my original edits and I ... | |
| 32133047 by cleary @ 2015-06-22 08:27 | 1 | 2023-10-11 01:14 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Hi,Conflict of road names here Toolebuc Road on the road itself and Tooleybuc Road on the farm addresses... A google search has Tooleybuc for Queenslandand Toolebuc for NSW... sigh. Translations from Aborigine I assume. Change these all to Tooleybuc ??? |
| 2 | 2023-10-11 06:57 | cleary | Yes, it seems I confused the NSW and QLD spellings. " Tooleybuc" with a "y" seems to be correct for Queensland. Thanks for picking this up. Please go ahead and correct my errors if you are willing to do so. Alternatively I will look but it will be a few days before I can get to i... | |
| 3 | 2023-10-11 07:00 | cleary | No No No. I'm still confused. Queensland spelling is without the "y", isn't it? You are thinking more clearly than I am. Please fix my errors. | |
| 4 | 2023-10-11 09:29 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Don't blame you for the confusion. If we had sanskrit or cyrillic we'd know know to spell things. I'll fix it when I get back to it. I'm slowly working through an 'error' file from rendering an Australian map, Address errors were 3.3 Mb .. now down to 2.7 Mb most of... | |
| 5 | 2023-10-11 09:52 | cleary | Thanks. | |
| 69892708 by cleary @ 2019-05-05 01:24 | 1 | 2023-09-22 14:10 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,666 | Can you take a look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3902662 ? It almost certainly is a bit funny typo |
| 2 | 2023-09-22 22:14 | cleary | Fixed now. Thanks for identifying error and letting me know. | |
| 29818720 by cleary @ 2015-03-29 04:09 | 1 | 2023-03-29 00:05 | TreeTracks ♦32 | Hi cleary, do you have any field notes on access on this road? You tagged it as private but the first section passes through a State Forest (which was added to osm after you added the service road) and looks to be public. There's a gate on the W side of the SF. Many thanks once again, Ianht... |
| 2 | 2023-03-29 08:21 | cleary | Hello IanI have not retained any notes from that journey along Bullagreen Lane. I appear to have noted the road through the state forest to have been a private driveway leading to the farm Widgeree. I added the name of the farm and the address, 2000 Bullagreen Lane. I feel confident that would ha... | |
| 3 | 2023-03-30 06:59 | TreeTracks ♦32 | Thanks Michael. I'm reticent to change access restrictions unless I've ground truthed them so I might pass those queries onto you if I come across any more. Best wishes Ian | |
| 4 | 2023-03-30 07:11 | cleary | That's fine. I'm happy to help if I can. | |
| 29942933 by cleary @ 2015-04-03 04:12 | 1 | 2023-03-15 02:06 | TreeTracks ♦32 | Hi Cleary, can you give me some feedback pls on way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/336185313You've tagged this as a private driveway that runs through the Mt Carl property and then continues W, then S, and then E to an unnamed farm. My reading of imagery is that the far western segment,... |
| 2 | 2023-03-15 06:31 | cleary | If you look closely at the NSW Base Map, I think it shows that the track is just beyond the boundary of the Conservation Area and is therefore on private land and probably a private road. The road runs through a wooded area but does not enter the conservation area, as far as I can see. I do not reca... | |
| 3 | 2023-03-15 07:12 | TreeTracks ♦32 | Hi again, yes, the road status is ambiguous on the Base Map. It's shown on an easement (which may or may not exist on the ground) but outside the park shading. I interpreted the parallel roads / tracks at the property (one clearly in the property and one in the easement) to suggest that the wes... | |
| 31192905 by cleary @ 2015-05-16 04:25 | 1 | 2023-03-15 02:39 | TreeTracks ♦32 | Hi again cleary, and other query... https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/345417615The Base Map shows the road just W of this as Dalmallee Road, and this section S of the gate is unnamed. The section N of the gate (N of this way) is also called Dalmallee Road on the Base Map. Any thoughts on the nam... |
| 2 | 2023-03-15 06:00 | cleary | You are right. The section south of the gate should be unnamed and access=private. Dalmallee Road,the public road, is the not-so-well-maintained track to the west of the road that should be unnamed. I have looked at six maps and the NSW address location service. The farm Dalmallee's official ... | |
| 3 | 2023-03-15 07:00 | TreeTracks ♦32 | Thanks for your quick reply. I've changed the stretch south of the gate to a private driveway now and removed the road name. Best wishes Ian | |
| 27833695 by cleary @ 2015-01-01 01:27 | 1 | 2023-03-08 01:57 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Hi,Way: 319796961 tagged natural=water, I have added intermittent=yes. However I question if the tag natural=water is all that 'good'? The DCS Base Map shows 'Land subject to inundation' and I think that here is a flood plain ?? Yes, I know OSM does not have a tag for that yet.... |
| 2 | 2023-03-08 05:38 | cleary | Hello WarinLooking back, I think the Bing imagery that I used must have shown the area completely covered in water with no sign that it was intermittent. Now however it is clear from various imagery sources that the area is not always covered with water, so I agree with adding the intermittent tag... | |
| 3 | 2023-03-08 05:45 | cleary | Sorry that was submitted before I finished editing it. The other thing I wanted to add is that I am not familiar with the "landform" tag.As I said, I am still learning. I have studied a lot of satellite imagery, I have visited many of areas I have mapped (where they are accessible to t... | |
| 4 | 2023-03-08 09:56 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | I'm using 'landform' tag like landcover and landuse. So for things like cliffs peaks .. The 'natural' tag is used for both land forms and land covers .. and is use for both natural things and man effected things.. so to me the tag 'natural' does not make much sense... | |
| 5 | 2023-03-08 10:05 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Oh .. just found thishttps://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/directory.pdf | |
| 6 | 2023-03-09 05:15 | cleary | Thanks for the feedback. I'll look further at the landform tag - I do recall that reservoirs used to be tagged as landuse but the majority view was to change to natural=water+water=reservoir. While water is a naturally occurring substance, it did seem to me that reservoirs were more appropriate... | |
| 92982334 by cleary @ 2020-10-24 09:15 | 1 | 2022-08-11 04:31 | TreeTracks ♦32 | Hi Cleary, I wonder if you could check the paved surface tag on this way , and the adjoining ways to the north, from Fords Bridge to Ella Vale. It's tagged as paved but all the imagery I have available indicates its unpaved from the outskirts of Fords Bridge north. I think you added the surface... |
| 2 | 2022-08-11 06:53 | cleary | Ian, I think you are correct. I remember driving the full length of the Dowling Track and parts of some roads adjoining it. The roads were paved for a few hundred metres right at the main intersection where the hotel is located in Fords Bridge but otherwise I think most were unpaved. A few sections ... | |
| 3 | 2022-08-11 23:28 | TreeTracks ♦32 | Hi again, thanks for your quick reply. I'll fix it up his morning. Best wishes. | |
| 4 | 2023-02-12 06:19 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Hi,Bing shows water in Green Creek, where as in the DCS Imagery it looks bone dry. As it flows into a 'creek' then it cannot be a river? The problem is assign it as either a river or a stream ... after rain .. during flooding it would be a lake :) I'd stick with the name 'Creek... | |
| 5 | 2023-02-12 07:43 | cleary | Hi WarinI don't think that the name necessarily limits how a waterway is mapped. Cooper Creek (aka Coopers Creek) near Windorah and King Creek near Bedourie in Queensland are better-known examples - definitely rivers despite their names. Also a river is not precluded from flowing into... | |
| 91566537 by cleary @ 2020-09-27 00:27 | 1 | 2022-06-23 07:39 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | HiThe DCS Base Map shows Brayton Rd as tertiary .. and that would not be 4DW only ? The road continues south of this section and looks to be in similar condition yet that is tagged as 100 kmh tertiary ... |
| 2 | 2022-06-23 11:28 | cleary | I have mapped it as I saw it. In about 2011 I intended to drive this road starting at Bannaby in a Holden Commodore but there was a 4WD only sign erected by Council and I did not proceed. A year later I drove it in a Prado 4WD and I had no doubt it needed the 4WD especially at the water crossing... | |
| 3 | 2022-06-23 23:16 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Arr found a sign on the road that says '4WD recommended'... I have come across worse roads ... | |
| 4 | 2022-06-23 23:23 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Possibly tracktype=grade6 with 4WD=recommended? | |
| 5 | 2022-06-23 23:27 | cleary | I can only map according to what I see. I did it as accurately as I could. But I don't claim to be right all the time and I know road conditions can change at different times. You are an experienced contributor to OSM and I will accept any changes you might make. | |
| 6 | 2022-06-24 07:39 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | We all 'map what we see'. But there different levels of experience. One 4WD towing a caravan cumming off the savanna way told me "worst road in Australia" as I was entering. However I have been on that road before .. I've been on worse, The unfortunate bit is that renders ... | |
| 7 | 2022-06-24 09:56 | cleary | Warin, I have driven on a range of roads including many in outback NSW and Queensland and this section of Brayton Road is well below the usual standard of dirt/gravel roads. It was very badly rutted in parts with inadequate drainage, deep ridges and holes - one would certainly want a car with good c... | |
| 99887993 by cleary @ 2021-02-24 08:48 | 1 | 2021-02-25 23:12 | TreeTracks ♦32 | Michael, I noticed this change set by chance. I don’t believe that the choke has ever been seen as extending beyond the township of Barmah. As best as I know, it has always been viewed as a feature within the Barmah / Millewa forests but not beyond. The narrowest interpretation would be the N-... |
| 2 | 2021-02-26 01:09 | TheSwavu ♦546 | It's a pretty vague term, but the MDBA usually is referring to the reach from Bullatale Ck to Barmah township when they talk about the "choke":https://www.mdba.gov.au/sites/default/files/pubs/barmah-millewa-forest-sediment-transport-investigation.pdfYou can see that the channe... | |
| 3 | 2021-02-26 04:06 | TreeTracks ♦32 | Thanks for that report Swavu. It’s surprising how poorly the MDBA has defined the ‘choke’ given the amount of attention it gets for water management. If the choke is defined from Bullatale to Barmah township, as in that report, it basically covers the length of the Murray within th... | |
| 4 | 2021-02-26 04:59 | TheSwavu ♦546 | They can be vague about it as it's effect is to limit how much water they can get down the Murray below the Edward. So it's a bit moot about whether the choke is 1 m or 80 km long, it has the same effect on river operations. | |
| 5 | 2021-02-26 09:02 | cleary | Thanks to both TheSwavu and TreeTracks for your comments. I had been reflecting on it further today before I read your comments and I was feeling sure that the choke had to be limited to the areas where there is overflow to the land alongside the river and couldn't extend as far as I had mappe... | |
| 6 | 2021-02-26 09:21 | TreeTracks ♦32 | Hiya I can do it on Sun / Mon. I’ll move it to Bullatale to Barmah as TheSwavu suggested. A relation is better than a point as it does refer to a stretch of the river. The Cadell Fault runs N-S along the W edge of the Millewa forest. If you visit Mathoura you can walk/drive down the old fault ... | |
| 7 | 2021-02-26 10:02 | cleary | Ian, Thanks for that. Thanks also for the info about the location of the fault. I'll be interested to have a look at it even if it is not impressive. | |
| 8 | 2021-02-27 03:47 | TreeTracks ♦32 | Done. I added the report as a source material for the extent of the choke for verification purposes too. | |
| 9 | 2021-02-27 05:48 | cleary | Quick work. Thanks again. Always good to improve the map. | |
| 85480022 by cleary @ 2020-05-20 06:53 | 1 | 2020-05-22 19:59 | user_5359 ♦19,440 | Hello! Did you mean addr:postcode instead addr:po (see https://www.osm.org/node/7540046961 |
| 2 | 2020-05-22 23:48 | cleary | Yes. Now fixed. Thanks for prompting me. | |
| 28765275 by cleary @ 2015-02-11 03:59 | 1 | 2020-03-18 05:06 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Hi,Node 3343155079 has addr:housename=386. Should this not be addr:housenumber=386? |
| 2 | 2020-03-18 07:27 | cleary | Yes. Fixed now. Thanks. | |
| 81428247 by cleary @ 2020-02-25 01:22 | 1 | 2020-03-15 13:57 | Hb- ♦290 | The Acacia Creek has several side streams. So this deletions were partly reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82218026 |
| 79776259 by cleary @ 2020-01-20 05:25 | 1 | 2020-01-23 09:33 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Hi,There are a few problems showing up https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=144.54418&lat=-29.15792&zoom=8Good luck. |
| 2 | 2020-01-23 10:03 | cleary | I'll get those problems fixed tonight or tomorrow. Thanks for making comment. | |
| 78076299 by cleary @ 2019-12-07 00:52 | 1 | 2019-12-07 04:30 | user_5359 ♦19,440 | Hello! Please have a look on the http://www.osm.org/node/4877496290/history. I changed your key "(new tag)" to source (Hoping to have fixed it correctly). |
| 2 | 2019-12-07 07:09 | cleary | Yes, you have it right. Thanks for rectifying this error. | |
| 18761661 by cleary @ 2013-11-07 09:44 | 1 | 2019-04-18 03:06 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | HI,Would this be the road junction of vic rd and Pennant Hills rds ..? might be better as the tag for highway=junction name= etc now.. |
| 2 | 2019-04-18 05:41 | cleary | I have never used the highway=junction tag and I am uncertain of its significance or usefulness - everything seems to work without it. If I am missing something, please point me to the relevant information.In regard to Shorts Corner, the name was formerly very popular dating back to the 1930s wh... | |
| 3 | 2019-04-18 05:58 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | It was a though to reduce the use of place=locality.. but looking at pierces corner .. there are lots of crossings of the ways there and most of them have traffic light tags on them as they should. So if I were to try and place a highway=junction where would I place it??? As highway=junction does no... | |
| 4 | 2019-04-18 09:46 | cleary | Sounds reasonable. Happy mapping. | |
| 31936187 by cleary @ 2015-06-13 04:45 | 1 | 2018-11-16 11:07 | LakatosVL ♦17 | Hello,this is a huge changeset, at this location -31.18719, 148.5420291 I found that the old name is Ulundry Road, but the LPI NSW Base Map shows Nortongong Road. Can you confirm which one is correct.Thanks |
| 2 | 2018-11-17 00:54 | cleary | I have recorded that I obtained the name from a sign at the intersection with Castlereagh Highway approx 3 years ago. I drove on Castlereagh Highway again in approx April or May this year, correcting any discrepancies in OSM but did not change that road name, so that I think that the signed name, Ul... | |
| 3 | 2018-11-17 19:39 | LakatosVL ♦17 | Thanks for a answer, I will put altname from LPI NSW Base Map until we get another information. | |
| 4 | 2019-01-22 06:50 | cleary | The LPI NSW Address Location Service is a permitted data source for OSM. While the LPI Base Map contains some errors, I have found the Address Location Service to be always correct. This service identifies the road as Nortongang Road so I accept that as the current and correct name. I will leave it ... | |
| 5 | 2019-01-22 08:48 | LakatosVL ♦17 | Thanks Cleary. I altered name as shows LPI NSW Base Map. If you find that the name has changed, be free to change it. | |
| 6 | 2019-04-16 06:46 | cleary | I surveyed again in this area last week. The road is signposted as Ulundry Road at the western end (Castlereagh Highway) and as Nortongang Road at the eastern end. I have contacted Coonamble Shire Council to see if one sign is error or if name changes aprtway along the road. | |
| 68865411 by cleary @ 2019-04-04 03:58 | 1 | 2019-04-08 22:22 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Hi,Way 681529263 is tagged ur=un ...??? |
| 2 | 2019-04-09 10:20 | cleary | Now corrected to "surface=unpaved". Thanks for highlighting this error. | |
| 67635259 by cleary @ 2019-02-28 00:27 | 1 | 2019-02-28 08:05 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Hi,Way 673509617 made into a multi poyon retlation. It is the only method to have an area with a hole in it. |
| 2 | 2019-02-28 08:26 | cleary | Thanks | |
| 60111716 by cleary @ 2018-06-24 02:39 | 1 | 2018-07-04 05:32 | RoundCircle ♦9 | G'day Cleary,I recently began importing the Australian marine parks and noticed that you have made a start as well!Unfortunately, the CAPAD 2016 data is out of date because new management plans began for almost all commonwealth reserves on the 1st of this month. Most importantly:\... |
| 2 | 2018-07-04 06:04 | RoundCircle ♦9 | And just to clarify my methods,I have not included the zoning of the reserves in my imports for a few reasons:*It's not in CAPAD! (yet).*A single marine park is more straightforward for OSM users.*I am using Wikidata tags which reference the reserve as a whole (this is not a lim... | |
| 3 | 2018-07-04 06:16 | RoundCircle ♦9 | Oh bugger, I commented on the wrong changeset.I was explaining my reasoning for the Commonwealth reserves only. | |
| 4 | 2018-07-04 06:25 | TheSwavu ♦546 | Please stop importing any more of this data. We only have permission from DoEE to use the CAPAD datasets. We do not have permission to use any of their other data sets. This will have to wait till 2019 when the CAPAD2018 gets released.Also please stop importing anything else without discussing i... | |
| 5 | 2018-07-04 07:04 | RoundCircle ♦9 | Just to clarify this is CAPAD 2016 data, with names extrapolated from the review. | |
| 6 | 2018-07-04 10:02 | cleary | I think TheSwavu's point still stands. As far as I know we don't yet have permission to use any data, including names, from your new source. Some of the data in OSM quickly becomes obsolete and one of the merits of OSM is the ability to update it quickly - as long as it is from permitted... | |
| 7 | 2018-07-04 11:16 | RoundCircle ♦9 | I have continued the discussion in the mailing list.Regards,Lee | |
| 8 | 2019-02-08 23:44 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Hi,The relation for Montebello Islands Marine Park (Southern Montebellos Sanctuary Zone) was not closed. I have closed it using the boundary for Montebello Islands Marine Park (General Use Zone). I used what is in OSM, no reference to anything else. Hopefully when the next release occurs this all ... | |
| 9 | 2019-02-09 04:59 | cleary | Good work. Thank you. | |
| 59616093 by cleary @ 2018-06-06 22:11 | 1 | 2018-06-06 23:33 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | HI,These tags already exist in the relation - they are duplication and I have removed the tags... but The relation is not closed.. as these 2 ways do not form an area Ways: 594644996 and 594644996.. perhaps they should be removed from the relation untill this can be resolved? Put tags on them ... |
| 2 | 2018-06-06 23:59 | cleary | I am still working on this relation. It is rather complex and I am doing it slowly and trying to doublecheck it. I should be finshed in a two or three days. Perhaps you might check again in a few days to be sure I have it right. | |
| 3 | 2018-06-07 00:16 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Good Luck with it.. | |
| 49184664 by cleary @ 2017-06-02 06:03 | 1 | 2018-05-28 16:05 | CloCkWeRX ♦343 | Which is the correct peak? https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4958235368 |
| 2 | 2018-05-28 23:37 | cleary | Sorry but I don't recall the circumstances of that edit and I don't know where the second node for Philcox Hill originated. However another mapper appears already to have deleted the duplicate node. I think it is now OK. | |
| 58101353 by cleary @ 2018-04-15 02:59 | 1 | 2018-04-16 21:29 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Hi,This is not closed. I'm not getting into that CAPAD thing so I leave it to you. |
| 57585688 by cleary @ 2018-03-28 02:35 | 1 | 2018-03-28 06:27 | Gppes ♦90 | Hi, could you please clarify your intentions according to this changeset? Greetings from Austria! |
| 2 | 2018-03-28 06:54 | cleary | The uploaded ways did not upload correctly and multiple orphan nodes are being removed. Will be uploaded again later in smaller groups of ways. | |
| 57554119 by cleary @ 2018-03-27 04:32 | 1 | 2018-03-27 10:59 | Gppes ♦90 | Hi, your are creating a reasonable number of "coastline errors", they have quite an impact on rendering wide areas of the map!Have a look here:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=coastline#How_to_enter_the_dataGreetings from Austria, Gppes |
| 2 | 2018-03-27 11:00 | Gppes ♦90 | Another question, are you sure, that this "island" should be mapped? way id: 573387988, it probably contradicts the wiki (link above). | |
| 3 | 2018-03-28 04:22 | cleary | I have been attempting to add the Recherche Archipelago Nature Reserve to the map. OSM has been given permission to include this information from official data. The archipelago consists of more than one hundred islands and I have been adding them in groups. I am aware of some errors in mapping the n... | |
| 4 | 2018-03-28 05:43 | Gppes ♦90 | Hi, thanks for your reply. I was referring to the single island with the way id: 573387988 this single island (only this specific case) was completely covered by water and contradicts this section in the wiki:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=coastline#Where_is_the_coastline.3FIt... | |
| 44150354 by cleary @ 2016-12-04 04:10 | 1 | 2018-01-19 05:21 | ToeBee ♦183 | Do you happen to remember details about this changeset? You mapped several barrier=gate objects like this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4537155778 Someone from that area contacted the Data Working Group complaining that their Garmin was refusing to route through these gates. This person s... |
| 2 | 2018-01-19 07:37 | cleary | There was definitely a gate when I went through there in approx December 2016. There were also quite a few gates on Joulnie Road and Sanpah Road and the northern section of Border Downs Road. It is not unusual to have gates on public roads in remote areas. Often local councils will construct cattle ... | |
| 3 | 2018-01-19 20:02 | ToeBee ♦183 | So here's a neat trick. See this route: https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=-30.935%2C141.256%3B-30.916%2C141.249Then switch from "Car (OSRM)" to "Car (GraphHopper)". Obviously different routing algorithms handle gates differently. And I al... | |
| 4 | 2018-01-20 04:57 | cleary | I have now added access=yes tags to gates on public roads in this area (at least to those with which I am familiar). | |
| 5 | 2018-01-22 03:39 | TheSwavu ♦546 | I'd be more worried about the kind of person that would be driving around this part of NSW following a route provided by their GPS rather than knowing where they are going. | |
| 52945671 by cleary @ 2017-10-15 04:54 | 1 | 2017-10-18 12:53 | mueschel ♦6,576 | Hi,what do you mean by 'cycles' here? Bicycle or motorcycle?http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/532650535#map=16/-37.8383/145.6264Cheers, Jan |
| 2 | 2017-10-18 23:39 | cleary | I have changed tag to "bicycle" - was my error. Thanks for noticing and bringing it to my attention. | |
| 13600970 by cleary @ 2012-10-23 05:07 | 1 | 2017-10-14 02:37 | aharvey ♦1,750 | With relation 2521345 any reason why you've used except=psv? From the signage it should be except=bus? |
| 2 | 2017-10-14 02:37 | aharvey ♦1,750 | https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-33.771155303278704&lng=151.08031233063525&z=17&username%5B%5D=aharvey&signs=true&pKey=tV6yavMPhO16GMGJxU_DLA&focus=photo&menu=false&x=0.8206062351231989&y=0.13901422932967647&zoom=3 | |
| 3 | 2017-10-14 06:06 | cleary | I think I was wrong, confusing "bus" with "psv". Also it appears hours have been changed since restriction was first added. I would be pleased if you could correct the information. Thanks for your conscientious observation of this error. | |
| 4 | 2017-10-15 03:00 | aharvey ♦1,750 | no problem. done in http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52944761 | |
| 48837029 by cleary @ 2017-05-20 06:55 | 1 | 2017-09-26 03:03 | CloCkWeRX ♦343 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4865716957 and many of the others on this way seem to be duplicated nodes nowhttps://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?schema=50&error=103611445 |
| 2 | 2017-09-26 08:33 | cleary | The way is actually the administrative boundary and is not necessarily that of the river. Another user added the "river" tag to the administrative boundary (which is an approximation) instead of mapping the actual river. I will contact the mapper and ask about mapping the river separately,... | |
| 16545520 by cleary @ 2013-06-14 05:05 | 1 | 2017-04-03 02:23 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Hi,The LPI Base Map has West Tipla Rd as tertiary ... and the East Tipla Rd as secondary .. any objections to changing this? Note .. have to add East Tipla Rd to OSM! ... |
| 2 | 2017-04-03 04:14 | cleary | I think it is probably outdated information in LPI map. I haven't driven all the way on the west road but the east road is very average in standard. Central Darling Shire Council rates the west side as a main road (MR) for which it would get State funding (therefore possibly a secondary in OSM... | |
| 3 | 2017-04-03 04:17 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | P.S A relevant doc http://www.centraldarling.nsw.gov.au/about-the-shire/road-condition-report.aspxNote the 'road description' not road name. | |
| 4 | 2017-04-03 04:25 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Ha crossing info ... both on to the same view though. | |
| 28155091 by cleary @ 2015-01-15 07:56 | 1 | 2017-03-29 02:01 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Hi,You have way 322193363 tagged as a private track .. the LPI base map shows this as a tertiary road ... several other roads are shown out here on the LPI Base map too. I'll put those in. Arr came to your way 259154081 - tagged as driveway private yet LPI shows it as tertiary. Similar for ... |
| 2 | 2017-03-29 04:11 | cleary | I have driven on many roads in far west there but not that one, nor the roads to Cymbric Vale and WIlandra. From the Barrier Highway, those roads look like private roads and I think they had gates or cattle grids and there were definitely no signs to suggest public roads. I traced the tracks from Bi... | |
| 3 | 2017-03-29 04:15 | cleary | Further comment. I remember driving on Waterbag Road and I recall that the track to Cymbric Vale was just a track, didn't look anything like Waterbag Road (which I think was graded and reasonable gravel suface,) and there was no sign to indicate public access was permitted to Cymbric Vale. | |
| 46776851 by cleary @ 2017-03-12 03:30 | 1 | 2017-03-23 23:13 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Hi,By making a new node and moving the boundary by 0.2 m the OSM inspector error is removed .. very little effect in the real world. It dose create a 'gap' of 0.2 metres. .. cheating I know. |
| 46889500 by cleary @ 2017-03-16 07:16 | 1 | 2017-03-16 11:10 | CloCkWeRX ♦343 | Ah nice, we did some work to add names, but not so much work to find the ones that were slightly off from data.sa.gov.au info |
| 2 | 2017-03-17 04:50 | cleary | Thanks for the feedback. | |
| 44528330 by cleary @ 2016-12-19 23:12 | 1 | 2016-12-20 00:38 | TheSwavu ♦546 | Err... by definition unincorporated areas don't need a admin_level=6 boundary. |
| 2 | 2016-12-20 09:30 | cleary | Hello Swavu. The Pastoral Unincorporated Area of South Australia is a designated area with boundaries published in the South Australian government Local Government Areas dataset. It is administered differently (it has a "designated authority" rather than a council. But then the metropolita... | |
| 3 | 2016-12-20 10:27 | TheSwavu ♦546 | That may all be true, but this area is not administrated under the Local Government Act so therefore it's not a council and not admin_level 6. | |
| 4 | 2016-12-20 22:46 | tastrax ♦1,147 | Given the admin levels are "proposed" in the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative) what level do you suggest TheSwavu? From my understanding of Australia level 6 is the most appropriate. | |
| 5 | 2016-12-21 00:41 | TheSwavu ♦546 | No level as it not a thing that you need to map. The unincorporated areas of South Australia are the bits inside the admin_level 4 boundary but not inside an admin_level 6 boundary. | |
| 37033067 by cleary @ 2016-02-05 23:32 | 1 | 2016-11-27 05:46 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Way 354530546 appears to be a private plantation, Removed relation referring to this single relation and added tags landuse=forest, note=possibly a private plantation possibly Nanagrve Station. |
| 29464053 by cleary @ 2015-03-14 05:59 | 1 | 2016-10-17 04:20 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Tucklan ... while the council and post office may not regard it as a hamlet, I'd not think of it as a neighborhood either. I think in OSM terms .. hamlet. |
| 39365285 by cleary @ 2016-05-16 23:21 | 1 | 2016-06-29 13:23 | gormo ♦159 | Hi,there already is a boundary for the national park, see http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/56117565 . Please respect existing data while importing, and please tag any new information onto the existing OSM features. And please use established OSM tags, and don't just dump some external data ... |
| 2 | 2016-07-01 00:48 | cleary | I'm sorry for any error. I have been checking administrative boundaries in South Australia and adding relations for those boundaries. In many instances, national park boundaries coincide with administrative boundaries and, where no relation previously existed, I have also created relations for ... | |
| 40220219 by cleary @ 2016-06-23 06:24 | 1 | 2016-06-28 08:10 | R0bst3r ♦1,094 | Hi cleary,looks like your coastline is not finished: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5213733 is separated from http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5213756. Was it intended?Maybe "is_in:national park" can be changed to "is_in:national_park"?Cheers, R0bst3r |
| 2 | 2016-06-28 23:06 | cleary | Thanks for this advice. Much appreciated. Now correct, I hope. | |
| 16109568 by cleary @ 2013-05-13 12:25 | 1 | 2016-05-11 00:50 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Hi, moved Node: Hillston Post Office (2302362776) to corner - as per LPI Base Map and Austpost website address. Imagery has this as a burnt out shell.. added fixme for survey confirmation (and address information. . |
| 36909562 by cleary @ 2016-01-31 03:51 | 1 | 2016-02-01 12:19 | R0bst3r ♦1,094 | manmade changed to man_made=silo. Also building=yes added. |
| 36771617 by cleary @ 2016-01-24 08:49 | 1 | 2016-01-24 18:04 | Endres Pelka ♦391 | Hello, you broke the boundary relations of Corrong (5740913) and One Tree (5740798). If you're currently improving boundaries in this area, please be so kind and fix it. |