Changeset No. Date Contributor Comment
12017-09-14 03:15:52 UTCsamuelrussell Sydney cbd mobile survey, concentrating on bicycle dismount versus end sup. No end SUP signs. Railways act only used on concourse. Dismount sign has no lawful power to stop cyclists riding in nsw on an sup. It is a hazard sign like slow children crossing or dip

There are no police or atc giving a...
22018-05-11 04:38:54 UTCinas I've undone this change.

Two reasons.

1. When in doubt, we should go with what's on the ground. In addition to the dismount signs, this is not a practical or safe cycling location.

2. It is likely illegal to cycle here. Under the railways act - and this is railway property - make it illega...
12018-05-09 23:41:01 UTCaharvey It doesn't look like that footbridge actually connects to the road at that point, instead remaining physically separated as it goes down into the carpark along side the service road.

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/wgON86OwNE5D5Pkry1ofzQ

Mind if you or I fix this up?
22018-05-09 23:46:16 UTCinas I agree. I'll fix it tonight, if you don't get to it first.
12018-01-08 03:43:59 UTCMartini097 This seemed to be a perfectly reasonable footpath - has it been removed for new development, that imagery doesn't show?
22018-01-08 03:47:44 UTCMartini097 Hello!
Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!
I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and found some errors or elements
that could be mapped in a better way. Feel free to message me
to know more about it or visit http://learnosm.o...
32018-01-08 03:52:46 UTCinas Good afternoon. Thank you for your comments. My edit was intended and correct. The user who added these "round-the-block" designated cycleways has a particular view that once a cycleway sign is encountered, that that cycleway continues around blocks until a cycleway sign is encountered....
42018-01-08 03:58:54 UTCMartini097 alright, sounds good - i was just concerned you had removed the whole way, rather than tags :)
52018-01-08 03:59:58 UTCinas Of course, thanks for checking!
62018-01-08 04:01:18 UTCMartini097 Hello!
My previous review of your changeset was wrong, so I'm changing its
status to unreviewed on OSMCHA. Sorry for the error.
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/55252846
12018-01-02 03:01:04 UTCinas Can you please explain the basis for the naming of this cycleway \t"LAJ1 Rhodes to Homebush Bay" . I haven't been able to verify this naming.
12017-12-17 10:04:42 UTCMateusz Konieczny Sorry for bothering you about an extremely old changeset - but why https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23406969#map=17/-33.8672983/151.1915032layers=N is not tagged as highway=steps? What is the meaning of steps=yes here? See http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/tPd for more cases (I considered armchair mapping...
22017-12-18 02:58:42 UTCinas Hi. It means the normal thing. Its a pedestrian footway linking two roads, with steps making it unsuitable for cycling (without dismounting - of course).
32017-12-18 06:28:07 UTCMateusz Konieczny So why it is not marked as highway=steps?
42017-12-18 07:05:23 UTCMateusz Konieczny (at least I map low-density steps as highway=steps, given that for all purposes that I can imagine these are steps - including wheelchair, pedestrian and bicycle routing, rendering, statistics etc)
52017-12-18 08:04:05 UTCinas I'm really not sure what you're asking me. I've described the footway that has steps as part of it, and I think the current tagging is fine. If you're on a mission to search in overpass, and get rid of all steps=yes tags across the planet, then that's fine too.
12016-10-28 05:32:36 UTCWarin61 Hi
navigationaid= rather than naviagationaid
22016-10-28 05:36:18 UTCinas ta
12016-04-03 01:05:23 UTCinas This changeset created Wills Reserve, near Crookwell. From imagery, there doesn't appear to be any conservation reserve there, the boundary crosses roads, farmland, and residences, with no indication the land is special in any way. Is there a source?
12016-03-29 12:39:36 UTCinas I notice this changeset changed Crookwell from a GNB town to a GNB locality. This isn't the case - Crookwell is still a GNB town. There is also a locality Crookwell. Was this a scripted change?
22016-03-29 22:05:41 UTCTheSwavu No this was a manual edit. I did a comparison between all of the place nodes in NSW tagged with ref:nswgnb and checked to make sure that their place:nswgnb were still correct. These are all the places that needed their place:nswgnb changed to "LOCALITY".

In the case of Crookwell the pla...
32016-03-29 22:21:00 UTCinas I'm really sceptical that GNB are changing towns to localities in their database - especially for places like Crookwell. Perhaps we need to understand the changes actually being made to reflect these in OSM.
42016-06-21 14:28:44 UTCCloCkWeRX http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/113764320 is still marked as a village, but it doesn't really look too inhabited - is it better tagged as place=locality?
52016-06-22 00:38:52 UTCTheSwavu I didn't change the place tags on any of these only the place:nswgnb:

http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=113764320

Personally if a place doesn't make it onto the list of UCLs:

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/05773C1D8C9F2022CA257A98001399F7?opendocument

I'd t...
62016-06-22 00:48:22 UTCCloCkWeRX Yup, that prompted it
72016-06-22 04:48:28 UTCTheSwavu Good-O. I won't bother then.
12016-01-24 08:04:37 UTCinas This relation is very ugly, and very inaccurate, cutting across all kinds of actual features.

Can you expand on why it is actually required?
22016-02-09 07:39:30 UTCTheSwavu When you create a job with the OSM Tasking Manager (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Tasking_Manager) you need to specify an area that the job covers.

I was leaving it for the time being in case I needed it again. At some point in the future it could grow up to be the admin_level=7 boundar...
32016-02-14 01:13:15 UTCTheSwavu I've updated this to be the region boundary for Sydney so please don't delete.
42016-02-15 04:19:41 UTCinas It's looking much better now. Thanks for your effort.
12015-10-21 16:43:26 UTCGerdP please review: way 130845148
was changed from highway=footway to
highway=traffic_signals !??
Bing seems to show a small bridge here?
22015-10-21 23:50:10 UTCinas It's just an illusion, there is no bridge here. I've fixed the mis-tagging. Thanks.
32015-10-22 03:34:05 UTCGerdP okay, thanks for the feedback.
12015-07-20 09:42:32 UTCaharvey 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.
22015-07-20 09:51:09 UTCinas Oops. Yes. Looks like you've fixed it up?
32015-07-20 10:01:24 UTCaharvey 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?
42015-07-20 11:29:28 UTCinas yep. done.
inas has contributed to 11 changeset discussions(s) with a total of 37 comment(s)