Note Activities of lamms

Note	#	⏱️ Last updated	Event	Contributor	Comment
5413855 Category: Unknown	1	~ 1 month ago	opened	lamms ♦42	This place is fully accessible to transit now, roads and footpaths are finished etc. No construction of buildings has yet to take place however. I will go here when I have time to and map out a rough draft of how the paths connect for navigational purposes (mostly for foot traffic).
	2	~ 1 month ago	closed	Ewen Hill ♦9,534	Updated to active roads but will need further work over time
4356776	1	~ 2 years ago	opened	lamms ♦42	this is apparently on notice for a makeover as there's a blind spot, so this will have to be remapped when that work is finished (it hasn't started as of 29/7/24 for the record). https://www.subiaco.wa.gov.au/subiacowebsite/media/media/Governance/Reports%20and%20corporate%20documents/Strategies%20and%20plans/Bike-Plan-2021-25.PDF
	2	~ 2 months ago	commented	GeeMaps! ♦4,234	What sort of makeover, & has anything ever happened?
	3	~ 2 months ago	closed	Ewen Hill ♦9,534	URL not found - once it is done, someone should update it.
	4	~ 1 month ago	reopened	lamms ♦42
	5	~ 1 month ago	commented	GeeMaps! ♦4,234	Sorry, but why did you re=activate this Note? As Ewen said, that PDF can't be accessed, so do you have any other information to give us to help map whatever changes the "makeover" may be? Or has it already been fixed?
	6	~ 1 month ago	commented	lamms ♦42	ah sorry I forgot to post the link, apparently they've moved stuff around, here it is: https://www.subiaco.wa.gov.au/media/ptuj1qpg/bike-plan-2021-25.pdf . Though I'm not sure how relevant it is considering we're in 2026 now, I mostly used this note as something for me to come back to once more of the bike plan was followed through with. The plan itself is not any kind of infrastructure planning document and is mostly just there to indicate intent and the issue with the space.
	7	~ 1 month ago	commented	lamms ♦42	Though I suppose they still list the bike plan on https://www.subiaco.wa.gov.au/your-council/council-business/local-laws-important-documents/reports-and-corporate-documents/ under "Strategies and Plans" so I suppose it might still be in effect
5195885 Category: Unknown	1	~ 6 months ago	opened	---	Quel est ce: 1909 ? C'est un nom suspect qui devrait faire l'objet d'une enquête. Type de POI: inconnu Date de la note: 8 mars 2026 #OSMnote
	2	~ 4 months ago	commented	lamms ♦42	The development is part of the Subi East project and it is called 1909 in reference to the fact that Princess Margaret Hospital was built here in 1909. https://developmentwa.com.au/projects/residential/1909-subi-east/overview
	3	~ 2 months ago	closed	GeeMaps! ♦4,234	Question answered
5118660 Category: Unknown	1	~ 8 months ago	opened	sahshoor ♦54	After splitting platforms (6&7, 8&9), I've updated route relations as far as I know. I think they can do with a review anyway. For example, I'm only aware of Byford trains leaving from platform 4, and Thornlie-Cockburn trains leaving from platform 5.
	2	~ 6 months ago	commented	lamms ♦42	Please DONT split the platforms!!, they are physically the same playform and tagging their references with ref=5;6 is the correct way to map them. Please see the "Railway stations" page :)
	3	~ 6 months ago	commented	lamms ♦42	platform*, not playform :P
	4	~ 6 months ago	commented	sahshoor ♦54	No need to shout heheh 😅 Okay it could just be railway=platform_edge. But I don't think the Railway Stations wiki page clearly says what you are saying. For example: railway=platform: "Create an area that covers the whole platform, or different areas if you want to distinguish platforms with different name=* and/or ref=*." https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Railway_stations However the talk page for railway=platform_edge does discuss this. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:railway%3Dplatform_edge Can you point to any specific problems caused by splitting Perth platform islands? You may disagree with such "tagging for the renderer" but it is practical for me at least while not all apps render platform_edge. By the way, platform 4 has been split from platform 5 all along. Also by the way, not just me splitting Transperth platform islands.
	5	~ 6 months ago	commented	lamms ♦42	My reasoning is mostly based on the diagrams present on Railway_stations recommending ref=1;2 for railway "islands" that are in the middle of train tracks, and the general principle of "One feature, One OSM Element" Splitting the platforms creates an ambiguity around their physical reality: are these physically separated platforms (e.g. with a wall) that should be treated and routed to differently? or are these "logically" separated platforms that are still physically the "same" platform?. Whereas having them as a single area with `ref=1;2;etc` clearly indicates that "This is a mapping of a single physical platform that has two platforms on it", even if it creates an ambiguity around where specifically those platforms are. I think Kovposch comment on the `platform_edge` talkpage under "More hassle than it's worth" generally summarises my thoughts as well. As for platforms 4 & 5, I noticed it, and plan to fix it sooner rather than later... but relations are a pain to deal with 🥲
	6	~ 2 months ago	commented	Ewen Hill ♦9,534	How are we going with this team?
4873173 Category: StreetComplete	1	~ 1 year ago	opened	SupraBright ♦24	Unable to answer "Is this still here?" – rediATM (ATM) – https://osm.org/node/4347308524 via StreetComplete 61.1: atmX
	2	~ 11 months ago	commented	Onirix ♦40	It's still here Attached photo(s): https://streetcomplete.app/p/307783.jpg
	3	~ 6 months ago	closed	lamms ♦42
4931445 Category: Unknown	1	~ 1 year ago	opened	lamms ♦42	Seems to be turning into a roundabout, doesn't seem entirely finished yet though so I will leave it for now.
	2	~ 7 months ago	closed	lamms ♦42
4436903 Category: unknown	1	~ 1 year ago	opened	sahshoor ♦54	Is this footway really inaccessible to bicycles?
	2	~ 1 year ago	commented	sahshoor ♦54	(Doesn't make sense if the railway crossing is accessible to bicycles, leading to dead-end.)
	3	~ 1 year ago	commented	Sam Wilson ♦511	Maybe there's a kerb ramp to the carpark at the end of the crossing. I'll have a look next time I'm there if no one gets to it first. I seem to remember the footpath bit (where this note is) might have an actual sign against bikes?
	4	~ 7 months ago	closed	Mammothmaker ♦21	There is a sign on the carparks side with the words "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT" but I think that sign refers to the crossing itself. So, I think that the footpaths on the carpark side dont actually forbid bikes, as it wouldn't make any sense to tell the cyclists to dismount if they already couldn't be on their bike. So later I will go out and check then change the footpaths to allow bikes.
	5	~ 7 months ago	reopened	Mammothmaker ♦21
	6	~ 7 months ago	commented	lamms ♦42	Regardless of if this is referring to the footpath or the crossing, one of them should be tagged with "bicycle=dismount" to indicate as such.
	7	~ 2 months ago	closed	Ewen Hill ♦9,534	It appears that the railway crossing has moved 100m NE. I have set this to crossing to dismount without any proof mainly as there is an entrance to the station for pedestrians and two tracks with some width apart and normally it is a dismount in these circumstances.
4974428 Category: StreetComplete	1	~ 11 months ago	opened	lamms ♦42	Unable to answer "What’s the name of this place?" – Organic Supermarket – https://osm.org/way/47078785 via StreetComplete 61.3: Not exclusive
	2	~ 2 months ago	closed	Ewen Hill ♦9,534	Going to close this if this is ok.