Re: [talk-au] 1. Proposing a bulk locality edit for new admin_level definitions (Dian ?gesson)

[Anthony Panozzo]

I fully support this bulk edit




From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 8:32:00 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 35

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Proposing a bulk locality edit for new admin_level
  definitions (Dian ?gesson)
   2. Re: Basic question (Warin)
   3. Re: UK's Ordnance Survey to launch mapping app in Australia
  (Warin)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 14:11:33 +1000
From: Dian ?gesson 
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: [talk-au] Proposing a bulk locality edit for new admin_level
definitions
Message-ID: <42e93b172beae60cdba7e07c63359...@diacritic.xyz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"



Hey all,

Following the mailing list discussion last month
(https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-April/016101.html),
the Australian admin_levels have been updated in the wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative#admin_level=*_Country_specific_values.
Admin_level=7 was removed, and suburbs/localities have been adjusted to
level 9, to better align with other countries and improve the prominence
in rendering.

I would like to propose performing a bulk edit to change the admin_level
of these boundaries to ease the transition. This would involve:

 * using JOSM to retrieve all relations in Australia with
boundary=administrative and admin_level=10
 * high-level confirmation that the locality is correct (ie, consistent
with the version uploaded by the PSMA import)
 * Changing admin_level to 9

Due to the size of the data being queried, this might be accomplished
with a changeset for each state/territory.

Are there any comments, feedback or objections about this proposed bulk
edit? If there aren't any objections, I'll look to make the change this
weekend.

Dian
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 


--

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 17:38:06 +1000
From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Basic question
Message-ID: <1b54e015-5189-441a-3540-fb3f3865a...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"


On 8/10/21 17:41, Andrew & Ingrid Parker wrote:
> Thank you everyone. It is clear now that?it is OK to have an area
> inside or overlapping another area. That is logical and contrary to
> what I had been told by another mapper. It may be the case that I
> misunderstood what they were saying.


Usually the last part - "misunderstood what they were saying" is the
largest part of the problem.


My take;

 ?landuse=forest does not denote trees but the human use of the land to
get timber.

natural=wood = trees exist here! Note 'natural' does not, in OSM terms'
exclude human intervention. So if it is planted, maintained, etc by
humans then it is still ok to tag 'natural=wood'.


An example is where a tree area overlaps both a state forest and farm
land. The tree area can be drawn as one area. While the farm and state
forest can be separate areas overlapped by the tree area.


What you should not do is overlap areas of land covers such as grass and
trees, or sand and trees. And similarly for land use - farm and
industrial for example.


> Cheers
> Andrew Parker
>
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 14:26, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:53, cleary  wrote:
>
>
> Good mapping practice is to keep administrative boundaries
> such as state parks, conservation areas, suburbs etc separate
> from natural features such as water, waterways, woods etc.?
> While they sometimes approximate, they rarely coincide exactly.
>
> Tagging a state park as natural=wood is usually inappropriate
> because there will, nearly always, be parts of the park that
> are unwooded.? Best to map the park with its official boundary
> and then map the natural features separately using other
> unofficial sources such as survey and satellite imagery.
>
>
> Agreed, though as a rough first pass it has been common to tag
> natural=wood on the administrative boundary if it's 90% correct,
> but eventually as the mapping becomes more detailed separate
> 

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 32

[Anthony Panozzo]

He is actively clicking buttons right now, leave me alone while I take a look 
at what he is doing



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:32 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 32

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 30 (Luke Stewart)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 14:35:55 +1000
From: Luke Stewart 
To: Anthony Panozzo 
Cc: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 30
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Point is, the restrictions that you added in the case of the motorway
on/offramp was incorrect, it was broken by you at some point. In addition
to being broken, there was also a duplicate no_u_turn that was added by you
(which was in fact valid). So there is no problem in deleting something
invalid as long as you can ascertain what it is meant to be. This can very
easily be achieved by looking at object history for many times where iD has
broken the relation. Do you seriously think that TheSwavu (and many other
people for that matter) have been blinding looking at objects without
imagery, object history, or other sources to confirm? There is no universe
where keeping that invalid relation was a good idea, and it was doing
nothing for routing whatsoever.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220503/ef2cc90a/attachment-0001.htm>

--

Subject: Digest Footer

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


--

End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 32


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 30

[Anthony Panozzo]

Bottom line is if someone wants to blindly and randomly click buttons then if 
the user knows the intersection and rules, then its okish maybe, but if the 
user is solely relying on a single node validator and has no knowledge of the 
intersection or rules the user should not be permitted to blindly makes edits 
to it. Especially when the user is deleting other peoples work in the process 
to simply flex is validator tool



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 10:36 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 30

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 28 (Luke Stewart)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 11:03:59 +1000
From: Luke Stewart 
To: Anthony Panozzo 
Cc: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 28
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

The diagram posted by Dian clearly shows that this type of movement is
permitted, again: https://imgur.com/a/Wn6jx8h. If you disagree I suggest
handing in your license.

On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:57, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:

> No it would not because its a one way road lmao
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 10:12 AM
> *To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 28
>
>
>
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 (Luke Stewart)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 10:40:53 +1000
> From: Luke Stewart 
> To: Anthony Panozzo 
> Cc: Dian ?gesson , "talk-au@openstreetmap.org"
> 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
> Message-ID:
>  buu-h9c3zb9bqrktmvhe...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> It would still meet the criteria of an "intersection" under rules 40 and 41
> hence making it legal
>
> On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:34, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:
>
> > That picture is about an intersection not a T-intersection lmao
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From: *Dian ?gesson 
> > *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:59 AM
> > *To: *Anthony Panozzo 
> > *Cc: *Luke Stewart ;
> > talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Anthony,
> >
> >
> >
> > Below is a picture from the South Australian Road Rules. It shows the
> > correct procedure for a u-turn there would be exactly from that point of
> > view and back, including a small section of a "one-way" road.
> >
> > https://imgur.com/a/Wn6jx8h
> >
> > As the others earlier have mentioned, I would encourage you to take a
> > moment to take a step back and consider these points, as this type of
> rapid
> > fire back-and-forth is not particularly efficient.
> >
> > Would you also be able to provide some details about how the routing is
> > being tested? It would really help identify down-stream data consumers
> that
> > may be interpreting OSM data differently than expected.
> >
> >
> >
> > Dian
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2022-05-03 10:28, Anthony Panozzo wrote:
> >
> > No it is not because the road in front of the POV car in a one way road
> > which is not allowed, it would even need you to drive for a little bit
> > going the wrong way 

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 28

[Anthony Panozzo]

No it would not because its a one way road lmao



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 10:12 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 28

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 (Luke Stewart)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 10:40:53 +1000
From: Luke Stewart 
To: Anthony Panozzo 
Cc: Dian ?gesson , "talk-au@openstreetmap.org"

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

It would still meet the criteria of an "intersection" under rules 40 and 41
hence making it legal

On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:34, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:

> That picture is about an intersection not a T-intersection lmao
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Dian ?gesson 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:59 AM
> *To: *Anthony Panozzo 
> *Cc: *Luke Stewart ;
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
>
>
>
> Hi Anthony,
>
>
>
> Below is a picture from the South Australian Road Rules. It shows the
> correct procedure for a u-turn there would be exactly from that point of
> view and back, including a small section of a "one-way" road.
>
> https://imgur.com/a/Wn6jx8h
>
> As the others earlier have mentioned, I would encourage you to take a
> moment to take a step back and consider these points, as this type of rapid
> fire back-and-forth is not particularly efficient.
>
> Would you also be able to provide some details about how the routing is
> being tested? It would really help identify down-stream data consumers that
> may be interpreting OSM data differently than expected.
>
>
>
> Dian
>
>
>
> On 2022-05-03 10:28, Anthony Panozzo wrote:
>
> No it is not because the road in front of the POV car in a one way road
> which is not allowed, it would even need you to drive for a little bit
> going the wrong way lmao.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Luke Stewart 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:52 AM
> *To: *Anthony Panozzo 
> *Cc: *Dian ?gesson ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
>
>
>
> It is also acceptable from the point of view of the camera as stated in
> the Road Rules.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:18, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:
>
> Yes at the median is fine, but not from where the point of view of that
> picture is. TheSwavu has allowed u-turns starting from exactly the point of
> view of that picture and back
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Luke Stewart 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:28 AM
> *To: *Anthony Panozzo 
> *Cc: *Dian ?gesson ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
>
>
>
> The intersection shown in mapillary without traffic lights
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=764585334231385=-34.72009104=138.66975917=17=photo
> would be one where performing a u-turn is allowed. As you go along the
> mapillary trace, you can even see two different vehicles making u-turns in
> median breaks.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 09:52, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:
>
> You are wrong, you can not do u-turns at t-intersections on a one way road
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Dian ?gesson 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:39 AM
> *To: *Anthony Panozzo 
> *Cc: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
>
>
>
> Anthony,
>
> This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to
> be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons
> without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits
>
> Speaking personally, I am not defending every single one of his edits, as
> I have not reviewed them all.
>
> However, every edit that you've referred to in this mail chain as being
> "wrong" hasn't had any issues. We've covered:
>
> - Deleting a restriction which does not contain a from/to way (valid)
>
>

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13

[Anthony Panozzo]

That picture is about an intersection not a T-intersection lmao



From: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:59 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>
Cc: Luke Stewart<mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com>; 
talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13


Hi Anthony,



Below is a picture from the South Australian Road Rules. It shows the correct 
procedure for a u-turn there would be exactly from that point of view and back, 
including a small section of a "one-way" road.

https://imgur.com/a/Wn6jx8h

As the others earlier have mentioned, I would encourage you to take a moment to 
take a step back and consider these points, as this type of rapid fire 
back-and-forth is not particularly efficient.

Would you also be able to provide some details about how the routing is being 
tested? It would really help identify down-stream data consumers that may be 
interpreting OSM data differently than expected.



Dian



On 2022-05-03 10:28, Anthony Panozzo wrote:

No it is not because the road in front of the POV car in a one way road which 
is not allowed, it would even need you to drive for a little bit going the 
wrong way lmao.







From: Luke Stewart<mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:52 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>
Cc: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz>; 
talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13



It is also acceptable from the point of view of the camera as stated in the 
Road Rules.



On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:18, Anthony Panozzo 
mailto:pan...@outlook.com>> wrote:

Yes at the median is fine, but not from where the point of view of that picture 
is. TheSwavu has allowed u-turns starting from exactly the point of view of 
that picture and back









From: Luke Stewart<mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:28 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>
Cc: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz>; 
talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13



The intersection shown in mapillary without traffic lights 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=764585334231385=-34.72009104=138.66975917=17=photo
 would be one where performing a u-turn is allowed. As you go along the 
mapillary trace, you can even see two different vehicles making u-turns in 
median breaks.



On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 09:52, Anthony Panozzo 
mailto:pan...@outlook.com>> wrote:

You are wrong, you can not do u-turns at t-intersections on a one way road







From: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:39 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13



Anthony,

This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be 
clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons 
without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits

Speaking personally, I am not defending every single one of his edits, as I 
have not reviewed them all.

However, every edit that you've referred to in this mail chain as being "wrong" 
hasn't had any issues. We've covered:

- Deleting a restriction which does not contain a from/to way (valid)

- remodelling intersections to remove crosses (valid)

- adding a u turn using a way as a "via" member (valid)

And you have now raised a different type of problem,

- Removing a u turn restriction at an intersection with no traffic lights.

On the latter point, I quote

https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/r/australian%20road%20rules/current/2014.205.auth.pdf

A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection without traffic lights if 
there is a no U-turn sign at the intersection"

Note 2—
U-turns are permitted at intersections without traffic lights unless there is a 
no U-turn sign, even though traffic lane arrows indicate that the driver must 
or may turn right—see rule 92.

this is now the fourth type of error which isn't actually wrong.

If there is a valid issue, then obviously it should be fixed. But I am unable 
to identify a problem in the edits you've raised.

Please, take a deep breath and consider some of the points raised before 
responding with another flurry of emails.

dian

On 2022-05-02 22:49, Anthony Panozzo wrote:

This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be 
clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons 
without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits







From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-a

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13

[Anthony Panozzo]

No it is not because the road in front of the POV car in a one way road which 
is not allowed, it would even need you to drive for a little bit going the 
wrong way lmao.



From: Luke Stewart<mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:52 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>
Cc: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz>; 
talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13

It is also acceptable from the point of view of the camera as stated in the 
Road Rules.

On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:18, Anthony Panozzo 
mailto:pan...@outlook.com>> wrote:
Yes at the median is fine, but not from where the point of view of that picture 
is. TheSwavu has allowed u-turns starting from exactly the point of view of 
that picture and back




From: Luke Stewart<mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:28 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>
Cc: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz>; 
talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13

The intersection shown in mapillary without traffic lights 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=764585334231385=-34.72009104=138.66975917=17=photo
 would be one where performing a u-turn is allowed. As you go along the 
mapillary trace, you can even see two different vehicles making u-turns in 
median breaks.

On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 09:52, Anthony Panozzo 
mailto:pan...@outlook.com>> wrote:
You are wrong, you can not do u-turns at t-intersections on a one way road



From: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:39 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13


Anthony,

This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be 
clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons 
without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits

Speaking personally, I am not defending every single one of his edits, as I 
have not reviewed them all.

However, every edit that you’ve referred to in this mail chain as being “wrong” 
hasn’t had any issues. We’ve covered:

- Deleting a restriction which does not contain a from/to way (valid)

- remodelling intersections to remove crosses (valid)

- adding a u turn using a way as a “via” member (valid)

And you have now raised a different type of problem,

- Removing a u turn restriction at an intersection with no traffic lights.

On the latter point, I quote

https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/r/australian%20road%20rules/current/2014.205.auth.pdf

A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection without traffic lights if 
there is a no U-turn sign at the intersection"

Note 2—
U-turns are permitted at intersections without traffic lights unless there is a 
no U-turn sign, even though traffic lane arrows indicate that the driver must 
or may turn right—see rule 92.

this is now the fourth type of error which isn’t actually wrong.

If there is a valid issue, then obviously it should be fixed. But I am unable 
to identify a problem in the edits you’ve raised.

Please, take a deep breath and consider some of the points raised before 
responding with another flurry of emails.

dian

On 2022-05-02 22:49, Anthony Panozzo wrote:

This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be 
clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons 
without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits







From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:16 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13



Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org>

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 (Anthony Panozzo)


------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:44:40 +
From: Anthony Panozzo mailto:pan...@outlook.com>>
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org<m

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 21

[Anthony Panozzo]

Yes at the median is fine, but not from where the point of view of that picture 
is. TheSwavu has allowed u-turns starting from exactly the point of view of 
that picture and back




From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:31 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 21

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 (Luke Stewart)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 09:58:28 +1000
From: Luke Stewart 
To: Anthony Panozzo 
Cc: Dian ?gesson , "talk-au@openstreetmap.org"

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

The intersection shown in mapillary without traffic lights
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=764585334231385=-34.72009104=138.66975917=17=photo
would be one where performing a u-turn is allowed. As you go along the
mapillary trace, you can even see two different vehicles making u-turns in
median breaks.

On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 09:52, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:

> You are wrong, you can not do u-turns at t-intersections on a one way road
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Dian ?gesson 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:39 AM
> *To: *Anthony Panozzo 
> *Cc: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
>
>
>
> Anthony,
>
> This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to
> be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons
> without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits
>
> Speaking personally, I am not defending every single one of his edits, as
> I have not reviewed them all.
>
> However, every edit that you?ve referred to in this mail chain as being
> ?wrong? hasn?t had any issues. We?ve covered:
>
> - Deleting a restriction which does not contain a from/to way (valid)
>
> - remodelling intersections to remove crosses (valid)
>
> - adding a u turn using a way as a ?via? member (valid)
>
> And you have now raised a different type of problem,
>
> - Removing a u turn restriction at an intersection with no traffic lights.
>
> On the latter point, I quote
>
>
> https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/r/australian%20road%20rules/current/2014.205.auth.pdf
>
> A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection without traffic lights *if
> there is a no U-turn sign at the intersection*"
>
> Note 2?
> U-turns are permitted at intersections without traffic lights unless there
> is a no U-turn sign, even though traffic lane arrows indicate that the
> driver must or may turn right?see rule 92.
>
> this is now the fourth type of error which isn?t actually wrong.
>
> If there is a valid issue, then obviously it should be fixed. But I am
> unable to identify a problem in the edits you?ve raised.
>
> Please, take a deep breath and consider some of the points raised before
> responding with another flurry of emails.
>
> dian
>
>
> On 2022-05-02 22:49, Anthony Panozzo wrote:
>
> This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to
> be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons
> without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:16 AM
> *To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
>
>
>
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 (A

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13

[Anthony Panozzo]

Yes at the median is fine, but not from where the point of view of that picture 
is. TheSwavu has allowed u-turns starting from exactly the point of view of 
that picture and back




From: Luke Stewart<mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:28 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>
Cc: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz>; 
talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13

The intersection shown in mapillary without traffic lights 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=764585334231385=-34.72009104=138.66975917=17=photo
 would be one where performing a u-turn is allowed. As you go along the 
mapillary trace, you can even see two different vehicles making u-turns in 
median breaks.

On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 09:52, Anthony Panozzo 
mailto:pan...@outlook.com>> wrote:
You are wrong, you can not do u-turns at t-intersections on a one way road



From: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:39 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13


Anthony,

This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be 
clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons 
without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits

Speaking personally, I am not defending every single one of his edits, as I 
have not reviewed them all.

However, every edit that you’ve referred to in this mail chain as being “wrong” 
hasn’t had any issues. We’ve covered:

- Deleting a restriction which does not contain a from/to way (valid)

- remodelling intersections to remove crosses (valid)

- adding a u turn using a way as a “via” member (valid)

And you have now raised a different type of problem,

- Removing a u turn restriction at an intersection with no traffic lights.

On the latter point, I quote

https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/r/australian%20road%20rules/current/2014.205.auth.pdf

A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection without traffic lights if 
there is a no U-turn sign at the intersection"

Note 2—
U-turns are permitted at intersections without traffic lights unless there is a 
no U-turn sign, even though traffic lane arrows indicate that the driver must 
or may turn right—see rule 92.

this is now the fourth type of error which isn’t actually wrong.

If there is a valid issue, then obviously it should be fixed. But I am unable 
to identify a problem in the edits you’ve raised.

Please, take a deep breath and consider some of the points raised before 
responding with another flurry of emails.

dian

On 2022-05-02 22:49, Anthony Panozzo wrote:

This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be 
clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons 
without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits







From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:16 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13



Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org>

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 (Anthony Panozzo)


------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:44:40 +
From: Anthony Panozzo mailto:pan...@outlook.com>>
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>" 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12
Message-ID:

mailto:pr3p192mb092730c19a6c808662675473cc...@pr3p192mb0927.eurp192.prod.outlook.com>>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

You said this ?I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is with 
this edit. The
road rules in South Australia allow you to do a u-turn around the end of a
median at an intersection provided that there is no sign prohibiting it or
traffic lights:? which is 100% incorrect, you can only do a u-turn if there is 
a sign permitting you to do so. You don?t have the understanding to be able to 
bl

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13

[Anthony Panozzo]

You are wrong, you can not do u-turns at t-intersections on a one way road



From: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:39 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13


Anthony,

This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be 
clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons 
without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits

Speaking personally, I am not defending every single one of his edits, as I 
have not reviewed them all.

However, every edit that you’ve referred to in this mail chain as being “wrong” 
hasn’t had any issues. We’ve covered:

- Deleting a restriction which does not contain a from/to way (valid)

- remodelling intersections to remove crosses (valid)

- adding a u turn using a way as a “via” member (valid)

And you have now raised a different type of problem,

- Removing a u turn restriction at an intersection with no traffic lights.

On the latter point, I quote

https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/r/australian%20road%20rules/current/2014.205.auth.pdf

A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection without traffic lights if 
there is a no U-turn sign at the intersection"

Note 2—
U-turns are permitted at intersections without traffic lights unless there is a 
no U-turn sign, even though traffic lane arrows indicate that the driver must 
or may turn right—see rule 92.

this is now the fourth type of error which isn’t actually wrong.

If there is a valid issue, then obviously it should be fixed. But I am unable 
to identify a problem in the edits you’ve raised.

Please, take a deep breath and consider some of the points raised before 
responding with another flurry of emails.

dian

On 2022-05-02 22:49, Anthony Panozzo wrote:

This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be 
clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons 
without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits







From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:16 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13



Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 (Anthony Panozzo)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:44:40 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

You said this ?I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is with 
this edit. The
road rules in South Australia allow you to do a u-turn around the end of a
median at an intersection provided that there is no sign prohibiting it or
traffic lights:? which is 100% incorrect, you can only do a u-turn if there is 
a sign permitting you to do so. You don?t have the understanding to be able to 
blindly click buttons from this state,ent alone, and yet people will come to 
your defence lmao



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:10 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest,
  Vol 179, Issue 6) (Andrew Davidson)
   2. TheSwavu (Anthony Panozzo)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 08:33:00 +1000
From: Andrew Davidson 
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re:
Talk-a

[talk-au] TheSwavu

[Anthony Panozzo]

Notice how TheSwavu himself has stopped replying... that’s because he has just 
learnt he really doesn’t have a clue and is waiting for one of these vocal 
people in his small group to come to rescue his arguments. If what he said 
about trying to correct me on the road rules and he didn’t even realize he does 
understand them properly, does he even have his licence?



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:21 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 14

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 (Anthony Panozzo)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:49:21 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

This user is telling me I don?t even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be 
clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons 
without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:16 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 (Anthony Panozzo)


------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:44:40 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

You said this ?I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is with 
this edit. The
road rules in South Australia allow you to do a u-turn around the end of a
median at an intersection provided that there is no sign prohibiting it or
traffic lights:? which is 100% incorrect, you can only do a u-turn if there is 
a sign permitting you to do so. You don?t have the understanding to be able to 
blindly click buttons from this state,ent alone, and yet people will come to 
your defence lmao



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:10 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest,
  Vol 179, Issue 6) (Andrew Davidson)
   2. TheSwavu (Anthony Panozzo)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 08:33:00 +1000
From: Andrew Davidson 
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re:
Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6)
Message-ID: <80784b78-0628-85f3-f104-1f10b652d...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

On 3/5/22 08:18, Anthony Panozzo wrote:
> Well this is the situation, TheSwavu is directly emailing me telling me
> it is perfectly legal to do u-turns at intersections

Gmail will send an email to both the mail list and the original sender
by default on reply. You will have not

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13

[Anthony Panozzo]

This user is telling me I don’t even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be 
clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons 
without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:16 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 (Anthony Panozzo)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:44:40 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

You said this ?I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is with 
this edit. The
road rules in South Australia allow you to do a u-turn around the end of a
median at an intersection provided that there is no sign prohibiting it or
traffic lights:? which is 100% incorrect, you can only do a u-turn if there is 
a sign permitting you to do so. You don?t have the understanding to be able to 
blindly click buttons from this state,ent alone, and yet people will come to 
your defence lmao



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:10 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest,
  Vol 179, Issue 6) (Andrew Davidson)
   2. TheSwavu (Anthony Panozzo)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 08:33:00 +1000
From: Andrew Davidson 
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re:
Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6)
Message-ID: <80784b78-0628-85f3-f104-1f10b652d...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

On 3/5/22 08:18, Anthony Panozzo wrote:
> Well this is the situation, TheSwavu is directly emailing me telling me
> it is perfectly legal to do u-turns at intersections

Gmail will send an email to both the mail list and the original sender
by default on reply. You will have noticed the list email address in the
CC:. Or maybe you didn't notice?

By the way, the link you sent me off-list:

https://samotor.raa.com.au/do-you-know-the-u-turn-road-rules/

says exactly the same thing I was trying to explain to you. Perhaps this
video might make it clearer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0SzfStP1nE



------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:38:42 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: [talk-au] TheSwavu
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

By directly emailing me he trying to mess up the way au-talk is formatting, no 
one here gets to see what he is emailing me, he has no clue about the 
laws/rules or the areas, this is a joke



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:04 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 11

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topi

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12

[Anthony Panozzo]

You said this “I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is with 
this edit. The
road rules in South Australia allow you to do a u-turn around the end of a
median at an intersection provided that there is no sign prohibiting it or
traffic lights:” which is 100% incorrect, you can only do a u-turn if there is 
a sign permitting you to do so. You don’t have the understanding to be able to 
blindly click buttons from this state,ent alone, and yet people will come to 
your defence lmao



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:10 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest,
  Vol 179, Issue 6) (Andrew Davidson)
   2. TheSwavu (Anthony Panozzo)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 08:33:00 +1000
From: Andrew Davidson 
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re:
Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6)
Message-ID: <80784b78-0628-85f3-f104-1f10b652d...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

On 3/5/22 08:18, Anthony Panozzo wrote:
> Well this is the situation, TheSwavu is directly emailing me telling me
> it is perfectly legal to do u-turns at intersections

Gmail will send an email to both the mail list and the original sender
by default on reply. You will have noticed the list email address in the
CC:. Or maybe you didn't notice?

By the way, the link you sent me off-list:

https://samotor.raa.com.au/do-you-know-the-u-turn-road-rules/

says exactly the same thing I was trying to explain to you. Perhaps this
video might make it clearer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0SzfStP1nE



--

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:38:42 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: [talk-au] TheSwavu
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

By directly emailing me he trying to mess up the way au-talk is formatting, no 
one here gets to see what he is emailing me, he has no clue about the 
laws/rules or the areas, this is a joke



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:04 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 11

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org (Andy Townsend)
   2. U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re:  Talk-au Digest, Vol
  179, Issue 6) (Andrew Davidson)
   3. Re: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest,
  Vol 179, Issue 6) (Anthony Panozzo)
   4. Re: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest,
  Vol 179, Issue 6) (Anthony Panozzo)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:50:24 +0100
From: Andy Townsend 
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

On 02/05/2022 22:36, Andrew Davidson wrote:
>
> How do we get a category we can interact with through email? I haven't
> used Discource enough to picture how it works.
>
If you enable mailing list mode in your profile, you will get emailed
all messages and can reply to them by email too.? What you can't yet do
is to create a new thread by email - to do that you'll need to go to
e.g. https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/help-and-support/7 and click
"new topic".

Best Regards,

Andy





------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 08:00:50 +1000
From: Andrew Davidson 
To: Anthony Panozzo 
Cc: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: [talk-

[talk-au] TheSwavu

[Anthony Panozzo]

By directly emailing me he trying to mess up the way au-talk is formatting, no 
one here gets to see what he is emailing me, he has no clue about the 
laws/rules or the areas, this is a joke



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:04 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 11

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org (Andy Townsend)
   2. U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re:  Talk-au Digest, Vol
  179, Issue 6) (Andrew Davidson)
   3. Re: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest,
      Vol 179, Issue 6) (Anthony Panozzo)
   4. Re: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest,
      Vol 179, Issue 6) (Anthony Panozzo)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:50:24 +0100
From: Andy Townsend 
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

On 02/05/2022 22:36, Andrew Davidson wrote:
>
> How do we get a category we can interact with through email? I haven't
> used Discource enough to picture how it works.
>
If you enable mailing list mode in your profile, you will get emailed
all messages and can reply to them by email too.? What you can't yet do
is to create a new thread by email - to do that you'll need to go to
e.g. https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/help-and-support/7 and click
"new topic".

Best Regards,

Andy





--

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 08:00:50 +1000
From: Andrew Davidson 
To: Anthony Panozzo 
Cc: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: [talk-au] U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re:  Talk-au
Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6)
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On Tue, 3 May 2022, 03:02 Anthony Panozzo,  wrote:

>  I would like to report theswavu for this edit Relation History: 13736691
> | OpenStreetMap <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13736691/history>
> he deleted a restriction I put there to prevent u-turning from the service
> road.
>

I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is with this edit. The
road rules in South Australia allow you to do a u-turn around the end of a
median at an intersection provided that there is no sign prohibiting it or
traffic lights:

https://www.approveddrivingschool.com.au/mastering-u-turns-3-point-turns/

There is no sign or traffic lights at this intersection so you are allowed
to do a u-turn, provided that you adhere to the other associated rules:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1365151817189473

>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220503/e5bb1aac/attachment-0001.htm>

------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:18:15 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: "talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org"

Cc: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re:
Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6)
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

Well this is the situation, TheSwavu is directly emailing me telling me it is 
perfectly legal to do u-turns at intersections, lmao he doesn?t know the laws, 
he doesn?t know the area, he cant be trusted to blindly click buttons but so 
many people are arguing he is perfectly fine to go about his edits I hope DWG 
see this Do you know the U-turn road rules? | samotor The RAA 
Magazine<https://samotor.raa.com.au/do-you-know-the-u-turn-road-rules/#:~:text=If%20you%E2%80%99ve%20seen%20a%20fellow%20driver%20doing%20a,you%20can%20perform%20this%20manoeuvre%20at%20this%20location.>



From: Andrew Davidson<mailto:thesw...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 7:31 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>
Cc: OpenStreetMap<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 
179, Issue 6)

On Tue, 3 May 2022, 03:02 Anthony Panozzo, 
mailto:pan...@outlook.com>> wrote:
 I would like to report theswavu for this edit Relation History: 13736691 | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1373

Re: [talk-au] U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6)

[Anthony Panozzo]

Well this is the situation, TheSwavu is directly emailing me telling me it is 
perfectly legal to do u-turns at intersections, lmao he doesn’t know the laws, 
he doesn’t know the area, he cant be trusted to blindly click buttons but so 
many people are arguing he is perfectly fine to go about his edits I hope DWG 
see this
Do you know the U-turn road rules? | samotor The RAA 
Magazine<https://samotor.raa.com.au/do-you-know-the-u-turn-road-rules/#:~:text=If%20you%E2%80%99ve%20seen%20a%20fellow%20driver%20doing%20a,you%20can%20perform%20this%20manoeuvre%20at%20this%20location.>

And he didn’t even watch the video in the link he sent me either, this is a 
complete joke, keep in mind you are arguing FOR this guy to keep going about 
his edits freely with out question this blow my mind, you would rather win an 
argument than care 1 bit about the map




From: Andrew Davidson 
Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 7:30:50 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo 
Cc: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 
179, Issue 6)

On Tue, 3 May 2022, 03:02 Anthony Panozzo, 
mailto:pan...@outlook.com>> wrote:

 I would like to report theswavu for this edit Relation History: 13736691 | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13736691/history> he 
deleted a restriction I put there to prevent u-turning from the service road.

I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is with this edit. The 
road rules in South Australia allow you to do a u-turn around the end of a 
median at an intersection provided that there is no sign prohibiting it or 
traffic lights:

https://www.approveddrivingschool.com.au/mastering-u-turns-3-point-turns/

There is no sign or traffic lights at this intersection so you are allowed to 
do a u-turn, provided that you adhere to the other associated rules:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1365151817189473
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6)

[Anthony Panozzo]

Well this is the situation, TheSwavu is directly emailing me telling me it is 
perfectly legal to do u-turns at intersections, lmao he doesn’t know the laws, 
he doesn’t know the area, he cant be trusted to blindly click buttons but so 
many people are arguing he is perfectly fine to go about his edits I hope DWG 
see this Do you know the U-turn road rules? | samotor The RAA 
Magazine<https://samotor.raa.com.au/do-you-know-the-u-turn-road-rules/#:~:text=If%20you%E2%80%99ve%20seen%20a%20fellow%20driver%20doing%20a,you%20can%20perform%20this%20manoeuvre%20at%20this%20location.>



From: Andrew Davidson<mailto:thesw...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 7:31 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>
Cc: OpenStreetMap<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 
179, Issue 6)

On Tue, 3 May 2022, 03:02 Anthony Panozzo, 
mailto:pan...@outlook.com>> wrote:
 I would like to report theswavu for this edit Relation History: 13736691 | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13736691/history> he 
deleted a restriction I put there to prevent u-turning from the service road.

I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is with this edit. The 
road rules in South Australia allow you to do a u-turn around the end of a 
median at an intersection provided that there is no sign prohibiting it or 
traffic lights:

https://www.approveddrivingschool.com.au/mastering-u-turns-3-point-turns/

There is no sign or traffic lights at this intersection so you are allowed to 
do a u-turn, provided that you adhere to the other associated rules:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1365151817189473

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] user TheSwavu

[Anthony Panozzo]

He really is a major problem, it’s a bit tedious but if anyone actually spent 
the time to randomly go through some of his edits you will see straight away 
how dangerous his edits really are. He 100% is randomly clicking buttons 
without even looking at what he is doing, as as everyone has seen here there is 
nothing I can do about it, he has the full support of a very vocal group here 
and he is free to go about it. If no one with a better voice than me can be 
bothered to actually look at these edits that’s it for anyone to even bother to 
try to route anything youll be wasting your time. All my edits have always been 
by hand and personal knowledge and if that isn’t as good as someone clicking 
buttons than everyone is wasting there time on this project.



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 2:37 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 8

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 7 (Anthony Panozzo)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 17:04:51 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 7
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I am going to go through every single edit in Adelaide from this guy and report 
each one individually here and his user page, the small vocal group that backs 
this guy congrats your screwing the map!



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 2:30 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 7

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6 (Anthony Panozzo)


------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 16:58:34 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

So how would you feel if someone had the full support of a small but vocal 
group on discord and given pretty much free rein to revert every single one of 
your edits because he got call out, well it's happening to me. I would like to 
report theswavu for this edit Relation History: 13736691 | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13736691/history> he 
deleted a restriction I put there to prevent u-turning from the service road. 
This community seems to be all about winning a argument than giving a shit 
about the map. I will be reporting him on his user page for this edit too.




From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 11:54:34 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 (Anthony Panozzo)
   2. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 (Anthony Panozzo)


------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 13:37:42 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: Dean Scott , "talk-au@openstreetmap.org"

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
Message-ID:



Content-Type: t

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 7

[Anthony Panozzo]

I am going to go through every single edit in Adelaide from this guy and report 
each one individually here and his user page, the small vocal group that backs 
this guy congrats your screwing the map!



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 2:30 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 7

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6 (Anthony Panozzo)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 16:58:34 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

So how would you feel if someone had the full support of a small but vocal 
group on discord and given pretty much free rein to revert every single one of 
your edits because he got call out, well it's happening to me. I would like to 
report theswavu for this edit Relation History: 13736691 | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13736691/history> he 
deleted a restriction I put there to prevent u-turning from the service road. 
This community seems to be all about winning a argument than giving a shit 
about the map. I will be reporting him on his user page for this edit too.




From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 11:54:34 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 (Anthony Panozzo)
   2. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 (Anthony Panozzo)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 13:37:42 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: Dean Scott , "talk-au@openstreetmap.org"

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

Yes martins road/waterloo corner road/bagster theswavu and randomly clicked 
buttons again and allowed u-turns from 2 nodes away, I think his little 
validator tool only works from 1 node or something, either way he has no local 
knowledge of this area



From: Dean Scott<mailto:deanscott...@outlook.com>
Sent: Monday, 2 May 2022 11:03 PM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>; 
talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3

Hi, what section of road has TheSwavu allowed u-turns? If you are referring to 
the intersection with traffic lights, the u-turn?s are correctly tagged. If 
not, please point it out to us so we can better understand

Regards,
Scottie0001


From: Anthony Panozzo 
Date: Monday, 2 May 2022 at 10:57 pm
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
Reporting user TheSwavu | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheSwavu>
2 hours ago he made this changeset Changeset: 120456255 | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120456255#map=17/-34.75536/138.63155>
 he has allowed u-turns




From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 8:30:24 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: 

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6

[Anthony Panozzo]

So how would you feel if someone had the full support of a small but vocal 
group on discord and given pretty much free rein to revert every single one of 
your edits because he got call out, well it's happening to me. I would like to 
report theswavu for this edit Relation History: 13736691 | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13736691/history> he 
deleted a restriction I put there to prevent u-turning from the service road. 
This community seems to be all about winning a argument than giving a shit 
about the map. I will be reporting him on his user page for this edit too.




From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 11:54:34 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 (Anthony Panozzo)
   2. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 (Anthony Panozzo)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 13:37:42 +0000
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: Dean Scott , "talk-au@openstreetmap.org"

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

Yes martins road/waterloo corner road/bagster theswavu and randomly clicked 
buttons again and allowed u-turns from 2 nodes away, I think his little 
validator tool only works from 1 node or something, either way he has no local 
knowledge of this area



From: Dean Scott<mailto:deanscott...@outlook.com>
Sent: Monday, 2 May 2022 11:03 PM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>; 
talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3

Hi, what section of road has TheSwavu allowed u-turns? If you are referring to 
the intersection with traffic lights, the u-turn?s are correctly tagged. If 
not, please point it out to us so we can better understand

Regards,
Scottie0001


From: Anthony Panozzo 
Date: Monday, 2 May 2022 at 10:57 pm
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
Reporting user TheSwavu | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheSwavu>
2 hours ago he made this changeset Changeset: 120456255 | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120456255#map=17/-34.75536/138.63155>
 he has allowed u-turns




From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 8:30:24 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org (Sam Wilson)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 11:01:40 +0800
From: Sam Wilson 
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org
Message-ID: <2f617c9d-0456-971b-233c-90d2e54ea...@samwilson.id.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

It's growing in use, I think (not with Australia-specific discussion).

It feels like a pretty good site, I check the headlines most days, and I
think one advantage is being able to get a feel for what's being
discussed elsewhere. Also to have location-specific discussions that
benefit either from the input of people elsewhere or to let other people
know how one place is doing things.

I don't like the notification system that much, but part of that is I
think that the ratio of meta posts to real topical ones is quite large
at the moment. It is decreasing though, as more people take part.

?Sam


On 1/5/22 06:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> So how's it going after this first month?
>
> Any marked advantages / disadvantages over the existing mailing list?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 12:52, Sam Wilson  wrote:
>
> The new c

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3

[Anthony Panozzo]

And also, if you really look hard enough into it, you will realise those 
crosses at intersections do not break any OSM rules or policys. The no physical 
divide argument is not valid because they do not represent two different roads, 
this person is reverting edits he really knows nothing about.




From: Dean Scott 
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 11:03:51 PM
To: Anthony Panozzo ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org 

Subject: Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3


Hi, what section of road has TheSwavu allowed u-turns? If you are referring to 
the intersection with traffic lights, the u-turn’s are correctly tagged. If 
not, please point it out to us so we can better understand

Regards,

Scottie0001





From: Anthony Panozzo 
Date: Monday, 2 May 2022 at 10:57 pm
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3

Reporting user TheSwavu | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheSwavu>

2 hours ago he made this changeset Changeset: 120456255 | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120456255#map=17/-34.75536/138.63155>
 he has allowed u-turns









From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 8:30:24 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3



Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org (Sam Wilson)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 11:01:40 +0800
From: Sam Wilson 
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org
Message-ID: <2f617c9d-0456-971b-233c-90d2e54ea...@samwilson.id.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

It's growing in use, I think (not with Australia-specific discussion).

It feels like a pretty good site, I check the headlines most days, and I
think one advantage is being able to get a feel for what's being
discussed elsewhere. Also to have location-specific discussions that
benefit either from the input of people elsewhere or to let other people
know how one place is doing things.

I don't like the notification system that much, but part of that is I
think that the ratio of meta posts to real topical ones is quite large
at the moment. It is decreasing though, as more people take part.

?Sam


On 1/5/22 06:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> So how's it going after this first month?
>
> Any marked advantages / disadvantages over the existing mailing list?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 12:52, Sam Wilson  wrote:
>
> The new community.openstreetmap.org
> <https://community.openstreetmap.org> site is up and running.
>
> It's going to replace the old forum, including the users:
> Australia <https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=24>
> subforum.
>
> I'm not sure if we should ask for an Australia category to be
> created on the new site. Probably not worth it until there's some
> amount of content relating to Australia.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220502/dda3550a/attachment-0001.htm>

--

Subject: Digest Footer

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


--

End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
***
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3

[Anthony Panozzo]

Yes martins road/waterloo corner road/bagster theswavu and randomly clicked 
buttons again and allowed u-turns from 2 nodes away, I think his little 
validator tool only works from 1 node or something, either way he has no local 
knowledge of this area



From: Dean Scott<mailto:deanscott...@outlook.com>
Sent: Monday, 2 May 2022 11:03 PM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>; 
talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3

Hi, what section of road has TheSwavu allowed u-turns? If you are referring to 
the intersection with traffic lights, the u-turn’s are correctly tagged. If 
not, please point it out to us so we can better understand

Regards,
Scottie0001


From: Anthony Panozzo 
Date: Monday, 2 May 2022 at 10:57 pm
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
Reporting user TheSwavu | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheSwavu>
2 hours ago he made this changeset Changeset: 120456255 | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120456255#map=17/-34.75536/138.63155>
 he has allowed u-turns




From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 8:30:24 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org (Sam Wilson)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 11:01:40 +0800
From: Sam Wilson 
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org
Message-ID: <2f617c9d-0456-971b-233c-90d2e54ea...@samwilson.id.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

It's growing in use, I think (not with Australia-specific discussion).

It feels like a pretty good site, I check the headlines most days, and I
think one advantage is being able to get a feel for what's being
discussed elsewhere. Also to have location-specific discussions that
benefit either from the input of people elsewhere or to let other people
know how one place is doing things.

I don't like the notification system that much, but part of that is I
think that the ratio of meta posts to real topical ones is quite large
at the moment. It is decreasing though, as more people take part.

?Sam


On 1/5/22 06:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> So how's it going after this first month?
>
> Any marked advantages / disadvantages over the existing mailing list?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 12:52, Sam Wilson  wrote:
>
> The new community.openstreetmap.org
> <https://community.openstreetmap.org> site is up and running.
>
> It's going to replace the old forum, including the users:
> Australia <https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=24>
> subforum.
>
> I'm not sure if we should ask for an Australia category to be
> created on the new site. Probably not worth it until there's some
> amount of content relating to Australia.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220502/dda3550a/attachment-0001.htm>

--

Subject: Digest Footer

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


--

End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
***

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 4

[Anthony Panozzo]

The u-turn restriction are only valid from 1 nodes at 2 nodes it allows 
u-turns, I built waterloo corner road from one end the the other, this guy just 
goes around clicking buttons lol.




From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 10:53:54 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 4

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org (Simon Poole)
   2. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 (Anthony Panozzo)
   3. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 (Luke Stewart)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 14:36:03 +0200
From: Simon Poole 
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org
Message-ID: <7e60be24-a50c-ee05-2fdb-64f0c34df...@poole.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

I wouldn't expect much traffic till the existing forum content has been
migrated, currently scheduled for the end of the month. That should then
give some slightly more definite structure to things than there is now.

Simon

Am 02.05.2022 um 05:01 schrieb Sam Wilson:
>
> It's growing in use, I think (not with Australia-specific discussion).
>
> It feels like a pretty good site, I check the headlines most days, and
> I think one advantage is being able to get a feel for what's being
> discussed elsewhere. Also to have location-specific discussions that
> benefit either from the input of people elsewhere or to let other
> people know how one place is doing things.
>
> I don't like the notification system that much, but part of that is I
> think that the ratio of meta posts to real topical ones is quite large
> at the moment. It is decreasing though, as more people take part.
>
> ?Sam
>
>
> On 1/5/22 06:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>> So how's it going after this first month?
>>
>> Any marked advantages / disadvantages over the existing mailing list?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 12:52, Sam Wilson  wrote:
>>
>> The new community.openstreetmap.org
>> <https://community.openstreetmap.org> site is up and running.
>>
>> It's going to replace the old forum, including the users:
>> Australia <https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=24>
>> subforum.
>>
>> I'm not sure if we should ask for an Australia category to be
>> created on the new site. Probably not worth it until there's some
>> amount of content relating to Australia.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220502/0b536e95/attachment-0001.htm>
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: 
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220502/0b536e95/attachment-0001.sig>

--

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 12:54:35 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Reporting user TheSwavu | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheSwavu>
2 hours ago he made this changeset Changeset: 120456255 | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120456255#map=17/-34.75536/138.63155>
 he has allowed u-turns




From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 8:30:24 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Wo

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3

[Anthony Panozzo]

Reporting user TheSwavu | 
OpenStreetMap
2 hours ago he made this changeset Changeset: 120456255 | 
OpenStreetMap
 he has allowed u-turns




From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 8:30:24 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org (Sam Wilson)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 11:01:40 +0800
From: Sam Wilson 
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org
Message-ID: <2f617c9d-0456-971b-233c-90d2e54ea...@samwilson.id.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

It's growing in use, I think (not with Australia-specific discussion).

It feels like a pretty good site, I check the headlines most days, and I
think one advantage is being able to get a feel for what's being
discussed elsewhere. Also to have location-specific discussions that
benefit either from the input of people elsewhere or to let other people
know how one place is doing things.

I don't like the notification system that much, but part of that is I
think that the ratio of meta posts to real topical ones is quite large
at the moment. It is decreasing though, as more people take part.

?Sam


On 1/5/22 06:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> So how's it going after this first month?
>
> Any marked advantages / disadvantages over the existing mailing list?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 12:52, Sam Wilson  wrote:
>
> The new community.openstreetmap.org
>  site is up and running.
>
> It's going to replace the old forum, including the users:
> Australia 
> subforum.
>
> I'm not sure if we should ask for an Australia category to be
> created on the new site. Probably not worth it until there's some
> amount of content relating to Australia.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 


--

Subject: Digest Footer

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


--

End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
***
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 57

[Anthony Panozzo]

What that luke person was talking about was a bus stop node upgrade which took 
place a few months ago, the kids on discord argued that there might be a 1 in 
million “edge case” which will ruin the map, so my mass edit was reverted and 
they have to be edited individually, now the same people came out of nowhere 
because they see me posting here and argue that this guy is free to go about 
clicking buttons based on the validator and there will never ever be an edge 
case scenario. With these kids it’s personal they don’t make any sense and 
that’s why that kids decided to come in here and bring up bus stops lmao.



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 10:55 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 57

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 55
  (Andy Townsend (ajt1...@gmail.com))


--

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 14:21:34 +0100
From: "Andy Townsend (ajt1...@gmail.com)" 
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 55
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I suspect that no-one is taking the piss - depending on the mail client
"reply all" will very often go to the sender cc the list.

Perhaps a bit more discussion about what problems have been created might
have helped (and "source=knowledge") isn't a great description of why
something was changed, but to an outsider it does look like a couple of
rounds of polite questions were mossing before the "wtf is going on" on
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373#map=19/-34.76638/138.58995
.

Where there are turn restrictions missing something vital like "from" or
"to" sometimes it's obvious what needs to be re-added, and sometimes
actually deleting it is just fine because other tags (such as oneway) are
doing the same job.

Where you think a turn restriction has been deleted in error, perhaps it
would help to comment why that was in error?



On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, 13:18 Anthony Panozzo,  wrote:

> Im not it?s 100% true, youre the one taking the piss by jumping in this
> conversation and just speaking on behalf of the other person involved when
> the matter was already discussed and sorted. Please do not email me directly
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> *Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:41 PM
> *To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 55
>
>
>
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 (Luke Stewart)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 22:07:00 +1000
> From: Luke Stewart 
> To: Anthony Panozzo 
> Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
> Message-ID:
>  3+dc4uvt_k62zz...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Can someone else please confirm that this guy is just taking the piss?
>
> Cheers,
> Luke
>
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 21:58, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:
>
> > I didn?t realise you emailed me directly I am going to have to block you
> > from doing so in the future, it?s against OSM au-talk policy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From: *Luke Stewart 
> > *Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:21 PM
> > *To: *Anthony Panozzo ; OSM Australian Talk List
> > 
> > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
> >
> >
> >
> > "TheSw

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 55

[Anthony Panozzo]

Im not it’s 100% true, youre the one taking the piss by jumping in this 
conversation and just speaking on behalf of the other person involved when the 
matter was already discussed and sorted. Please do not email me directly



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:41 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 55

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 (Luke Stewart)


--

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 22:07:00 +1000
From: Luke Stewart 
To: Anthony Panozzo 
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Can someone else please confirm that this guy is just taking the piss?

Cheers,
Luke

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 21:58, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:

> I didn?t realise you emailed me directly I am going to have to block you
> from doing so in the future, it?s against OSM au-talk policy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Luke Stewart 
> *Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:21 PM
> *To: *Anthony Panozzo ; OSM Australian Talk List
> 
> *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
>
>
>
> "TheSwavu has already said he deleted it because the validator told him
> to" - What's most likely is that the validator located a relation that was
> incorrect, and he determined that he should delete it. Alternatively, it
> could have been added back. Regardless, the relation was non-functional and
> that is obvious given the single member
>
> "have you figured out how to route bus stops with out the platform tag
> yet" - Stops should have a platform tag, either on the node or the area
> that is the platform, but mass adding them still remains incorrect as has
> been discussed ad nauseam
>
> "a bunch of people who all have the same opinion and wont listen to a word
> im saying" - This is not always the case, however if everybody else has a
> contrary opinion that may be an indication that you don't understand what
> we are saying or why you are incorrect
>
>
>
> So if you want to add the no-u-turn relation on the freeway off-ramp, then
> go for it, but it was non-functional to begin with. And a side-note, I am
> yet to see a validator that says "delete it, it's wrong". It most likely
> would say that there is an incorrect number of members, which then provides
> a mapper with two options on how to proceed and fix it.
>
>
>
> Please provide an example of where the routing is still incorrect, in a
> way that TheSwavu has 'broken' by using a validator. It is possible that
> deleting the relation, rather than re-adding the two missing members, was
> the wrong decision. However, it is also the case that you yourself broke
> the relation (again, perhaps inadvertently), within 24 hours of first
> adding it.
>
>
>
> P.S., make sure to use 'reply all', so that the message gets cross-posted
> to talk-au.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Luke
>
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 21:03, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:
>
> Luke,
>
>
>
> TheSwavu has already said he deleted it because the validator told him
>  to, it wasn?t based on local knowledge or intersection rules. And have you
> figured out how to route bus stops with out the platform tag yet? Do you
> now understand the whole bus stop thing was about routing in the first
> place? OMG it?s like Im speaking to a bunch of people who all have the same
> opinion and wont listen to a word im saying.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Luke Stewart 
> *Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 7:59 PM
> *To: *Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> *Cc: *Anthony Panozzo ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
>
>
>
> This is taken directly from the OpenStreetMap website. If you can not see
> the problem with it, and why TheSwavu deleted it, then I suggest you
> familiarise yourself with the documentation:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction#Examples
>
> Version #2
> fixed intersection routing
>
> Edited about 2 months ago by 

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48

[Anthony Panozzo]

I didn’t realise you emailed me directly I am going to have to block you from 
doing so in the future, it’s against OSM au-talk policy



From: Luke Stewart<mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:21 PM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>; OSM Australian Talk 
List<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48

"TheSwavu has already said he deleted it because the validator told him to" - 
What's most likely is that the validator located a relation that was incorrect, 
and he determined that he should delete it. Alternatively, it could have been 
added back. Regardless, the relation was non-functional and that is obvious 
given the single member

"have you figured out how to route bus stops with out the platform tag yet" - 
Stops should have a platform tag, either on the node or the area that is the 
platform, but mass adding them still remains incorrect as has been discussed ad 
nauseam

"a bunch of people who all have the same opinion and wont listen to a word im 
saying" - This is not always the case, however if everybody else has a contrary 
opinion that may be an indication that you don't understand what we are saying 
or why you are incorrect

So if you want to add the no-u-turn relation on the freeway off-ramp, then go 
for it, but it was non-functional to begin with. And a side-note, I am yet to 
see a validator that says "delete it, it's wrong". It most likely would say 
that there is an incorrect number of members, which then provides a mapper with 
two options on how to proceed and fix it.

Please provide an example of where the routing is still incorrect, in a way 
that TheSwavu has 'broken' by using a validator. It is possible that deleting 
the relation, rather than re-adding the two missing members, was the wrong 
decision. However, it is also the case that you yourself broke the relation 
(again, perhaps inadvertently), within 24 hours of first adding it.

P.S., make sure to use 'reply all', so that the message gets cross-posted to 
talk-au.

Cheers,
Luke
On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 21:03, Anthony Panozzo 
mailto:pan...@outlook.com>> wrote:
Luke,

TheSwavu has already said he deleted it because the validator told him  to, it 
wasn’t based on local knowledge or intersection rules. And have you figured out 
how to route bus stops with out the platform tag yet? Do you now understand the 
whole bus stop thing was about routing in the first place? OMG it’s like Im 
speaking to a bunch of people who all have the same opinion and wont listen to 
a word im saying.



From: Luke Stewart<mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 7:59 PM
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick<mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>
Cc: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>; 
talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48

This is taken directly from the OpenStreetMap website. If you can not see the 
problem with it, and why TheSwavu deleted it, then I suggest you familiarise 
yourself with the documentation: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction#Examples

Version #2
fixed intersection routing

Edited about 2 months ago by slice0 · Changeset #118293106

Tags
restriction no_u_turn
type restriction
Members
1 member
Node 6357628400 as via



On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 20:25, Luke Stewart 
mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I genuinely can't tell if you are being straightforward with the community, or 
attempting to rouse trouble because it is amusing to you. I guarantee I am not 
the only one who has this opinion. Several other mappers, including TheSwavu 
himself, have already provided in-depth explanations of their (correct) 
reasoning on this talking list.

iD has a habit of breaking relations. One of the u-turn relations that you 
commented on was broken by you within a day of you adding it (aka, it lost two 
of its members), making it unusable for routing. Fundamentally the validators 
are looking at the OSM data verbatim, without the lens of presets or a GUI, and 
it is quite simple: if a turn restriction does not have at least 3 members 
(from, via, to), then it is definitionally invalid, unusable for routers, and 
requires correction as TheSwavu did in this case.

OpenStreetMap, whilst it does favour local knowledge, also values remote edits, 
particularly when it is (generally) simple to solve, like in the case of these 
edits.

There was a long, drawn out community discussion across multiple platforms with 
the mass edit of Australian bus stops. To me, this feels like a very similar 
situation. It seems like you don't quite understand the purpose of 
OpenStreetMap, or how validators, tools, and other programs interact with it. 
OpenStreetMap is designed to work across a myriad of platforms and devices, not 
a single router or renderer.

W

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48

[Anthony Panozzo]

Diaz, i'm sorry I can't sympathise with these excuses "it's not me it the 
validator" the bottom line is that this user is breaking perfectly fine routing 
all for the sake of some crappy validator gives him a pat on the back because 
it says so, that is irresponsible and foolish editing and deserves no credit 
for simply saying the validator told me so, it's basically bot editing using 
that excuse, I will be watching all edits this guy makes from now on and will 
be reporting every single edit he makes that breaks routing to the DWG and by 
the report button itself on the user page, then he can explain himself there




From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 2:35:26 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46 (Dian ?gesson)


--

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 15:04:05 +1000
From: Dian ?gesson 
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46
Message-ID: <06b0964db149a5343954af20fe2e3...@diacritic.xyz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"



Hi Anthony,

I can sympathise with your sense of frustration. It does feel irritating
when you feel as though your work is being undermined or broken. I know
I've spent a lot of time making changes for better routing, only to find
the same errors get reintroduced.

I think your frustration is misdirected at Andrew here, though. If
validation tools are detecting issues with some data, someone will
eventually notice and try to fix it; whether it be Andrew or some other
editor. In a collaborative, decentralised community it isn't possible to
stop other editors from making changes in an area.

In this specific case, these errors are a result of problems using the
iD editor which create "orphaned" relations that would not be used in
routing anyway. Andrew has indicated that he isn't trying to undo the
changes that have been added, rather to resolve the validation errors.

I've created a few of these errors myself inadvertently, and it wasn't
until I started to use JOSM that I realised how much easier and more
powerful that tool can be. If you are spending hours trying to get these
restrictions perfect, I'd strongly recommend giving that a try.

Both Andrew and yourself are trying to improve the quality of the map,
and no one benefits when frustrations boil over in this way. It's better
to try and work together constructively so we can all spend more time
doing the fun stuff. :)

Dian

On 2022-04-30 14:20, Anthony Panozzo wrote:

Let me put it this way, it very easy for you to come along with your
validator toll and get on your high horse and point out how trash some
routing edits are... but you have no clue at all how much effort it take
to get some intersections functioning as intended as per the rule of the
intersection, the one you pointed out was pretty simple and was
functioning 100% correctly before you touched it now it allows u-turns,
you're pointing out the tiny issue that your validator points out but
what you don't realize is that the validator doe not see the big picture
either, its pretty much just pointing out conflicting restrictions which
are even sometimes left in intentionally, this is not the first time ive
ran into your edits but I have had enough of it, it takes a lot more
knowledge and effort to get them working as intended per the rules than
for you to come along with your little tool, if you personally don't
know the intended routing and can't see any errors using the routing
engine itself LEAVE IT ALONE, OSM is only meant to be edited by people
with local knowledge of the areas, I put a lot of time into what I do
including random routing on my gps to see what it will throw at me, I do
not need to be worry about you and your tool coming along to destroy it.
I am not proff reading this so sorry if there are spelling errors!

 From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 1:33 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
 talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46

[Anthony Panozzo]

Let me put it this way, it very easy for you to come along with your validator 
toll and get on your high horse and point out how trash some routing edits 
are... but you have no clue at all how much effort it take to get some 
intersections functioning as intended as per the rule of the intersection, the 
one you pointed out was pretty simple and was functioning 100% correctly before 
you touched it now it allows u-turns, you’re pointing out the tiny issue that 
your validator points out but what you don’t realize is that the validator doe 
not see the big picture either, its pretty much just pointing out conflicting 
restrictions which are even sometimes left in intentionally, this is not the 
first time ive ran into your edits but I have had enough of it, it takes a lot 
more knowledge and effort to get them working as intended per the rules than 
for you to come along with your little tool, if you personally don’t know the 
intended routing and can’t see any errors using the routing engine itself LEAVE 
IT ALONE, OSM is only meant to be edited by people with local knowledge of the 
areas, I put a lot of time into what I do including random routing on my gps to 
see what it will throw at me, I do not need to be worry about you and your tool 
coming along to destroy it. I am not proff reading this so sorry if there are 
spelling errors!


From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 1:33 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re:  Talk-au Digest, Vol 178,
  Issue 44) (Andrew Davidson)
   2. Re: iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re:  Talk-au Digest, Vol
  178, Issue 44) (Andrew Davidson)
   3. Re: iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re:  Talk-au Digest, Vol
  178, Issue 44) (Phil Wyatt)
   4. FW:  Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44 (Phil Wyatt)


--

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 11:53:53 +1000
From: Andrew Davidson 
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re:  Talk-au Digest,
Vol 178, Issue 44)
Message-ID: <9d7c85e4-257e-f7b0-bd48-bf425c9c3...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

On 30/4/22 00:45, Anthony Panozzo wrote:

> This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know
> more than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing
> correction this account comes along and ?fixes? it based on ?knowledge?

Some terminology before we start. To be valid a turn restriction
relation needs to have:

1. A way with the role "from"
2. A way with the role "to"
3. One or more "via" s that can be either a node or one or more ways
4. The members must connect in a way that you can travel

When I say "broken" I mean that one of the rules is broken and when I
say "knowledge" I mean I know what a valid turn restriction should be.

> from the notes, let me just say I looked over some of the edit this
> account does and it breaks the routing for the most part, Changeset:
> 120344373 | OpenStreetMap

This changeset deleted this turn restriction:

https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13905961

which you added in changeset 118257827 and then broke in 118293106 (it
only had a node via member). When I reviewed this one I decided to
delete it because it would only duplicate this turn restriction:

https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/14044389

which you added in changeset 119769921, if I fixed it.

> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373> and Changeset:
> 120198383 | OpenStreetMap

This intersection had 15 broken turn restriction relation in it:

https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477255
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477256
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477257
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477258
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477260
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477261
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477263
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477268
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477269
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13557714
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761157
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761161
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/1

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44

[Anthony Panozzo]

User TheSwavu
This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know more than 
they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing correction this 
account comes along and “fixes” it based on “knowledge” from the notes, let me 
just say I looked over some of the edit this account does and it breaks the 
routing for the most part, Changeset: 120344373 | 
OpenStreetMap and Changeset: 
120198383 | 
OpenStreetMap
 are two examples of this account breaking routing, ive been wasting my time 
spending hours and hours fixing routing just for this shitty bot to come along 
and fuck it all up over and over again, I would like to ask DWG to take a real 
close look at this account and see if it can be banned from any further edits 
under the bot edit policy or straight out vandalism!



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Friday, 29 April 2022 8:32 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. OSM Wiki Update - Fourth Tagging Guidelines Page ready for
  review (Dian ?gesson)


--

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 18:03:27 +1000
From: Dian ?gesson 
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: [talk-au] OSM Wiki Update - Fourth Tagging Guidelines Page
ready for review
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"



Hello,

Thank you for the feedback for the subpages that have been completed so
far.

The fourth subpage of the Australian Tagging Guidelines:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Land_and_boundaries
is ready for review.

Of particular importance in this subpage, the changes to the
administration levels that was discussed earlier has been incorporated
into this new subpage.

Please, as always, don't be shy about providing feedback or raising
concerns.

Dian
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 


--

Subject: Digest Footer

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


--

End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 175, Issue 22

[Anthony Panozzo]

Creating new Bus Stop nodes
Is the consensus to remove the plaform tags from new nodes?





From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 10:30:11 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 175, Issue 22

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: How to properly add address tags when multiple buildings
  share a housenumber? (Peter leGras)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 01:27:57 +1100
From: Peter leGras 
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] How to properly add address tags when multiple
buildings share a housenumber?
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi Peter,
If you are tagging unit addresses in Orange NSW, I see a lot (but not all)
of strata complexes actually have the address with unit number in the NSW
spatial services addressing theme, despite not being displayed in the DCS
NSW Base Map layer.
This is a useful data source where there is restricted access, especially
in strata.
We have a waiver to use spatial services data such as this.
https://portal.spatial.nsw.gov.au/portal/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1=d3cf7c7edef14ca18248c6dc5fcaff96
Hope you find it useful.
I am mapping in the Blue Mountains and have done a bit of work in Orange. A
few nearby mappers are active in the OSM World discord server that was
mentioned recently in the talk-au list if you'd like to join us for casual
discussion.
Cheers
other Peter (2hu4u)

On Sun, 16 Jan 2022 at 23:20, Peter leGras  wrote:

> Hi Peter,
> The tag addr:housenumber does not render on non-building areas, but it is
> still useful to include on the complex lot bounds to assist geocoding. You
> can read more about this at
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1746
> Note that adding a node tagged with addr:housenumber at the centre of the
> complex will render on osm.org.
> If there are multiple dwellings on the complex with the same housenumber,
> you could add the addr:housenumber to every dwelling in the lot and
> consider adding addr:unit or addr:flats to each as necessary.
> Cheers
> 2hu4u
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 


--

Subject: Digest Footer

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


--

End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 175, Issue 22

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 175, Issue 15

[Anthony Panozzo]

My  User name is Slice0 and I was the one who made the mass edit to Upgrade the 
Bus Stop nodes to current standards.
I did not bring it up for discussion here because it has already been discussed 
and approved validator could consider a `public_transport=platform` way as 
routable · Issue #8760 · openstreetmap/iD · 
GitHub 
and voted on , my thought process was why do I need to discuss it here when it 
has already been discussed, the DWG user who reverted my changed never fully 
looked into this. He acted purely on the advice from Ds5rUy and should have 
this ability taken away and given to someone who is more objective, if that 
vote and discussion I linked out weighs  and talk here then he is 100% wrong 
and made 54700 wrong edits




From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 10:30:07 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 175, Issue 15

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Undiscussed, undocumented mass edit across all of
  Australia. (osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au)
   2. Re: Undiscussed, undocumented mass edit across all of
  Australia. (Andrew Harvey)
   3. Re: New blogs on unsealed roads in Victoria
  (fors...@ozonline.com.au)


--

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 18:01:18 +1000
From: 
To: "'OSM-Au'" 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed, undocumented mass edit across all
of Australia.
Message-ID: <055401d80853$c0830770$41891650$@thorsten.engler.id.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Warin,



nobody says that the tagging isn't correct for cases where the bus_stop node
is the only thing there is.



But please look at:



https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/931072496403370014
/unknown.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/931073576893825064
/unknown.png



This is a relatively normal bus stop. It clearly DOES have a distinct
platform. In which case the platform should be tagged on the area.



Even if someone decides that's too much work and decides to only to map the
bus_stop node and throw the platform tag onto that, that's fine as long as
it happens on a case by case basis.



The issue is that this is an automated mass edit, where the user loaded all
highway=bus_stop nodes in Australia into JOSM via an overpass query, then
unconditionally added the platform tag to all of them (even ones that might
have already tagged a platform on an area close by), and committed these
changes.



Furthermore, the user in question was specifically pointed to the Automated
Edit Code of Conduct before making that change and wilfully ignored the
process:



https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/931094389407768607
/unknown.png



Cheers,

Thorsten



From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, 13 January 2022 17:38
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed, undocumented mass edit across all of
Australia.





On 13/1/22 5:47 pm, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
  wrote:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116091398

To quote my changeset comment:

This undiscussed, undocumented mass edit that didn't follow the
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct is
introducing a huge amount of incorrect data to the database and should be
reverted.

public_transport=platform doesn't automatically go onto every
highway=bus_stop, only in cases where that's the only thing that's mapped.




If there is an actual waiting area of any kind, the
public_transport=platform belongs on that instead.

see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport#Buses



Umm from the above page

"If there is no real platform and you will only find a simple sign for the
passengers .
Add a node node at the location of the bus stop sign. It gets following
tags:

public_transport=platform
highway=bus_stop
name= or ref=
optional: additional tags like shelter=yes/no, bench=yes/no, bin=yes/no,
etc."



In most instances in Australia all there is is a 'bus stop sign' and shelter
with bench if your lucky. So in the majority of cases the tagging would be
correct.



---

I think this came about from 'public transport version 2'. I don't know if
it is 'required'.

Personally I see platforms for trains, wharf? for 

Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

[Anthony Costanzo]

I don't recall ever having been asked to put down county of residence
on a federal form, though if I was I would have named the county I
lived in rather than leaving it blank. State forms ask for town of
residence if they ask for any such thing, since there are
administrative reasons why this matters (e.g. when you register a
vehicle, the DMV needs to know what town will be charging you property
tax on it).

The state is divided into 13 districts for courts, 4 of which exactly
line up with 4 of CT's 8 counties:
https://jud.ct.gov/directory/maps/JD/default.htm
These courts are run by the state, though, so the court districts are
not government entities any more than something like a DOT district
would be.
As you might guess, you report for jury duty only in the district
where you live.

The federal government definitely uses CT's counties for statistical
purposes. Their borders are shown on census maps. Not sure about the
GIS source you're referring to specifically.

Connecticut's GIS data
(https://portal.ct.gov/DEEP/GIS-and-Maps/Data/GIS-DATA) offers
boundaries for both towns and counties, though they're separate
shapefiles so I'm not sure how you'd say one is "between" the other
and the state.
It is worth noting though that maps published by the state often show
town boundaries but not county boundaries (here's one example:
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dpolicy/policymaps/ref/hwymap18ps-Final.pdf?la=en)
- which makes since administratively speaking, the towns are more
important.

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:36 AM Greg Troxel  wrote:
>
> Anthony Costanzo  writes:
>
> > county. CT's counties have no associated government (anymore) but they
> > are still commonly used for statistical purposes and they still have
> > cultural relevance as well - you will hear references in casual
> > conversations to Fairfield and Litchfield counties. Meanwhile ask any
> > Connecticutter what COG they live in and most of them will probably
> > answer "what's a COG".
>
> (t's nice to hear from someone in CT, as I have not really understood
> things there, expect that it's obvious that the National Weather Service
> thinks countries still exist.)
>
> Do you, as a CT resident, have to put down your county of residence on
> any government paperwork, either state or federal?
>
> Or is there some notion that if a federal form asks for your county, you
> can answer "That's a ridiculous question - CT has no counties" and that
> is considered an OK answer?
>
> Do state forms uniformly decline to ask the question about county?
>
> How does jury duty work?  When you are called, how are you sorted into
> which courts you might ahve to go to?  If you only have to go to courts
> near you, vs the whole state, does that region align with historical
> county boundaries?
>
> Does the federal government believe that there are no counties?  Are CT
> counties represented on the National Map and in the federal GIS
> databases?
>
> Does the state of Connecticut publish maps or geodaata, and do they
> think counties exist as an administrative thing between state and town?
>
>
> (In MA, you are expected to put down a county, and jury duty is along
> county lines - but we already established that MA still has counties
> after talking about district attorneys, sherriffs etc.)

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

[Anthony Costanzo]

Going to chime in here as someone who has lived the majority of his life in CT.

I am quite familiar with CT's 8 counties and their geographic forms.
But I only have a vague idea what a COG is and couldn't have told you
offhand anything about where the boundaries between them are.

I support the idea that counties in CT should be tagged the same as
they are in other states. On the most basic level, this is simply
consistent - why should CT be tagged differently than elsewhere?
But even on a more nuanced level... the average person isn't concerned
about what government functions are or aren't associated with a
county. CT's counties have no associated government (anymore) but they
are still commonly used for statistical purposes and they still have
cultural relevance as well - you will hear references in casual
conversations to Fairfield and Litchfield counties. Meanwhile ask any
Connecticutter what COG they live in and most of them will probably
answer "what's a COG".

Great current example of this, look at the state's reporting on covid
cases: 
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/Coronavirus/CTDPHCOVID19summary5132020.pdf?la=en
Page 2 shows current hospitalizations by county. No reference to COGs
to be found.

Thus, counties should retain their admin level tags, and COGs should
be tagged less prominently.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Alaska Highway AK-2 tagging

[Anthony Costanzo]

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 7:45 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:35 PM Anthony Costanzo  wrote:
>>
>> All of AK 2 between Fairbanks and the Canadian border is paved. I can
>> vouch for this personally.
>
> OK, so that's kinda putting more weight on the "primary" idea.  Is most of it 
> a single carriageway freeway or a dual carriageway expressway?  It's
> been a long time since I've been there but i can't imagine it being more than 
> your typical middle-of-nowhere two-lane uncontrolled single
> carriageway today.  If that's the case, I feel like primary is the highest it 
> should be, and we should be considering more whether or not such a road
> rises to primary instead of secondary (the lowest it should be, given it's 
> part of the primary state highway network in Alaska).

Most of it is uncontrolled two-lane single carriageway.

I don't have a strong opinion on whether the road is tagged as trunk
or primary based on its own merits, however I do think the tags for
the single-carriageway parts of AK 2 and YT 1 (and BC 97 for that
matter) should match, whichever it is. These roads are functionally
equivalent and physically similar. Given how these and other major
single-carriageway roads in northern and western Canada are tagged as
Trunk, tagging AK 2 as such would seem to be the option that defers to
regional precedent.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 145, Issue 6

[Anthony Costanzo]

> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 18:21:59 -0600
> From: Paul Johnson 
> To: Joseph Eisenberg 
> Cc: "Eric H. Christensen" , "talk-us@openstreetmap.org"
> 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Alaska Highway AK-2 tagging
> Message-ID:
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:18 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
>
> > I would use highway=trunk the whole way for consistency. In Canada the
> > connecting highway is also highway=trunk. This makes sense because AK 2 is
> > linking Fairbanks, the largest city in this part of Alaska, with All the
> > cities in Canada and the lower 48 States.
> >
>
> That's kind of my thinking as to why it should be primary instead of
> secondary (as typical for the US for state highways).  Almost all of it's
> not even paved, it'd be a hard stretch to call it an expressway (trunk).

All of AK 2 between Fairbanks and the Canadian border is paved. I can
vouch for this personally.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 141, Issue 22

[Anthony Costanzo]

> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 07:09:25 -0500
> From: Paul Johnson 
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 6:40 AM Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
>
> > That's probably not relevant for anywhere in the USA (even in Alaska
> > the main highways between cities are paved... right?) but it's a
> > reminder that we can certainly choose to do things in a way that makes
> > sense for mapping the USA; we don't have to use the British or German
> > standards.
> >
>
> The larger cities in southern Alaska.  Most are gravel, including a paper
> interstate.  I think Alaska's the last state to still have gravel state
> highways.

Alaska does have gravel state highways, but the main road between
Fairbanks and Anchorage (Parks Highway, AK 3) is entirely paved, as is
the entirety of the Alaska Highway itself and the roads connecting it
to Fairbanks and Anchorage. So the statement "the main highways
between cities are paved" is still true.

That said, no, Alaska is not the last state to still have gravel state
highways. Vermont still has a couple (part of VT 121 is gravel, for
example). Montana has quite a few, including one section of a primary
route (MT 38 over Skalkaho Pass). Utah has at least one (UT 261's Moki
Dugway segment). Further examples likely exist.


As for the original subject that spurred this discussion... I agree
with the general sentiment that for any classifications other than
motorway (which for US purposes is treated as being equal to
"freeway"), the road's network importance matters more than its
geometry. It may be fine for some sections of former US 66 to be
tagged as trunk if they still function as major through roads, but
since most sections do not function as such their classification
should be lowered to the level appropriate for the given segment.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[OSM-talk-fr] Relai de poste

[Anthony Papillon]

Bonjour,

Sur Servon sur vilaine, le relai de poste renseigné dans OSM n'est
plus le bon. Il s'agit de l'ancien bureau de poste fermé depuis
quelques mois / années. Il y a maintenant un relai commerçant qui fait
aussi garage.

Aussi voici mes questions :
- dans http://osm.vdct.free.fr/postes/index.html les informations ne
semblent plus à jour, comment faire pour que ce service utilise les
dernière info ? le [1] du 02/2016 indique bien le relai et plus le
bureau.
- Puis je supprimer l'ancien bureau de poste sans créer d'incohérence
au niveau des scripts automatique (en gros ne va t'il pas être
rajouter) ?
- Puis je créer le nouveau relai et comment ? meme point que le garage
ou autre point ?

Pour les tags que je comptais ajouter :
ref:FR:LaPoste=06633A
amenity=post_office
post_office:type=post_partner
operator=La Poste
source=data.gouv.fr:LaPoste - 02/2016

Merci d'avance pour vos retour.

[1]: 
http://www.data.gouv.fr/fr/datasets/liste-des-points-de-contact-du-reseau-postal-francais-horaires-equipements-et-services-associes/

-- 

Anthony

___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

[OSM-talk-fr] Présentation

[Anthony Papillon]

Bonjour,

Comme il est recommandé de le faire, je me présente.
Je m'appelle Anthony, je contribue sur OSM sous le pseudonyme apapilon
depuis 2010 de manière épisodique principalement sur les département
du 35 et du 53.
Voila j'ai rencontré quelques autres contributeurs dans la vrai vie et
je m'inscris sur cette liste afin de m'impliquer un peu plus dans OSM.

Bonne journée à vous,

-- 

Anthony

___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [talk-au] Position magazine: looking for perspectives on G-NAF

[Anthony Wallace]

Hi there,

I'm looking to gather various perspectives on the release of 
G-NAF<http://www.spatialsource.com.au/2016/02/26/g-naf-is-now-officially-open/>,
 particularly around how it can be incorporated into OSM.

I was hoping you could please identify prominent individuals with in the 
Australian OSM community who would be appropriate.

The result will be an article or articles about the subject for both Position 
magazine and Spatial Source.

Cheers,



Anthony Wallace
Editor
Position magazine +
SpatialSource.com.au<http://www.spatialsource.com.au/>
-

From: Anthony Wallace [mailto:awall...@intermedia.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, 2 March 2016 2:38 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Position magazine: looking for perspectives on G-NAF

Hi there,

I'm looking to gather various perspectives on the release of 
G-NAF<http://www.spatialsource.com.au/2016/02/26/g-naf-is-now-officially-open/>,
 particularly around how it can be incorporated into OSM.

I was hoping you could please identify prominent individuals with in the 
Australian OSM community who would be appropriate.

The result will be an article or articles about the subject for both Position 
magazine and Spatial Source.

Cheers,

Anthony Wallace
Editor
Position magazine +
SpatialSource.com.au<http://www.spatialsource.com.au/>
-
The Intermedia Group
41 Bridge Rd, Glebe, NSW, 2037
Tel. (02) 8586 6134
Mob. 0422 985 973
[ Tw<https://twitter.com/spatialsource> | 
Fb<https://www.facebook.com/SpatialSource> | 
Li<http://www.linkedin.com/company/position-magazine-&-spatial-source-com-au> | 
G+<https://plus.google.com/+SpatialsourceAu/> ]

This communication is confidential and may contain legally privileged 
information. If you are not the named or intended recipient, kindly delete this 
communication and contact us as soon as possible. Please note you are not 
authorised to copy, use or disclose this communication or any attachments 
without our consent. There is a risk that email messages may be corrupted or 
infected by viruses or other interferences no responsibility is accepted for 
such interference. Unless expressly stated otherwise, the views of the writer 
are not those of The Intermedia Group Pty Ltd. Copyright The Intermedia Group 
Pty Ltd 2014.
[Description: pos ss]<http://spatialsource.com.au/>

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [Talk-us] U turn restrictions in areas

[Anthony]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 That'd have to be some super-script, aware of sightlines


What would you need besides elevation information in order to be able to
more or less do that?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Wiki Mapia Mass Upload

[Anthony]

 many parks, commercial areas, and graveyards seem to have 100% identical
geometries to OSM

Pre-fork or post-fork? That's one key question.


On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:

 Hi,

 On 15.09.2013 13:25, Simon Poole wrote:
  a) some proof of this actually happening
  b) a pointer to who is doing it (if confirmed)

 I don't understand enough of Wikimapia to actually determine which
 account has uploaded what when, but a cursory glance at the link (OSM
 can be activated as a base map in tha layer switcher) seems to indicate
 that buildings look similar to OSM but not the same (my guess - both
 imported from same source?) while many parks, commercial areas, and
 graveyards seem to have 100% identical geometries to OSM.

 Bye
 Frederik

 --
 Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09 E008°23'33

 ___
 legal-talk mailing list
 legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow

[Anthony]

On 2013-06-15 6:51 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:

 There is a growing number of OSM folks in the United States (myself
 included) who believe that government provided boundry data should be
 used for data products such as rendered maps and geocoders, but do not
 belong in OSM's core dataset (which is built around the idea of
 improvements based on local, verifiable observation).


Stevea replied:

 Again, this is not a one solution fits all situations problem, in this
 thread we have seen that over and over.  Let's continue to allow OSM to
 capture observable data (including aerial and satellite imagery) and local
 government-produced data alike, whether as nodes or polygons, as
 appropriate.  Many other features allow for both types of data structures,
 neighborhoods really are no different.


One thing that seems to be missing from Serge's analysis is that much of
government collected data is based on local, verifiable observation.

If the government decides that Blah Neighborhood consists of the blocks
bounded by Foo Street, Bar Road, Whatever River, and Whichamajig Railroad,
and then they create a polygon geocoding that, the government has used
local, verifiable observation to create that polygon.  And they aren't
going to get it exactly right.  OSM mappers very well might come along and
fix the border which corresponds to Whatever River, for instance.

I'm not aware of any government node, way, or polygon data in OSM, whose
presence is not disputed, where there isn't some tie to local, verifiable,
observable, on-the-ground features.  State borders are not truly defined by
latitudes and longitudes.  That is to say, even in places where a border is
historically defined as the 40th parallel or some specific latitude, the
true legal border does not lie exactly in that location.  Someone may have
historically measured the border incorrectly, and that measurement sticks
as the legal definition.  The latitude of the border may have shifted over
time due to movements in the underlying ground or continental plate.  I
can't think of any border which is legally defined in terms of latitude and
longitude.  And any border which isn't legally defined in terms of latitude
and longitude can be surveyed based on local, verifiable observation.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow

[Anthony]

It's not about mapping the sign, it's about mapping the neighborhood based
on the sign.

We don't map speed limit signs, we map the speed limits on the roads based
on the signs.  We don't map interstate signs, we map the name of the
interstate.  We don't map individual trees, we map forests.  We don't map
keep out, military area signs, we map military areas.


On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:05 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:



 On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Nathan Mills nat...@nwacg.net wrote:

 The sort of signs in the link below are precisely the sort of thing we
 put in OSM, or at least have historically.
 https://www.cityoftulsa.org/**community-programs/**
 neighborhoods/neighborhood-**sign-guide.aspxhttps://www.cityoftulsa.org/community-programs/neighborhoods/neighborhood-sign-guide.aspx


 There is certainly no problem mapping the *sign*.
 The sign is verifiable  objective.
 And the data is indexable and useful to map users, not just to mappers.

 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow

[Anthony]

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 Could we use either Geonames or Zillow to drive improvement to
 neighborhood name coverage in OSM?


Using Zillow wouldn't be an improvement.  Where I live, Zillow has the same
incorrect information as the TIGER CDP (which I removed from OSM).

I'd bet Geonames has equally inaccurate information.

If you want large quantities of terrible neighbourhood information, just
import the latest TIGER CDPs.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] parcel data next steps

[Anthony]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:

 Brian May b...@mapwise.com writes:

 I also think we need a little bit more sophisticated Data Catalog than
 a google spreadsheet.

 Email and a wiki page sounds good to me for coordination. Maybe we can
 bring it up in a Mappy Hour as well. And if there's enough of a need,
 we could do a separate parcels / address oriented Google
 Hangout.

 I always find it boggling that open data projects are willing to use
 google docs and google hangouts.  It would be really nice to at least
 have the data in a free software/free culture compatible place like an
 OSM foundation server.

I'm sure if someone puts a Google Docs or Google Hangout clone on an
OSM foundation server that people would be happy to do this.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Anthony]

I would suggest inviting him back on the mailing lists, with the
knowledge that being banned from the mailing lists means being banned
from OSM.

This situation where he is allowed to edit, but he isn't allowed to
join the mailing lists to discuss his edits, is an utter failure.

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 12:30 AM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote:
 Russ, I second your vote/motion, not that anybody called for a second, or
 even that I am able to offer it.  What I AM able to do is be civil and
 use the talk-us list, as it is our nationwide forum to discuss.  There are
 plenty of other consensus understandings that might be loosely called
 rules which make up the fabric of OSM as a community.  NE2 has again
 proven that he is either unwilling or unable to abide by those.
 Consequently, I think we should inform him that serious discussion of
 permanently banning him from OSM (this thread) is underway, and his behavior
 can either change for the better, or he can count on eventually being
 permanently banned.  He has had plenty of opportunities to do so, and so I
 am not optimistic he will be around much longer.  But if the community wants
 him, that can emerge as a consensus as well.

 His better (than nothing) edits are in a clear minority compared to the
 usual messes he makes.  He DOES, for better or worse, stir controversy,
 which is why we discuss, which is part of the community. If, for that reason
 alone (that he is controversial), there are those who do not wish to ban
 him, speak up now, as you may (may) be able to make the case that we need
 somebody like him as an example of what to do with difficult contributors.
 I think it is unanimous that he is that, at least.

 I wouldn't miss him if he were gone, either.

 SteveA
 California



 He's banned from (at least) this list. Consequently, you cannot expect
 him to discuss this issue here.

 We had a discussion of whether to ban him from editing in the past,
 which never really got resolved. It just died out. Yes, he's done a
 lot of editing, and yes, some of his edits have been fruitful, but no,
 some of his edits have been less than helpful. I wouldn't miss him if
 he were gone.

 I vote, not that anybody called for a vote, to ask him to leave.
 -russ

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Addresses with no house number

[Anthony]

This and many other annoying addressing schemes used to be common, but
I thought the enhanced 911 system did away with this sort of thing.  I
did a quick google search and I can't find any address for that school
though.

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
 A PO Box doesn't work for navigation purposes, which is what I thought we
 were focusing on.  Oddly enough, the school does have a mailbox on Third
 near Pine.  House numbers don't appear to be a thing in Council Hill, I
 didn't see anything there (though I was pushing a deadline and running
 behind, hence only focusing on Midway Schools, so I might have missed it;
 the schools were definitely was unnumbered).


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Fwd: Anyone ever talked about adding more Land Ownership data to OSM?

[Anthony]

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
 That doesn't mean it can't be used alongside it. This land ownership
 data (assuming it's licensed properly) can be rendered on the same map
 as OSM data (there are many examples of using TileMill to mix data
 sources in just this way) and if the data is imported into a database,
 there can be queries made against the two sets, so it would be
 possible to see the land owner for a given POI, for example.

[]

 In addition, much of
 the US has duplicate boundaries (places represented by areas, and
 nodes), arguments about the definition of spaces, disagreements in the
 data between municipal and census data, etc.

Wouldn't the latter be precisely an argument as to why we *can't* just
mix data sources?  If the municipal data is sometimes right, and the
census data is sometimes right, then doesn't OSM benefit by having
people doing local surveys then taking the best of the municipal data,
and the best of the census data, and merging it into a single data
source?

This idea that we can't improve government surveyed data is so
obviously wrong.  Importing and then improving upon government
surveyed data is in fact *exactly* what we have been successfully
doing in the US at least since the TIGER import.

Sure, we aren't going to do a good job of putting individual owners of
residences in OSM.  But I don't think anyone is suggesting that.  In
fact, one probably useful compromise would be to not even include the
property lines between individual residences.  But the property lines
between right of way and residences or parks or military areas or
whatever, are useful, and represent something on-the-ground.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)

[Anthony]

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Dave Hansen d...@sr71.net wrote:

 On 11/02/2012 09:09 AM, Anthony wrote:
  Might this not be part of the problem?  Why do we allow someone to edit
  but not to contribute to the mailing list?  Doesn't that promote exactly
  the type of behavior that some people are criticizing (i.e. editing
  without discussion).

 No, I don't think so.

 These problems persisted during times when Nathan was fully welcomed to
 this list.  His presence on the list did not help avoid or resolve them.


I don't get it.  If the problem is that you don't like the way he edits,
how is blocking him from the mailing list, but allowing him to edit, the
proper solution?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)

[Anthony]

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Dave Hansen d...@sr71.net wrote:

 On 11/02/2012 01:11 PM, Anthony wrote:
  I don't get it.  If the problem is that you don't like the way he edits,
  how is blocking him from the mailing list, but allowing him to edit, the
  proper solution?

 The times that I have moderated folks on this list it was for their
 behavior on this list.  It had nothing to do with their editing except
 that the list discussions tended to have _originated_ from editing
 problems.


Moderation is one thing.  Important messages can still go through, if
someone is moderated.  But in this case he apparently was kicked off the
list completely.  I'm not sure what behavior caused such a severe sanction,
but if it was warranted, then the person shouldn't be allowed to edit
either.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)

[Anthony]

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
 DWG has the administrative tools to block an account.  What we don't
 have is a clear rule stating that we can block an account for being
 difficult.

 Questions for the US mapping community:

 1) Do you want DWG to act on your behalf on this matter and or similar 
 matters?

No.  DWG should act on behalf of OSMF.  It's their servers, not ours.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)

[Anthony]

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
 So, as a generalized example of a specific instance that I have in
 mind, I added some tags to some ways which reflected data that anybody
 could verify from multiple sources with a little bit of research. I
 didn't put a source= tag because the source was from USGS topo data --
 unquestionably public domain, backed up positionally with USGS ortho
 photos. Sometimes the data came from research, other times from site
 visits. A reasonably safe, uncontroversial edit.

 DUM felt it necessary to change the key of the tag to a different key,
 thus violating rule #1 by *changing* rather than *adding* a new tag
 with e's new key and the value I put into the tag. To make matters
 worse, this key is one that e invented and seems to be the sole user
 of.

 DUM has made this change to hundreds of ways that I know of, and
 probably thousands or more across the country, and without any
 consultation with others as far as I can find.

That's a little bit too general.

The key question is, which key was right?

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)

[Anthony]

I'm not sure there is anyone *banned* from the lists.  On moderation,
maybe, but so long as the emails are eventually going through that
seems okay.

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 9:16 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote:
 If I think I know who this is all about, maybe he should be un-banned from
 talk-us so he might be able to defend himself at least?

 --James

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)

[Anthony]

On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:

 Anthony writes:
   The key question is, which key was right?

 No. Without getting too specific, my key was one of the most
 commonly-used keys, while e's key was one e invented.


Without getting specific, how can we figure out who was right?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[talk-au] suburb boundaries

[Anthony]

Hello all, I would like to ask what the status of the suburb boundaries is? 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/ABS_Data user pnorman (on 
IRC) has offered to import this data if nobody knows how to do it___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [Talk-us] Tags for Emergency Interstate

[Anthony]

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com wrote:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_route#Emergency_detour_routes

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detour#Permanent_detours

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Discardable TIGER tags

[Anthony]

On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 1:21 PM, william skora skorasau...@gmail.com wrote:
 Tiger:tlid - Could be removed. I've had newbies ask me at mapping
 parties what it means, I haven't been able to answer them. I haven't
 seen any use for its inclusion at this point.

FWIW, I strongly support removing tiger:tlid.  However, I remember
having a disagreement with others in the past about this, so I didn't
bring it up.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Discardable TIGER tags

[Anthony]

I'm all for upload_uuid being removed automatically.  As for
tiger:separated, is it possible to remove the tag only if it's set to
no?  The 1.4% that are set to something else should probably be
reviewed manually.

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
 Some people may not even be aware of this but JOSM silently discards
 the created_by tag if it exists on any object you change and upload to
 the API. This tag was deemed unnecessary and counterproductive a long
 time ago and this is just a way of cleaning it out of the database as
 people edit. Not sure if Potlatch does anything like this.

 What do you think about adding a couple of TIGER tags to be silently
 dropped? As more attributes get added to things in OSM the tag list
 can get kind of big and annoying to look through, especially when some
 of them are of no real value. Specifically, I try to always do a
 modified search in JOSM before I upload and remove the
 tiger:separated and tiger:upload_uuid tags from things I have touched.

 I believe the tiger:separated tag was set on all residential or higher
 roads. 98.6% of the values are no and most of them are on minor
 streets where it is not really an interesting value. On the remaining
 roads it seems, in my experience, to be wrong a majority of the time
 anyway. So I see no value in this tag.

 I believe Dave Hansen said the UUID tag was useful during the TIGER
 import process to verify things and fix problems but I see no value in
 it now. It is such a large value that it takes up about 1 GB of space
 in the (uncompressed XML) planet file according to my calculations.

 As stated above, this would only delete the tags on objects that you
 have already modified in some way, not on everything you download.

 Are there any other tags that people feel should be automatically
 discarded? tiger:tlid and tiger:county seem mildly useful. What about
 tiger:cfcc and tiger:source? I don't currently remove those from my
 changesets but don't really see too much use for them either. Not
 really sure about the zip code tags. They seem like they could be
 useful but I am not aware of anything that actually uses them. If
 there is agreement, I will submit a patch to the JOSM devs and
 reference this thread.

 Toby

 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Discardable TIGER tags

[Anthony]

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 I'm all for upload_uuid being removed automatically.  As for
 tiger:separated, is it possible to remove the tag only if it's set to
 no?  The 1.4% that are set to something else should probably be
 reviewed manually.

 Might be possible but not the way I was hoping to implement it to
 match existing code.

I'd say keep it, then.

 Has anyone ever used a tiger:separated tag to
 guide them to something that needs review?

Yes.

 I have found a few yes
 values that were incorrect. The rest were pretty obviously dual
 carriageway on aerial imagery and the tag didn't really help me... And
 once it is mapped as dual carriageway in OSM the tag is misleading.
 That way no longer needs to be marked as separated since it now has
 two parallel ways representing it.

I agree with removing ones that are marked incorrectly.  I think it's
harmful to remove ones that are marked correctly, though.  And I don't
see any way to automatically distinguish between the two.

Anyway, that's my opinion.  I think it's useful information.  And the
fact that it is sometimes incorrect is, in my opinion, a reason to
keep it.  I support removing tiger:uuid precisely because there is no
definition of what the correct value should be.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: [OSM-dev] Licence redaction ready to begin

[Anthony]

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Kevin Kenny kken...@nycap.rr.com wrote:
 The culture of
 OSM seems to be veering from bad data happens, and when it does,
 other mappers fix it, to we have to protect the map from the
 mappers.

Not from mappers, from disruptive bots.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rails with trails

[Anthony]

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 7/3/2012 4:11 PM, Anthony wrote:

 What if it's an abandoned railway which is adjacent to a not-abandoned
 railway?

 Then it's already tagged as a rail trail.

Which tag should be used, though?

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Duplicate GNIS points

[Anthony J. Bentley]

What's the proper thing to do when there are multiple GNIS ids for the
same node?

For instance:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.131959lon=-106.516827zoom=18layers=M

There are two identical nodes with identical coordinates:
Saint Stephens United Methodist Church, gnis:feature_id=939399
Saint Stephen's United Methodist Church, gnis:feature_id=914456

Obviously these are meant to be the same point. What's the proper way to
merge these together, since a node can't have two gnis:feature_id tags?
Is it okay to just delete one?

Another example has three entries:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.081997lon=-106.61987zoom=18layers=M
University Art Museum (gnis:feature_id=929517)
Jonson Gallery of the University Art Museum (gnis:feature_id=929518)
Jonson Gallery (gnis:feature_id=933296)

--
Anthony J. Bentley

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] TIGER road expansion code

[Anthony]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
 W and W Industrial Rd expands to West and W Industrial Road, since
 W is the direction_prefix, but the second W is unaccounted for, the
 script doesn't know if that is supposed to be W or West (and neither
 do I). The old script would have punted (since it's ambiguous which W
 should be expanded) the new one expands the first, since W is the
 direction_prefix.

 I think instead of focusing on these odd edge cases, we focus on the
 fact that we're now hitting the .0001% of roads that can't be expanded
 and accept that we're going to have to accept some small error rate,
 and so instead of focusing on fixing them, decide how we want to
 identify them).

What percentage of roads, where the old script would have punted, are
now being expanded correctly?

What error rate is acceptable?

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] TIGER road expansion code

[Anthony]

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:

 What percentage of roads, where the old script would have punted, are
 now being expanded correctly?

 The new script is up now.

 I used Maryland as a test case

 In Maryland the number went from 21 roads it couldn't expand to 1.

 But that's 20 out of the ~70k it *was* able to expand, so either you
 could say it handles 99.5% of all previously unexpandable roads, or it
 handled .0003% of all total roads.

By roads you mean unique names?

In any case, if it's only 20 for Maryland, it's probably a low enough
number for the country that they can all be manually reviewed.

 What error rate is acceptable?

 As low as possible

So any error rate is acceptable?

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

[Anthony]

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 4:21 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
 It checks suffixes starting from the
 end, so if you have St something St E or St something St East,
 it'll only check E or East and then St and then stop because
 something is not a known suffix.

So Calle Ave Maria will be expanded to Calle Avenue Maria?

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

[Anthony]

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 4:21 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
 It checks suffixes starting from the
 end, so if you have St something St E or St something St East,
 it'll only check E or East and then St and then stop because
 something is not a known suffix.

 So Calle Ave Maria will be expanded to Calle Avenue Maria?

Nevermind.  No.  It won't.  Because Maria is not a known suffix, right?

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] TIGER road expansion code

[Anthony]

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
 It's worth noting that any errors are already there as errors in the TIGER
 tags. So, had the TIGER import been done properly in the first place, these
 errors would be in the name tags as well.

This seems to be the case.  The code checks for tiger:name_base, and
if it can't find it, then it doesn't make any changes.

(Can someone confirm this?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/16011770 will be untouched,
right?)

If so, this is good, but it does mean that road names are going to get
out of sync, if, for instance, tiger:name_base was removed from some
of the ways and not removed from others.  This will complicate later
fixes/enhancements.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] TIGER road expansion code

[Anthony]

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote:
 On 5/12/2012 5:54 PM, Anthony wrote:

 If so, this is good, but it does mean that road names are going to get
 out of sync, if, for instance, tiger:name_base was removed from some
 of the ways and not removed from others.  This will complicate later
 fixes/enhancements.


  This also happens long term as people create roads from scratch and don't
 know about the abbreviation rule when starting.

Yeah, it does, but we're not discussing that right now.

If we can avoid adding tens of thousands of more of these cases, we should.

And it seems we can.  Even a simple rule like assuming that two
connected ways with the same name are the road would be a useful
addition.  Something more complicated, especially something that looks
at the history, would be even better.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

[Anthony]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Dale Puch dale.p...@gmail.com wrote:
 Clarity!  The abbreviations are just that, they mean the full word, and are
 spoken that way, but written and displayed as the abbreviation.  I also
 disagree I have never know anyone that said whatever A V E  they do not
 spell it out, they say the word the abbreviation stands for.  Same for St,
 Dr ect.

What are you disagreeing with?  I've known streets that were called
Whatever Ave (Rhymes with Whatever Have).  Not Whatever Avenue.
And certainly not Whatever A V E.

 It is a LOT easier to abbreviate from the full word than to go the other
 way.

Not really.  Is 1515 South West Shore Boulevard, Tampa abbreviated
1515 S West Shore Blvd, Tampa, or is it abbreviated 1515 S W Shore
Blvd, Tampa?  If you want the answer, ask usps.com.

The only way to capture the full information is to have additional
tags telling you what the base is.  And if you do that, abbreviating
or not abbreviating doesn't matter.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

[Anthony]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 The only way to capture the full information is to have additional
 tags telling you what the base is.  And if you do that, abbreviating
 or not abbreviating doesn't matter.

And if you want to avoid tremendous redundancy, the way to that is
with some sort of street relations.

Each way should contain information about the way, the whole way, and
*nothing but the way*.  Including base_name information in every
instance of the way fails 3NF.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

[Anthony]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Minh Nguyen m...@1ec5.org wrote:
 On 2012-05-11 6:45 AM, Anthony wrote:
 The only way to capture the full information is to have additional
 tags telling you what the base is.  And if you do that, abbreviating
 or not abbreviating doesn't matter.


 That's similar to how the tiger:* tags are structured, and it's the subject
 of a proposal on the wiki:

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Directional_Prefix_%26_Suffix_Indication

Well, yes, we should find a way to separate out the parts of the name.
 In addition to facilitating abbreviation, it also facilitates
translation.  We also should include pronunciation information.

But first we need street relations.  It turns out some people already
did research into ways to structure a database which minimizes the
inconsistencies we currently have in the OSM database.  It's called
database normalization.

As it turns out, the current method of putting names on ways already
fails to even be in first normal form.  Some ways represent more than
one road.

The solution is to use relations.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Street is
somewhat of a good proposal, though I have a little bit of trouble
with the wording.  We shouldn't include Any Tag that applies to all
parts of the road, but only to those tags which apply to the entire
road as a whole.  In other words, we'd include goods=no if there were
a law saying no commercial vehicles are allowed on Whatever Parkway,
but not just because all the ways happen to have goods=no tags.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

[Anthony]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
 At 2012-05-10 19:40, Anthony wrote:

 On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote:

   The only question is what to do about those cases where it's only
  referred
  to locally as 'Ave', and the postal service would refuse letters
  addressed
  to 'Avenue'.

 The postal service would refuse letters addressed to Avenue in some
 instances?


 Unless this quote is out of context, that seems ridiculous (in the US).

I very well may have misquoted Mike North.  I'm not sure what he was
trying to say.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

[Anthony]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Dale Puch dale.p...@gmail.com wrote:
 As a quick and dirty test I took Florida and Illinois road data from
 cloudmade.  A simple replace of the top 7 or so suffixes at the end of the
 name an with a space in front of it resulted in over 700,000 name changes
 for those 2 states alone, and that did not include all the names with
 cardinals (prefix and suffix) that need expanding.  It was well over 80% of
 the names.  Anyone arguing that not scripting these changes should spend a
 day or two trying to do that by hand and get back to us how they feel
 afterwards.

You seem to be assuming all the changes are positive.

What happened to the on the ground rule, anyway?

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

[Anthony]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote:
 On 5/10/2012 10:19 PM, Anthony wrote:

 What I'm questioning is why it doesn't apply.  If the people call it
 Whatever Ave, shouldn't the data read Whatever Ave?


  Most of the US wouldn't call it 'Whatever Ave'; when spoken, it would be
 'Avenue'.  Having it expanded makes programs with spoken directions much
 more accurate.

Depends on what street you're talking about.  I've certainly lived in
places where the vast majority of the locals called it Whatever Ave,
and not Whatever Avenue.  Most of the US...wouldn't talk about the
street at all.

  The only question is what to do about those cases where it's only referred
 to locally as 'Ave', and the postal service would refuse letters addressed
 to 'Avenue'.

The postal service would refuse letters addressed to Avenue in some instances?

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

[Anthony]

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote:
 On 5/1/2012 11:49 PM, Anthony wrote:

  That assumes that the TIGER tags will always be present to assist with
   proper automatic expansion.

 I'm not sure what you mean, because I am not making that assumption at
 all.


  You mentioned use of the history to access the TIGER tags.

Yes, I said if a bot is smart enough to go through the history tags,
then this *does* provide an advantage over data consumers doing it
themselves.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

[Anthony]

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
 2) My human error rate estimation of 1/1000 seems entirely reasonable.
 Think typos, or misreading. I'm sure we see error rates that high now
 in OSM and we find them acceptable. A computer that's acting
 conservatively will actually produce far lower error rates!

But its error rates are potentially much more annoying.  Doctor
Martin Luther King Bolevard is one thing.  Drive Martin Luther King
Boulevard is another.  The latter will be much more difficult to find
at a later date and flag for review.

Maybe you won't make that particular error, but you're going to have
to be really careful to avoid making any errors like it.  And relying
on the TIGER tags may or may not help.  I wouldn't be surprised if
many of the TIGER tags themselves are screwed up, based on the kinds
of mistakes I've seen in TIGER data.

Anthony

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

[Anthony]

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 Doctor Martin Luther King Bolevard is one thing.  Drive Martin Luther King
 Boulevard is another.

And if we're going to make so many mistakes (1/1000 means thousands of
mistakes), I'd rather it just be left as Dr Martin Luther King Blvd.

Yes, we can't stop people from making mistakes.  But we can refuse to
allow thousands of mistakes to be added, for the sake of removing
abbreviations which aren't hurting anyone in the first place.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

[Anthony]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
 There have been some limited automated expansions, though they can be
 problematic, because abbreviations can mean many possible things.  Expanding
 abbreviations requires a bit of a human touch.  Creating abbreviations in
 the renderer when so desired, not so much.

 This is true, but if one is talking about the TIGER data, there are a
 number of hints that can make this problem virtually nil.

 There's a tag tiger:name_type key that contains the value of the
 expandable name section, eg. St or Ln or Pky. AFAIK these are always
 expandable to Street, Lane and Parkway.

 And of course one must only expand the name_tag value if it's the last
 component of the name string, eg. Ln Ln should be Ln Lane. This should
 be fairly easy to construct in a regex, but one should be careful of
 it.

 Those two rules should eliminate a vast majority of expansion issues.
 If we only expand TIGER data, then it should be a fairly
 straightforward process.

 Of course such a script should be peer reviewed and tested, but I'm
 confident that the error rate will be very low.

I guess this would be okay, so long as it gets peer reviewed and
tested by a group including you.

 And for those few exceptions where the expansion is wrong, a human
 review process will turn this up and make it fairly correctable. In
 fact, I'd argue that the problems won't be subtle, making them easy to
 spot and fix.

How would the human review process work?  Isn't it better to do the
review *before* editing the database?

 In return, we'll save hundreds, maybe thousands of man hours doing expansions.

Useless expansions, though.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

[Anthony]

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
 The other point that's being missed is that we as a community already
 accept an error rate in our data that's far larger than any potential
 mistake rate on a well written script. If the script makes one error
 in 1000 streets, it will be doing a better job than a vast majority of
 manual mappers, and like manual mappers, they can be corrected.

If someone manually expanded 1,000,000 street name abbreviations, and
made 1,000 mistakes, it would not be acceptable.

If they were doing something more useful than expanding street name
abbreviations, fine.  But expanding street name abbreviations,
according to a very simple heuristic which can easily be done at the
preprocessing stage, is not very useful.

If this is going to be done, I hope the error rate is much smaller
than 1 in 1,000.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

[Anthony]

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 5/1/2012 12:59 PM, Anthony wrote:

 Automatically expanding abbreviations is a terrible idea.  If an
 abbreviation is unambiguous, then it can be expanded during the
 preprocessing step.  If, on the other hand, it is ambiguous, then you
 are turning ambiguous data into incorrect data, which certainly
 diminishes the data.


 Not quite. We have various TIGER tags that break the name into pieces, and
 allow automated expansion where the name field may be ambiguous. (Though
 occasionally these tags are wrong.)

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.  Either it is unambiguous
(due to TIGER tags or whatever), and therefore can be done during the
preprocessing step.  Or it is ambiguous, and needs human
intervention/review.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

[Anthony]

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 5/1/2012 1:23 PM, Anthony wrote:

 On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com
  wrote:

 On 5/1/2012 12:59 PM, Anthony wrote:


 Automatically expanding abbreviations is a terrible idea.  If an
 abbreviation is unambiguous, then it can be expanded during the
 preprocessing step.  If, on the other hand, it is ambiguous, then you
 are turning ambiguous data into incorrect data, which certainly
 diminishes the data.



 Not quite. We have various TIGER tags that break the name into pieces,
 and
 allow automated expansion where the name field may be ambiguous. (Though
 occasionally these tags are wrong.)


 I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.  Either it is unambiguous
 (due to TIGER tags or whatever), and therefore can be done during the
 preprocessing step.  Or it is ambiguous, and needs human
 intervention/review.

 The TIGER tags are not exactly standard OSM tags that belong in the
 database. Better that we get rid of them at the same time as we expand
 abbreviations.

On that point, I strongly agree.

And actually, if the bot is going to be smart enough to look at the
history, to find deleted TIGER tags, then maybe there is some
advantage to doing this during the preprocessing step (which would
often not have access to history data).

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

[Anthony]

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 And actually, if the bot is going to be smart enough to look at the
 history, to find deleted TIGER tags, then maybe there is some
 advantage to doing this during the preprocessing step (which would
 often not have access to history data).

What I mean is that, if the bot is going to look at the history, then
there would be an advantage to letting the bot run.

But I am assuming this could be done with much less than a 1/1000
error rate.  1/10,000 would maybe be acceptable.  1/100,000 would be
okay.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

[Anthony]

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote:
 On 5/1/2012 1:21 PM, Anthony wrote:

 The preprocessing step between downloading the data from OSM and doing
 something with it.

  That assumes that the TIGER tags will always be present to assist with
 proper automatic expansion.

I'm not sure what you mean, because I am not making that assumption at all.

  And I'd rather have the US data in line with the world-wide OSM data where
 it makes sense.   That way the US can consume OSM US data with tools
 developed worldwide, without the tool writers needing to implement
 US-specific rules.

  After analysis, most of the US opinions fall on the side of no
 abbreviations.

I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing against expanding
abbreviations.  The question is whether or not it's okay for a bot to
expand abbreviations.  And to a large extent that depends on how
accurate the bot will be.

If the bot is sure to be 100% accurate, then hey, no problem.  But I
don't believe that is the case.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

[Anthony]

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 The TIGER tags are not exactly standard OSM tags that belong in the
 database. Better that we get rid of them at the same time as we expand
 abbreviations.

 Although the tiger:* keys aren't standard, the information they store is
 very useful. There are plenty of people that might want to know the
 different parts of a road name, so we should simply rename these tags
 instead of completely blowing the data away.

I guess that's okay too, though personally I get so annoyed by the
redundant data (*) that I couldn't be bothered.  Why street relations
never caught on is beyond me.

(*) I.E. adding base_name=Main to the 100 different ways that Main
Street is split up into.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Check my junctions - looking for someone to review my plates of spaghetti -- responding to feedback

[Anthony]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
 I don't know about Pennsylvania, but here in Florida a single white line
 does not legally prevent crossing. But even if it did, we don't map a double
 yellow as a median.

*You* don't map a double yellow (I assume you mean a double double
yellow) as a median.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Check my junctions - looking for someone to review my plates of spaghetti

[Anthony]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 1/23/2012 9:52 PM, dies38...@mypacks.net wrote:
 Yuck. A separate way should not be used for a turn lane (unless that lane is
 separated by barriers or maybe a wide striped-off area).
 Corollary: a separated right-turn lane begins and ends approximately where
 the traffic island begins and ends, not where the separate lane begins and
 ends.

Better fix this:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=27.987056lon=-82.5464zoom=18layers=M

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Check my junctions - looking for someone to review my plates of spaghetti -- responding to feedback

[Anthony]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 1/24/2012 8:33 AM, Anthony wrote:

 On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com
  wrote:

 I don't know about Pennsylvania, but here in Florida a single white line
 does not legally prevent crossing. But even if it did, we don't map a
 double
 yellow as a median.


 *You* don't map a double yellow (I assume you mean a double double
 yellow) as a median.

 No, I mean a double yellow. As in do not pass.

That doesn't legally prevent crossing either.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Check my junctions - looking for someone to review my plates of spaghetti -- responding to feedback

[Anthony]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 1/24/2012 10:24 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:

 Florida's driver's manual says that crossing any double-white line is
 prohibited.  You're confusing double white with single white.


 No, I'm not. And I agree with Mikel that this sort of reply is unproductive.

The fact that double yellow means crossing the centerline markings
for passing is prohibited and not crossing the centerline markings
is prohibited is quite significant.

You can, if it is safe and not otherwise prohibited, make a left turn
across a double yellow.  You can, if it is safe and not otherwise
prohibited, make a U-turn across a double yellow.

The only sense in which a double yellow prevents crossing if there
are no intersections nearby, is if any place where someone might turn
is called an intersection.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address improvement through imports?

[Anthony]

Voter records are a good idea.  And business registration records /
business tax records also.  I think getting the business addresses is
going to be the harder task.  But maybe if we merge data from multiple
sources we can get a decent portion of it.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Metcalf, Calvin (DOT)
calvin.metc...@state.ma.us wrote:
 To suplimnett it you could use the voter file, it'll have all the residential 
 addresses, while not usefull on its own it'll give you fairly acurate ranges 
 for residential streets.
 in america its public domain, getting it can be tricky and usually involves 
 requesting it from towns
 Sent with Verizon Mobile Email


 ---Original Message---
 From: Anthony o...@inbox.org
 Sent: 11/14/2011 9:36 pm
 To: Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com
 Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Address improvement through imports?

 On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
 The parcel data is a superset of address data...

 Not when there's more than one address to a parcel, which around here
 unfortunately is a common occurrence in exactly the places where
 address information is most useful (strip malls and such).

 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address improvement through imports?

[Anthony]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
 The parcel data is a superset of address data...

Not when there's more than one address to a parcel, which around here
unfortunately is a common occurrence in exactly the places where
address information is most useful (strip malls and such).

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address improvement through imports?

[Anthony]

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Steven Johnson sejohns...@gmail.com wrote:
 The Census Bureau, through their partnerships and liaisons with state
  local govt, are acutely aware of the need and importance of address data.
 They are in fact open to finding ways to make the data available and still
 protect the privacy of individuals. It will likely take a while to get a
 change in policy, stand up some mechanism to provide data, create protocols
 for privacy protection, etc. but the fact that they're seriously considering
 these changes is progress.

The problem is not the policies, the problem is the law.  If the
problem were the policies, then an FOIA request would work.

A list of all addresses does not violate the privacy of individuals.
If that were all the law said, then I would try the request. But the
law goes further than saying the Census Bureau cannot violate the
privacy of individuals. It says the Census Bureau cannot distribute
raw data reported by or on behalf of individuals.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address improvement through imports?

[Anthony]

On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Steven Johnson sejohns...@gmail.com wrote:
 Doubt very seriously a FOIA request would work. Since the data are subject to 
 Title XIII restrictions, it will likely take an act of Congress to make them 
 available.

What exactly are the restrictions?  I don't see how a list of all
addresses, without any additional information, is a privacy issue.
The fact of the matter is such a list *is already published by the
USPS*, but *that* version of it isn't public domain.

I'm tempted to give it a try, and even appeal if my request gets
denied.  Any idea where I would send the request?

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address improvement through imports?

[Anthony]

On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Steven Johnson sejohns...@gmail.com wrote:
 Doubt very seriously a FOIA request would work. Since the data are subject 
 to Title XIII restrictions, it will likely take an act of Congress to make 
 them available.

 What exactly are the restrictions?  I don't see how a list of all
 addresses, without any additional information, is a privacy issue.
 The fact of the matter is such a list *is already published by the
 USPS*, but *that* version of it isn't public domain.

 I'm tempted to give it a try, and even appeal if my request gets
 denied.  Any idea where I would send the request?

Actually my biggest worry is that they'll approve the request, and
then tell me it's going to cost tens of thousands of dollars in fees
to get it.  Maybe I'll start with just a small portion of the state.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address improvement through imports?

[Anthony]

Hmm...  Baldridge v Shapiro, a Supreme Court ruling:

The unambiguous language of the confidentiality provisions of the
Census Act -- focusing on the information or data that constitutes
the statistical computation -- as well as the Act's legislative
history, indicates that Congress contemplated that raw data reported
by or on behalf of individuals, not just the identity of the
individuals, was to be held confidential, and not available for
disclosure. The master address list sought by Essex County is part of
the raw census data intended by Congress to be protected under the
Act. And under the Act's clear language, it is not relevant that
municipalities seeking data will use it only for statistical
purposes.

This case was over something a little different...but that's some strong dicta.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address improvement through imports?

[Anthony]

On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com wrote:
 Any idea where I would send the request?
 http://www.census.gov/po/www/foia/foiaweb.htm

 Good luck.  Census will fight the request. Earlier comments about
 Title XIII apply.

Based on that Supreme Court ruling, and the actual text of the law,
I'm not going to bother.  Thank you, though.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address improvement through imports?

[Anthony]

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com wrote:
 As long as we have all of the addresses, we could use satellite data to
 align them with houses.  Is this the type of data we have in TIGER?

It isn't, but I wonder whether or not a FOIA request for a list of all
addresses (*without* geolocation information) would be possible.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [talk-ph] Easy way to test routing on OSM data

[Anthony Balico]

Cool! exactly what I'm looking for.

My brother-in-law came here in the metro as part of his advance training.
He needs to drive around frequently so I installed GarminXT+OSM on his
phone. The tool is doing a great job and it's bringing him from place to
place. But like all gps do, he's having poor signal from time to time,
something which gives him uncomfort. This online routing calculator surely
will help him navigate his way.

Btw, allow me to say my appreciation to Maning. Pre your osm map set server
is awesome! A great help to many


On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 6:45 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.comwrote:

 Go here:
 http://apmon.dev.openstreetmap.org/routing?lat=14.58917lon=121.0708zoom=17layers=M

 Click on the Routing tab.

 Click on the start marker and then on the map to select your starting
 point.

 Click on the end marker and then on the map to select your destination.

 Select your routing engine (don't select Opensource Routing Machine
 since it doesn't have data for the Philippines)

 Select other options.

 Then click on Find Route.

 Ta da!

 You guys should play around with this in order to find routing errors
 and missing turn restrictions (such as no-left-turns).

 ___
 talk-ph mailing list
 talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [Talk-us] Address improvement through imports?

[Anthony]

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
 Anthony, my recollection is you're banned from editing our map, so
 don't worry about how we split or don't split the roads.

I still edit the map.  I am not banned.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address improvement through imports?

[Anthony]

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Michal Migurski m...@stamen.com wrote:
 I'm not a fan of splitting ways

Maybe we should remove the ability from the editors, then.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address improvement through imports?

[Anthony]

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
 On 11/1/11 11:50 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
 Is there a way for mapnik to only render features of a certain class
 if there's not more than a certain density of them?

 i don't know about that, but i certainly think that the current default
 mapnik rendering for openstreetmap.org is showing us too much addressing
 detail. i'm not sure what showing the address interpolation ways here really
 adds to the mapnik rendering for the average visitor to OSM

It lets them know the address interpolation ways are there in the data.

Isn't the average visitor to OSM a mapper?

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address improvement through imports?

[Anthony]

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Steven Johnson sejohns...@gmail.com wrote:
 Up to now, we've been talking largely about addresses as point features.
 However, one thing I think would be good to have is block ranges on streets.
 What I mean is a tag that indicates this is the 1000 block, the 1100 block,
 the 1200 block, etc. Rather than being a point feature attached to
 buildings, it would be a tag associated with the way. It would be much
 easier to implement, make the map renderings much more presentable at small
 scales, and provide better address utility than presently exists.

addr:inclusion=potential - The complete range of all possible address
numbers on a block, although there may not physically be enough room
on the block for that range of house numbers. Interpolation data from
US TIGER is an example where Geo-location would only be as near as one
block.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:interpolation

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us