Re: [talk-au] vic.gov.au lacking OSM attribution

[Dion Moult]

Related to this - I noticed today that on this page: 
https://nbnco-customer.force.com/directcustomer/s/new-developments-application 
- when a user types in an address it'll then geolocate it and pop-up an OSM map 
powered by Leaflet. The Leaflet link is present but the OSM attribution is not 
present.

If others on this list agree, I can send an email to the NBN.

Dion Moult

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, December 28, 2019 10:22 AM, Phil Wyatt  
wrote:

> Hi Mathew,
>
> I would also be inclined to email frvquesti...@mfb.vic.gov.au  and 
> fireservicesref...@cfa.vic.gov.au as the site may well have been developed in 
> house without any knowledge by Mapbox staff. I also point folks to the 
> following page.
>
> https://docs.mapbox.com/help/how-mapbox-works/attribution/
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
> From: Matt D 
> Sent: Friday, 27 December 2019 11:06 PM
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [talk-au] vic.gov.au lacking OSM attribution
>
> Was on https://www.vic.gov.au/fire-services-reform#fire-rescue-victoria and 
> saw that there's map on the page that looked remarkably similar to a Mapbox 
> layer, the map seems to be using the government's own library but lacks 
> attribution to OSM.
>
> A check of the HTML code in inspect element showed that it was indeed using 
> Mapbox and OSM with the government's own typeface supplementing way and 
> suburb names with their own font. I have passed this on to Mapbox via their 
> support desk and awaiting a response. I will update the mailing list when I 
> get a reply.
>
> What's possible is that somebody's forgotten to add an attribution box on the 
> corner referencing to OSM and Mapbox.
>
> Thanks___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] parking and bike lane

[Sebastian Spiess]

Hi Andrew,
thanks for all these hints. I probably should have read up on the tags a
bit better. A case of too late mapping.

I've followed your suggestions and added the tags up and downstream of
the roundabout with this changeset
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78947187

I do welcome comments. In particular regarding how to go about the cycle
way and the roundabout. And what about sidewalk? I'm inclined to map it
as a separate way.

Cheers,
Seb

On 28/12/19 6:37 am, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> 1. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lanes is says "Use
> the lanes=* key to tag how many traffic lanes there are on a highway
> ." and "Count excludes
> cycle lanes.". So in this case there are only 2 traffic lanes. So
> simply use:
>
> lanes=2
>
> 2. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway it says
> "https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway" Since both sides
> have a cyclelane you can just use a single tag:
>
> cycleway=lane
>
> Using both cycleway:left=lane + cycleway:right=lane can be interpreted
> as the same thing, and some people would use cycleway:both=lane which
> also means the same thing. My preference is to keep things simple by
> using cycleway=lane since having 3 different ways of tagging the same
> thing just makes it harder for beginners to contribute because they'll
> be left confused on the difference, whereas if we're consistent with
> the simplest form, it's best.
>
> 3. Once you've used lanes=2 then access:lanes, bicycle:lanes,
> cycleway:lanes are no longer needed here.
>
> 4. lcn=yes only if this is part of a signposted cycle route (ie. if
> there are way marking signs showing this is a route)
>
> 5. Parking lane tagging looks good, but again once you've used lanes=2
> then you don't need parking:lanes=lane|lane.
>
> 6. I'd also use cycleway:lane=doorzone to indicate this cyclelane is
> in the door zone and so mostly I'd just ride outside the cyclelane in
> the traffic lane anyway... The tag isn't well documented yet but has
> have some
> use https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Alane=doorzone
>
> 7. You could also say surface=asphalt, lit=yes, overtaking=no if you
> wanted to add more tags.
>
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 at 01:12, Sebastian Spiess  > wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm considering to add the following tags to Griffin Road (and others)
> bit since JOSM is not rendering as I expect it, I thought I ask if
> this
> combination makes even sense.
>
> Road example is here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/171171120 and
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/1R1u3k4BQ6dsIscMwSfDpg
>
> The road is essentially parking lane, bike lane, 2 lane road, bike
> lane,
> parking lane. Tag wise this leads me to:
>
> access:lanes=|no|||no|
> bicycle:lanes=|designated|||designated|
> cycleway:lanes=|lane|||lane|
> cycleway:left=lane
> cycleway:right=lane
> highway=secondary
> lanes=6
> lcn=yes
> maxspeed=50
> name=Griffin Road
> parking:condition:both=free
> parking:lane:both:parallel=on_street
> parking:lane:both=parallel
> parking:lanes=lane|lane
>
> what are your thoughts?
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [talk-au] Local Government Address changes

[Warin]

On 28/12/19 09:15, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Thanks, fellas.

Sorry, for a moment there I got Govt & Common Sense mixed up again! :-(


The older I get the less I tend to mix those two.

I think the Government see the use of the data is ok and long as you are 
not going to make money out of it.
If you are going to make money then the government wants some of that 
money (above taxes, gst, etc).


OSM gives its data away without any hindrance to making money out of it. 
Hence the conflict.



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

[talk-au] highway link is not linked to adequate highway/link ??

[Ian Steer]

From: Mateusz Konieczny mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com> >

Subject: Re: [talk-au] highway link is not linked to adequate highway/link
??

 

>> Is it intentional that
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/696446485#map=18/-32.14717/115.92374
 =N is highway=trunk?

>> I would tag it at highway=primary, maybe highway=trunk_link is
defensible, but it is unclear to me why it would highway=trunk

 

I didn't change the highway=trunk, I just added the link roads to match.
After checking the Aust wiki, I am inclined to agree with you that it should
be highway=primary but all similar roads in Perth are classified as trunks,
so I have left it at a trunk.

 

>> Also, I would expect https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/696452550 to be
highway=primary

 

again, not something I did, but I agree and have changed it to
highway=primary

 

>>"looking at the wiki on link roads" which pages you have checked? Maybe
something should be changed.

 

I was looking at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Link_roads_between_different_highways_ty
pes.  If Armadale Rd was legitimately a trunk, then what I did seemed to be
correct.

 

The other strange think was that part of Armadale Rd object itself did not
have a name tag, but was just part of an Armadale Rd relation.  I thought
this was a bit unusual, and have added the name tag (can't hurt can it?)

 

The funny thing was that after making the minor changes above and uploading
again, the same warning message did not re-appear.  All's well that ends
well I say.

 

27 Dec 2019, 10:06 by ianst...@iinet.net.au  :

> I've made an approximation of the new grade-separated interchange of
Nicholson & Armadale Rds in Perth in the changeset below.  I get the warning
"highway link is not linked to adequate highway/link" on all the trunk_links
I have added, and looking at the wiki on link roads, I can't work-out why ?

> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78916457

> 

> 

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Adding polygons of the aerodromes

[Ewen Hill]

The Royal Flying Doctor Service (RFDS) have an Australian database of
around 2200 airstrips and airports although not all are in use or are
certified for use by the RFDS.These range from

   - Domestic/intl airports with regular commuter flights,
   - Local council run airfields like  Colac and Apollo Bay (Victoria),
   - First Nation community airfields like  Kalumburu in WA (Ex Royal
   Australian Airforce) and  Pormpuraaw (Qld)
   - Private airfields with tourist services (William Creek SA) -
   although this has been a "Temporary facility" for many years
   - Ranch/Homestead/Cattle Stations/Pastoral leases (Anna Creek (SA))
   - Beach airfields (Frazer Island (south of Eli Creek, Qld))
   - Sea-Plan landings like Rose Bay (Sydney) and Hume Dam (Boss 360
   firefighting aircraft)
   - Highway airstrips (above)
   - Forest fire fighting strips
   - Ultra light landing strips / helicopter refuelling) where possibly an
   old disused runway has been repurposed for a ranch outstation to
   accommodate cheaper aircraft. Anna Creek is 23,000 sqkm and there will be a
   number of places where cattle are mustered to take them to market.
   - Abandoned airstrips where pastoral leases have reverted to national
   parks/crown land or communities have not had the finance to maintain their
   airstrip/lack of need or were WW2 facilities (Fenton NT)

For aerial fire fighting purposes, the larger aircraft like (Very) Large
Air Tanker (V)LAT only use nominated airfields (e.g Avalon, East Sale
(RAAF), Albury/Wodonga for Victoria). Single Engine Air Tankers (SEATS) use
only selected airfields as bases as they need to reload fire
retardant quickly. Places like Ararat and Linga have these set up however
in long running campaign fires other airfields are used with a dedicated
ground crew.

Helicopters tend to use the local cricket/football fields (Gembrook Vic) to
refuel or park overnight unless there is an airfield and probably dams
nearby. It means the ground crews can access local services however any
road accessible flat area in a safe area will work.

I see some validity in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aeroway%3Dairstrip however the
proposed
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Aerodrome appears
to be the solution along with in_use/historic. It would be ideal if this
proposal could be pushed along (or a variant) so we have some basis of
conformity as retagging 3000+ locations is probably going to need manual
updates.

Ewen

On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 at 09:50, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 at 19:59, Nemanja Bračko  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have redefined my query: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/PfU
>>
>
> Just looked at that query for SEQ - NNSW area & it appears that there are
> a lot of aerodromes not showing up?
>
>  I understand that minor airstrips without IATA / ICAO codes won't show,
> but many of the ones that haven't appeared do have them eg Gold Coast,
> Brisbane, both Toowoomba Airports.
>
> Running the query as is gave 555 nodes, running it for the same area just
> as =aerodromes gave 1285 nodes, 50 ways & 2 relations‽
>
>   Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Adding polygons of the aerodromes

[Ian Sergeant]

I'd say there is zero chance that any fixed wing aircraft have used that
strip in the past year.

It's closed to fixed wing craft, and it's absolutely not safe for use.  If
it is approved redevelopment (it's NPWS land, not council) it will likely
be redeveloped with only a single paved runway.

My opinion with airstrips is that we should err on the side of caution.
We've had OSM polluted over the years with imports from ourairports, etc -
that have seen even navigation beacons marked as airstrips.  And *lots* of
strips where there is no possibility of a landing.

And bear in mind that although OSM is not suitable for flight planning,
just about every GA pilot has the OSM maps with them in the cockpit - so in
an emergency it would be nice to thing that someone adding an airstrip at
least was pointing at a bit of dirt that would give you a chance of
survival, and not just colouring in.

And for non-security controlled strips - what a polygon would mean is
unclear.  The ownership boundary of the airport owner?  The fence (if there
is one).  Limits of access - if that is meaningful?

Ian.

On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 at 19:39, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 27/12/19 16:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 at 15:39, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Node: Katoomba Airfield (1042094263) is a little difficult.
>>
>
> I notice that the airfield is marked as "disused", but in the article, the
> new owner says they've had chopper flights come in over the last year?
>
> Should it be re-marked as an active helipad, at least?
>
>
> Think the fire fighting would have seen both helicopters and fixed wing
> aircraft (e.g. crop dusters fitted with water) using it in the last month
> or two.
> The council wants the strip to continue.
>
> I'd leave it as it is and see what happens in the longer term.
> ___
> 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

Re: [talk-au] vic.gov.au lacking OSM attribution

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Mathew,

 

I would also be inclined to email   
frvquesti...@mfb.vic.gov.au  and   
fireservicesref...@cfa.vic.gov.au as the site may well have been developed in 
house without any knowledge by Mapbox staff. I also point folks to the 
following page.

 

https://docs.mapbox.com/help/how-mapbox-works/attribution/

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Matt D  
Sent: Friday, 27 December 2019 11:06 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] vic.gov.au lacking OSM attribution

 

Was on https://www.vic.gov.au/fire-services-reform#fire-rescue-victoria and saw 
that there's map on the page that looked remarkably similar to a Mapbox layer, 
the map seems to be using the government's own library but lacks attribution to 
OSM.

 

A check of the HTML code in inspect element showed that it was indeed using 
Mapbox and OSM with the government's own typeface supplementing way and suburb 
names with their own font. I have passed this on to Mapbox via their support 
desk and awaiting a response. I will update the mailing list when I get a reply.

 

What's possible is that somebody's forgotten to add an attribution box on the 
corner referencing to OSM and Mapbox.

 

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Adding polygons of the aerodromes

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 at 19:59, Nemanja Bračko  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have redefined my query: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/PfU
>

Just looked at that query for SEQ - NNSW area & it appears that there are a
lot of aerodromes not showing up?

 I understand that minor airstrips without IATA / ICAO codes won't show,
but many of the ones that haven't appeared do have them eg Gold Coast,
Brisbane, both Toowoomba Airports.

Running the query as is gave 555 nodes, running it for the same area just
as =aerodromes gave 1285 nodes, 50 ways & 2 relations‽

  Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Local Government Address changes

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks, fellas.

Sorry, for a moment there I got Govt & Common Sense mixed up again! :-(

Graeme

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

Re: [talk-au] parking and bike lane

[Andrew Harvey]

Hi Sebastian,

1. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lanes is says "Use the lanes
=* key to tag how many traffic lanes there are on a highway
." and "Count excludes cycle
lanes.". So in this case there are only 2 traffic lanes. So simply use:

lanes=2

2. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway it says "
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway; Since both sides have a
cyclelane you can just use a single tag:

cycleway=lane

Using both cycleway:left=lane + cycleway:right=lane can be interpreted as
the same thing, and some people would use cycleway:both=lane which also
means the same thing. My preference is to keep things simple by using
cycleway=lane since having 3 different ways of tagging the same thing just
makes it harder for beginners to contribute because they'll be left
confused on the difference, whereas if we're consistent with the simplest
form, it's best.

3. Once you've used lanes=2 then access:lanes, bicycle:lanes,
cycleway:lanes are no longer needed here.

4. lcn=yes only if this is part of a signposted cycle route (ie. if there
are way marking signs showing this is a route)

5. Parking lane tagging looks good, but again once you've used lanes=2 then
you don't need parking:lanes=lane|lane.

6. I'd also use cycleway:lane=doorzone to indicate this cyclelane is in the
door zone and so mostly I'd just ride outside the cyclelane in the traffic
lane anyway... The tag isn't well documented yet but has have some use
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Alane=doorzone

7. You could also say surface=asphalt, lit=yes, overtaking=no if you wanted
to add more tags.

On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 at 01:12, Sebastian Spiess  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm considering to add the following tags to Griffin Road (and others)
> bit since JOSM is not rendering as I expect it, I thought I ask if this
> combination makes even sense.
>
> Road example is here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/171171120 and
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/1R1u3k4BQ6dsIscMwSfDpg
>
> The road is essentially parking lane, bike lane, 2 lane road, bike lane,
> parking lane. Tag wise this leads me to:
>
> access:lanes=|no|||no|
> bicycle:lanes=|designated|||designated|
> cycleway:lanes=|lane|||lane|
> cycleway:left=lane
> cycleway:right=lane
> highway=secondary
> lanes=6
> lcn=yes
> maxspeed=50
> name=Griffin Road
> parking:condition:both=free
> parking:lane:both:parallel=on_street
> parking:lane:both=parallel
> parking:lanes=lane|lane
>
> what are your thoughts?
>
>
> ___
> 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

[talk-au] vic.gov.au lacking OSM attribution

[Matt D]

Was on https://www.vic.gov.au/fire-services-reform#fire-rescue-victoria and
saw that there's map on the page that looked remarkably similar to a Mapbox
layer, the map seems to be using the government's own library but lacks
attribution to OSM.

A check of the HTML code in inspect element showed that it was indeed using
Mapbox and OSM with the government's own typeface supplementing way and
suburb names with their own font. I have passed this on to Mapbox via their
support desk and awaiting a response. I will update the mailing list when I
get a reply.

What's possible is that somebody's forgotten to add an attribution box on
the corner referencing to OSM and Mapbox.

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

Re: [talk-au] Adding polygons of the aerodromes

[Andrew Harvey]

I think if there's some kind of distinguishable boundary from the imagery
it's okay to convert to an area, even if it's approximate. There's not too
much harm since you can always take the centroid if you prefer a node.

On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 at 20:59, Nemanja Bračko  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have redefined my query: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/PfU
>
> Are you okay to manually add polygons around the airports only if they
> have *iata* or *icao* tags?
>
> Thanks,
> Nemanja
>
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 9:39 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 27/12/19 16:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 at 15:39, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Node: Katoomba Airfield (1042094263) is a little difficult.
>>>
>>
>> I notice that the airfield is marked as "disused", but in the article,
>> the new owner says they've had chopper flights come in over the last year?
>>
>> Should it be re-marked as an active helipad, at least?
>>
>>
>> Think the fire fighting would have seen both helicopters and fixed wing
>> aircraft (e.g. crop dusters fitted with water) using it in the last month
>> or two.
>> The council wants the strip to continue.
>>
>> I'd leave it as it is and see what happens in the longer term.
>> ___
>> 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
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Local Government Address changes

[Andrew Harvey]

They may be legally obligated to make it public, but that doesn't mean they
waive all rights under the copyright act and so hence we err on the side of
caution.

27 Dec 2019, 06:44 by graemefi...@gmail.com:
>
> Assuming for a moment that it is actually open data (why else would they
> be offering it?)
>
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Local Government Address changes

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Many reasons, like making a licensing mistake, result of contradictory orders, 
internal politics. 

In Poland my local government publishes excellent datasets - with terms of use 
that forbid
doing anything with them.

Even browsing datasets on website they made and own is against published terms 
of use!

27 Dec 2019, 06:44 by graemefi...@gmail.com:

> Assuming for a moment that it is actually open data (why else would they be 
> offering it?)
>

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

Re: [talk-au] highway link is not linked to adequate highway/link ??

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Thanks for asking after getting an unclear warning!

Is it intentional that
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/696446485#map=18/-32.14717/115.92374=N
is highway=trunk?

I would tag it at highway=primary, maybe highway=trunk_link is defensible, but 
it is unclear
to me why it would highway=trunk

Also, I would expect https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/696452550 to be 
highway=primary

"looking at the wiki on link roads" which pages you have checked? Maybe 
something should be changed.

27 Dec 2019, 10:06 by ianst...@iinet.net.au:

>
> I’ve made an approximation of the new grade-separated interchange of 
> Nicholson & Armadale Rds in Perth in the changeset below.  I get the warning 
> “highway link is not linked to adequate highway/link” on all the trunk_links 
> I have added, and looking at the wiki on link roads, I can’t work-out why ?
>
>
>  
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78916457
>
>
>  
>
>
> Ian
>
>
>  
>
>
>  
>
>

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

Re: [talk-au] Adding polygons of the aerodromes

[Nemanja Bračko]

Hi,

I have redefined my query: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/PfU

Are you okay to manually add polygons around the airports only if they have
*iata* or *icao* tags?

Thanks,
Nemanja

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 9:39 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 27/12/19 16:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 at 15:39, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Node: Katoomba Airfield (1042094263) is a little difficult.
>>
>
> I notice that the airfield is marked as "disused", but in the article, the
> new owner says they've had chopper flights come in over the last year?
>
> Should it be re-marked as an active helipad, at least?
>
>
> Think the fire fighting would have seen both helicopters and fixed wing
> aircraft (e.g. crop dusters fitted with water) using it in the last month
> or two.
> The council wants the strip to continue.
>
> I'd leave it as it is and see what happens in the longer term.
> ___
> 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

[talk-au] highway link is not linked to adequate highway/link ??

[Ian Steer]

I've made an approximation of the new grade-separated interchange of
Nicholson & Armadale Rds in Perth in the changeset below.  I get the warning
"highway link is not linked to adequate highway/link" on all the trunk_links
I have added, and looking at the wiki on link roads, I can't work-out why ?

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78916457

 

Ian

 

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Adding polygons of the aerodromes

[Warin]

On 27/12/19 16:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:



On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 at 15:39, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


Node: Katoomba Airfield (1042094263) is a little difficult.


I notice that the airfield is marked as "disused", but in the article, 
the new owner says they've had chopper flights come in over the last year?


Should it be re-marked as an active helipad, at least?


Think the fire fighting would have seen both helicopters and fixed wing 
aircraft (e.g. crop dusters fitted with water) using it in the last 
month or two.

The council wants the strip to continue.

I'd leave it as it is and see what happens in the longer term.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au