| Changeset | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 112874299 by ortho_is_hot @ 2021-10-23 13:27 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | thebeastmodo1 ♦15 | Yeah that footpath on the roundabout near Molly Morgan Drive is a shared path. |
| 173963394 by ortho_is_hot @ 2025-10-30 08:39 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | tastrax ♦1,203 | Many thanks for this update. |
| 114577565 by ortho_is_hot @ 2021-12-05 10:51 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | Warin61 ♦2,794 | There is only ONE bus route 695! Not 6 of them. |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | Warin61 ♦2,794 | ? Looks like you might be correct.. must be somewhat confusing Been putting 686 back into sequential order... | |
| 160945957 by ortho_is_hot @ 2025-01-03 12:11 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | ortho_is_hot | survey:date should read 2025-01-03 |
| 124139461 by ortho_is_hot @ 2022-07-27 12:34 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | are you sure the school zone was removed at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/755189316/history#map=19/-33.878906/151.236409 ? From all the imagery sources I can see it's still there. |
| 140889737 by ortho_is_hot @ 2023-09-06 11:06 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | just_another_mapper ♦15 | Hah, you beat me to it by one hour!! Nice edit |
| 126357140 by ortho_is_hot @ 2022-09-19 07:18 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,794 | See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpublic_bookcase for a street public library... if that is what node 10035839623 is. |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Thanks, you are correct, will update the node | |
| 113888449 by ortho_is_hot @ 2021-11-17 09:34 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,794 | Hi,"Bus Route 180X: Singleton Station to Maitland Station (Express Service)" is not a name but a description... something far shorter would attrack less 'attention' in the name tag? "Bus 180X Singleton to Maitland" .??? |
| 113805895 by ortho_is_hot @ 2021-11-15 13:30 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Apologies for the worldwide changeset - I mistakenly edited a similar sounding location on the other side of the world (have corrected this) |
| 113677833 by ortho_is_hot @ 2021-11-12 05:01 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,794 | Hirelation 13431424 has two shared segments - against the 'rules'. https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=152.79667&lat=-31.64247&zoom=17 |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Ah nice catch, thank you, I will re-do the relation so it fits better | |
| 107349959 by ortho_is_hot @ 2021-07-03 11:36 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | jpennycook ♦330 | Hi!Thanks for fixing my error.Jon |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | ortho_is_hot | No worries, happy mapping! | |
| 87799546 by ortho_is_hot @ 2020-07-10 06:50 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | FYI addr:flats is to list out the unit numbers at the address, not a total count of units. building:flats is for the count of units in the building. Per the wiki. |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Nice catch didn't notice that one, will go through and correct occurrences tomorrow.Thanks,ortho | |
| 99592470 by ortho_is_hot @ 2021-02-19 12:06 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,794 | Hi,Think you may have the construction mixed up with the existing road - see Way: The Northern Road (369219092) |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Hi, as the upgrade has progressed they've been swapping the alignment to either side; in this case they've finished the new section on the eastern side so two way traffic is using that and they're upgrading the western side which is the original alignment, which is why I marked it as ... | |
| 3 | ~ 5 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,794 | Arr .. good oh. I came across it as these were used for the council boundaries .. the changes made the boundaries wrong. I have remove them from the roads using the PSMA data. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Whoops sorry about that thanks for correcting, I think the boundaries should be separate ways anyway but cool | |
| 98696655 by ortho_is_hot @ 2021-02-04 10:08 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Comment should've said: Reverted changesets 98442510 and 98442734 as a separate way is not needed for contraflow lanes (JOSM seems to have had an error) |
| 95399132 by ortho_is_hot @ 2020-12-07 06:48 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Link should actually be https://client.damn-project.org/?area=2230&square=227 |
| 92799358 by ortho_is_hot @ 2020-10-21 04:25 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,794 | Hi,Where did you get that these areas are part of 'St Helena Village'? Survey? |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Hi, the signage on the ground (2020 survey) and website https://www.mcdonaldjoneshomes.com.au/house-and-land-packages/newcastle-hunter/lochinvar/st-helena-estate all have the village in smaller writing underneath. You could argue its not technically the name, which was why I added it as an alternati... | |
| 94566719 by ortho_is_hot @ 2020-11-22 01:58 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | tastrax ♦1,203 | Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added according to the following format +61 x xxxx xxxx, (+61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles) or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines - I have just updat... |
| 93899264 by ortho_is_hot @ 2020-11-11 05:43 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | WoodWoseWulf ♦1,163 | I just noticed this while darting about the map and was wondering who did all this beautifully detailed mapping out here. Of course it was you. Nice work! |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Thanks! I plan to add more detail like this unless there are any objections ;) | |
| 94137392 by ortho_is_hot @ 2020-11-15 09:51 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | This section in front of BMW https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/833049204/history is not a shared path. |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Sorry my mistake, I was a block off. I'll revert my changes, thanks for pointing that one out | |
| 3 | ~ 5 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/833049205 was okay, it can be highway=cycleway because it's got the side painted lines and the dotted centre line. | |
| 91208700 by ortho_is_hot @ 2020-09-21 07:29 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | Great work. I saw this one recently but wasn't on my bike so didn't manage to grab a trace. There looked like cycleway on the eastern side too. |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Thanks, from what I can see it's meant to be a separated version of the cross here with care, and that it makes its way somewhat sharply from the east side of the building to the west side of the tunnel exit. Good luck cycling on the freeway though, I couldn't do it myself in a million yea... | |
| 3 | ~ 5 years ago | ortho_is_hot | I've added the other one here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/91254020It essentially does the same thing -- the shoulder changes path to guide you into the separated cycleway (with a bicycles must exit), and straight after the tunnel portal is fully underground, it reconnects with ... | |
| 4 | ~ 5 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | I tried to survey this, but couldn't work out how to get access, at both the Pacific Highway onramp and Ku-ruing-gai Chase Road onramp there are no bicycle signs on M1 present. | |
| 5 | ~ 5 years ago | ortho_is_hot | My best guess is that there is some form of ongoing construction or they need some sort of approval before they remove the signage. Given that there is signage I would think that its still a no go for a while | |
| 90897765 by ortho_is_hot @ 2020-09-15 05:17 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | Pilot152 ♦2 | Nice edit! Could be a little curvier ;) --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/90897765 |
| 89746377 by ortho_is_hot @ 2020-08-21 12:32 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Correction, bridge=yes should read tunnel=yes |
| 88198054 by ortho_is_hot @ 2020-07-19 11:23 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,794 | And destroyed admin boundaries that existed along this road.... mutter mutter. |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Based on both the bounding box (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88126138) and the visualisation [and relation modifications] (https://osmcha.org/changesets/88126138/) of this changeset from tfnsw, as well as the ways that you added to the relation (https://osmcha.org/changesets/89550405), I ... | |
| 89559820 by ortho_is_hot @ 2020-08-18 08:09 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Changesets reverted: 89547291, 89547219, 89547119, 89547009, 89546947, 89546740, 89546619, 89546467, 89546339, 89546258, 89546223, 89545787, 89545736, 89545697, 89545624, 89545559, 89544453, 89544366, 89544335, 89544289, 89544238, 89544200, 89543385, 89543326, 89543264, 89543162, 89543120, 89543105,... |
| 89447092 by ortho_is_hot @ 2020-08-15 14:15 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | PJ1342 ♦10 | Hi, Good job with this changeset however with the kerb it does extend down the road although it isn't well defined it does extend down the road (as per surveying it) if you want i can extend it down the road. |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Yeah if you want you can extend it downward, it's a bit hard to see with imagery so local knowledge would be best | |
| 88645653 by ortho_is_hot @ 2020-07-29 01:47 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | must have only happened in the last few days then on the 24th of July there was still a barrier https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/NX3nPJVRLcH_eWl_F0qaqQ |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Not sure when/if they are going to remove the orange barrier (they may leave it to prevent stray cars from driving into the cycleway however the concrete ramp has had its barrier removed and the paint/bicycle crossing lanterns have all been installed. From the looks of things the markings and crossi... | |
| 3 | ~ 5 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | Yeah it's the one on the concrete ramp I was talking about, but with it gone then you're right it's open! | |
| 88007583 by ortho_is_hot @ 2020-07-15 05:04 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | pza ♦87 | Can we really use maxspeed:type=AU:urban given different states have different values? Or do we assume routers will additionally look up which state a road is in? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_Australia#Default_speed_limits_by_state_and_territory --- ... |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Interesting, it seems that StreetComplete no longer allows you to put in the maxspeed when the source is a default. So in answer to your question, the maxspeed should be entered first, then the :type as additional information (which I'll go ahead and fix now). Personally I use AU:urban because ... | |
| 87396727 by ortho_is_hot @ 2020-07-01 11:05 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | but if these are no longer open to motor vehicle traffic, we should at least add motor_vehicle=private. |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | ortho_is_hot | The changes were done my a new mapper who changed a bunch of tracks etc into shared paths, but these roads are currently and have been for any reasonable time, roads for vehicles. I'm just about to contact them, but possibly they misunderstood the preset in iD. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | okay if you know what's on the ground, I thought that they closed off all these roads to cars because of all the extra cyclists out during covid. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 years ago | ortho_is_hot | The one "car free zone" (due to covid) that does exist in centennial park wasn't actually adjusted in this changeset, but I will go double-check in person today. However I have seen vehicles use these roads that were changed recently. And unfortunately the cycleways in the area aren&#... | |
| 5 | ~ 5 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | no worries, trust you with the local knowledge then. It was only back in my uni days that I did the occasional lap around here. | |
| 6 | ~ 5 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Went ahead and checked on-the-ground what was changed, all of it was existing infrastructure, none of which explicitly allowed bicycles (I'll attempt to verify the pop-up cycleway tomorrow as 'construction' was started a short time ago ) | |
| 85328826 by ortho_is_hot @ 2020-05-17 09:51 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | ortho_is_hot | "disused=highway=trunk" should read "disused:highway=trunk" |
| 83502936 by ortho_is_hot @ 2020-04-14 03:10 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | survey:date is actually 2019-11-20 |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | mueschel ♦7,087 | Could you check this POI? Is "Biga" the name?https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7400227061 | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Thanks for pointing that issue out; yes "Biga" is the name. I've gone ahead and fixed it: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7400227061Cheers,ortho_is_hot | |
| 83506528 by ortho_is_hot @ 2020-04-14 04:52 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | survey:date is actually 2019-11-20 |
| 83086862 by ortho_is_hot @ 2020-04-05 02:35 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | samuelrussell ♦50 | I surveyed those benches in person mate |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | samuelrussell ♦50 | Oh look here: node 4094611856 mapillary tag: vnPGfRGaxIQ14mtfzIMc2gmapillary imagery: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&pKey=vnPGfRGaxIQ14mtfzIMc2g&lat=-33.882305555555554&lng=151.202225&z=17would sincerely appreciate your revert on the deleted nodes. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | I checked the mapillary images whilst editing and as per the images, the benches that I deleted do not exist. They are not visible in the mapillary images, aerial imagery, or in my own photographs which are the most up to date | |
| 4 | ~ 6 years ago | samuelrussell ♦50 | Thank you for reviewing the most recent images. Aerial isn't always most valuable. Thank you for checking mapillary and your own. | |
| 81061082 by ortho_is_hot @ 2020-02-16 03:34 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | If you're using TfNSW cycleways data then per the waiver agreement https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:TfNSW_OSM_CCBY_Signed_Waiver.pdf we need to provide attribution at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#New_South_Wales_Government_data Can you add the attribution for the ori... |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | I've gone ahead and added it to the page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Contributors&oldid=1958298 I presume the way I've added it is mostly correct. Thanks for pointing it out | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | yep that's fine thanks. Just keep an eye out when using the data as it sometimes may be outdated. | |
| 4 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Yeah, that seems to be a key concern as I've noticed errors in some places. I've been crosschecking this particular case with street view and my own survey of the area in this case, and I hope that others do the same | |
| 5 | ~ 6 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | Absolutely, it's why I advocate against doing an import of this data. What I do think it is useful for is identifying areas which are different which may indicate an error in OSM (or in TfNSW data) and then we go and check those via imagery/mapillary/ground survey to see if OSM needs updating.... | |
| 6 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Aggreed, I feel that this data is good for reference such as width key or operator, rather than importing missing data without other checks.Also if you're interested in using it, another mapper has created an XML for osmosis use to convert it into OSM keys (OSM discord server, #asia-pacific... | |
| 7 | ~ 6 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | Where's the OSM discourd server #asia-pacific channel?I went to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discord_servers and joined the International one but I can't see any #asia-pacific channel. | |
| 8 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | You're correct, it's in the International server but the channel itself is right at the very bottom in the server. I've gone ahead and at mentioned you in the channel so you should be able to find it. | |
| 9 | ~ 6 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | If you're planning on importing this data can I ask you put together some notes in an email on talk-au or on the OSM wiki so we can discuss this please?For example I noticed here you have "surface" and "suface".Regarding difficultly I don't think this should be ... | |
| 10 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | I've gone ahead and created a wiki page (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TfNSW_Cycleways_Data) where details can be added after it is discussed with talk-au, which is something that should be planned shortly (perhaps as a group message). Seeing as quarky created the gist and made the data u... | |
| 80691751 by ortho_is_hot @ 2020-02-07 12:51 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | mueschel ♦7,087 | Hi,could you check this, it got a 'shope' tag:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/770635534Thanks! |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Whoops, thats a misspelling on my part. I've gone ahead and fixed it; thanks for pointing it out | |
| 79192488 by ortho_is_hot @ 2020-01-04 15:48 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | Top job! |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Cheers, I tried as well as I could | |
| 78582251 by ortho_is_hot @ 2019-12-18 12:44 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | mueschel ♦7,087 | Hi,you added some traffic_sign tags here:traffic_sign:2 = AU:R4-4traffic_sign:3 = AU:R2-10I would like to point out that there is no need to separate them in individual tags, you can just combine them in one:traffic_sign = AU:R4-4;AU:R2-10Cheers, Jan |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | G'day mueschel,I was unaware of this tagging scheme but thank you for pointing out the error. I have now adopted this mechanism.Thanks again,ortho_is_hot | |
| 78136989 by ortho_is_hot @ 2019-12-09 08:23 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | There's two other relations which reference this as well https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10214162 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9736832.I wonder what we should use for the network tag? |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Ah I see there is a relation also for each direction of services as well that I missed, thanks.As for network, I think "Sydney Light Rail" because it's in line with the rest of the transport network (Sydney Buses, Sydney Trains, etc), it has a website called "Sydney light rai... | |
| 77807463 by ortho_is_hot @ 2019-12-02 08:49 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | *eastbound NOT westbound |
| 77732507 by ortho_is_hot @ 2019-11-29 13:51 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | What's your source for that? Their website has it as Brighton Boulevard in Bondi Beach, not Hastings Parade in North Bondi.See the addr:suburb and addr:city now conflict, we should just use one. |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | I queried the address on sixmaps and it showed it as being "27-29 HASTINGS PARADE NORTH BONDI" | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | Right but still I think to tag an address on the feature, the school should somehow advertise that address. If you want to add a separate address node I think that's fine, but to attach it to the school it should have a stronger connection in my opinion. Especially when there is contradictory i... | |
| 4 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Fair point, I'll go ahead and make that adjustment now. It seems that their main signage is present on Brighton Boulevard hence why they advertise that address but I see your point | |
| 5 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Updated in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/77752703 | |
| 6 | ~ 6 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | Cheers, looks good to me. | |
| 77635394 by ortho_is_hot @ 2019-11-27 13:43 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,794 | Broken your own turn restrictions! I have left these for you to repair.I have repaired the following admin boundaries - removed them from some roadways. Bellevue Hill, North Bondi, Bondi Beach, Rose Bay, Vaucluse, Woollahra.... |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Apologies for messing up the realtions-as far as I could tell, all of the administrative boundaries were closed when I was editing. I have fixed (as far as I can tell) the turn restrictions in changeset 77713074. Thanks for pointing out the issue. | |
| 77634013 by ortho_is_hot @ 2019-11-27 13:23 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | I've added `psv:lanes=yes|yes|designated` to mark the right lane as a "bus lane". In my opinion `access:lanes=yes|yes|psv` is incorrect, since access=psv is incorrect. |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | How would you go about specifying that other road users can't use the lane? I checked taginfo and agree that psv:lanes and the like have more total uses than access:lanes, so its the more agreed upon option | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | Start with the top level access `access:lanes=yes|yes|no` then specify who can use that last lane, so `psv:lanes=yes|yes|designated` + `bicycle:lanes=yes|yes|yes`.PS. If in the JOSM editor, there a "Lanes" map style which shows the lane counts, turn lanes, access etc. styles on the map... | |
| 77655977 by ortho_is_hot @ 2019-11-27 23:48 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/174088858/history is a two way road, so it's lanes=2 not 1. Was that just a typo on your side? |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Sorry, that was a typo. I've fixed it now, thanks for pointing that error out | |
| 76176791 by ortho_is_hot @ 2019-10-24 23:22 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign doesn't indicate what a name tag on the destination_sign relation means, but the name you've used here seems more like a description than a proper name. Are you sure they need a name at all? |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | My thought process was that with a lot of different relations around here it would be beneficial to have "Destination sign to xyz" show up rather than relation 12345, in iD at least. Although granted, they don't specifically need a name | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | Ha I've seen tagging for the renderer, tagging for the router, but never tagging for the editor UI in this way before. I think it's better addressed by the editor UI being smart and generating a name like this based on the relation type.I mean it's not harmful how you have it, sin... | |
| 4 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | I'll admit, I was expecting you to say something like that. Although you are spot on—iD doesn't recognise this tag yet for whatever reason. Might have to put a GH issue to add this as a feature. | |
| 76047788 by ortho_is_hot @ 2019-10-22 12:23 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | I've used operator:abn in the past, but maybe that should be operator:ref:abn |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | It seems that operator:abn has 25 uses all in Australia. Maybe that's a better tag? I can't see operator:ref:abn in taginfo. | |
| 73731788 by ortho_is_hot @ 2019-08-26 03:31 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,794 | Way 718244634 etc tagged as road with fixme .. I would assume these to be residential - same as the development to the north - Bradman Dr. etc. |
| 74256165 by ortho_is_hot @ 2019-09-09 11:07 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,794 | Multipolygon outer ways cannot share segments. See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=150.98431&lat=-33.91123&zoom=18&opacity=0.56A google search for the village gets https://www.facebook.com/pages/Gillawarna-Village/167769939899763 |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Thank you for pointing out that error; I have removed the duplicate segments and changed some roles on lines to achieve the desired result in changeset #74331988 (as far as I can tell) | |
| 74288191 by ortho_is_hot @ 2019-09-10 04:32 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | I believe it's common practice not to name link roads (Denham Street), this is also noted at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtertiary_link, because in this case the link road is not really part of either road. |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | I had presumed that because it was a slip lane it would be considered part of the road, but yeah taginfo has only 11% name=* usage on tertiary_link. Thanks for pointing that out | |
| 74200346 by ortho_is_hot @ 2019-09-07 08:33 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | The bollard needs to be on the way so that routers know that this bollard affects the way. While I sympathise that you want to map each bollard individually, could you just use a count tag or something instead? |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | Regarding https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/639590232 building=service is correct for buildings which house transformers per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building#Power.2FTechnical_buildings | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | Re https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/520768412 is this way no longer a parking aisle? To me it looks like a parking aisle as it runs through the carpark and feeds into spaces, https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/6-HMaOeNnuch3jphlbmmNw | |
| 4 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Thanks for pointing out the errors. I've moved the bollards to the way and added count=* and fixed the building tagging. As for way #520768412, I've split it at the point where it turns into an aisle; the service=* tagging was suggested in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3D... | |
| 5 | ~ 6 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | looks good now, thanks. | |
| 74204617 by ortho_is_hot @ 2019-09-07 12:29 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,794 | Relation 10013098 has an error. It is not closed, so it does not form an area. Way: 722675173 and Way: 722675169 cross but do not connect. This error is reported by JOSM. Try just downloading the object 10013098 type relation and running validation on that alone. |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Thanks for pointing that out. I have merged nodes into node #6026534240 and have checked the relation roles | |
| 73294764 by ortho_is_hot @ 2019-08-13 07:53 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | WoodWoseWulf ♦1,163 | Whoops, sorry! Did I break something? |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Nah all good, I was idling on this one for a few hours. Just moved a road which I fixed in a changeset, nothing big :) | |
| 72881554 by ortho_is_hot @ 2019-08-01 05:52 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | mueschel ♦7,087 | Hi,what does 'handrail:forward' mean?That's not used in other places.'handrail:left', I guess? |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | G'day yep you're right, it's left/right. I'll fix that now. Cheers! | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | I believe I have fixed it in changeset #73087791 | |
| 70946030 by ortho_is_hot @ 2019-06-05 07:08 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | aharvey ♦1,931 | Looking at the imagery here, the this area is the parcel that the fire station is on, not the building, so that wouldn't be correct to tag as building=yes. Unless you surveyed here recently and there was a new building? |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Yep you're 100% right; created a changeset to revert that | |
| 69078685 by ortho_is_hot @ 2019-04-10 11:22 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,794 | Hi,welcome to OSM.The relations that have been created here are not correct. For the grass it is simpler to create a close way to represent the area. The relation had a line that enclosed no area. I have fixed this. For the recreation ground .. the relation was not closed - had a gap. It... |
| 2 | ~ 7 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Hi there,Thanks for pointing out those issues. I will attempt to fix them shortly. | |
| 3 | ~ 7 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,794 | Good Luck. Should not be too hard, if you need help .. ask. | |
| 4 | ~ 7 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Hi again,I've made adjustments in changeset #69274926 ; are there any other relations that require modification?Thanks | |
| 5 | ~ 7 years ago | ortho_is_hot | Zoom level 12 tile shows that the red outline and strikes are back surrounding the airport so I presume that relation is completely joined? | |
| 6 | ~ 7 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,794 | Looking good! | |
| 69136514 by ortho_is_hot @ 2019-04-12 02:31 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,794 | Hi,Where a path ends .. it should normally join to something. For Way: 683270667 I have extended it to Cadigal Place, then detailed the 4 steps on the path. If a path or road just stops without any exit then add the tag 'noexit=yes'.I have also expanded the nearby park to the LPI... |