Re: [talk-au] OSM Notes

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

G'day all

I'm going to say, after quite a bit of effort by a number of people, that
that project is pretty well done & dusted! :-)

338 notes still open as I speak, but virtually all of them have either had
questions asked to get further info, need on-the-ground checking, are brand
new, or need further action by the OP.

>From ~4500 on 26/1 to 340 today?

Got to say that I for one am pretty happy & satisfied with that, so thanks
everybody for all your hard work! :-)

Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 at 10:40, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> I'm not referring to any specific note here, but probably the most common
> use of the Notes feature is when something needs confirmation on the
> ground, so resolving it without actually going there on the ground to check
> goes against what it was opened for, and generally I think should be left
> open until it's checked on the ground.
>
> Other notes may be able to be resolved remotely which you and Andrew
> Davidson have made excellent progress with.
>
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 at 11:24, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>> Is it just me, or is anybody else getting a bit annoyed with the efforts
>> of one person in continually reactivating Notes, often for trivial,
>> non-sensible reasons?
>>
>> Have a look at the first 15 or so on the list here for comments, plus a
>> few that have been re-resolved.
>>
>> https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-country?c=Australia
>>
>> The same person was mentioned earlier in the month or re-opening Notes
>> that in one case refer to something that may happen in a few years time, &
>> another referring to arguments between Council, a property developer &
>> local residents:
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-March/015908.html
>>
>> In both these cases, I've tried to explain to them that it's not an OSM
>> problem, but they've reactivated them again anyway :-(
>>
>> So which is it, am I closing things that should stay open, or is this
>> person being a pain?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] HighRouleur edits

[Michael Collinson]

As the original mapper of the cycleway in changeset 11862794 and having 
viewed Tony's photos [1] to refresh my memory, I concur with Tony's 
proposal that the way should be split in two. The western part being a 
parkland cycleway and therefore satisfying routing. But the eastern 
part, the "cycleway" - perhaps better described as "cycle route" - 
follows the St. Andrews Court residential motor road not the narrow 
asphalt path that winds around trees, that should be an ordinary 
footway=sidewalk as editted by Sebastian. My general observation is that 
there should be a balance between rigorously only mapping what is 120% 
properly signed cycleway, (this is sadly not true in many parts of the 
world and particularly not true in suburban Melbourne), and having a map 
that can route cyclists along safe routes that are used on a practical 
basis (may or may not be clearly de jure) everyday.


I thank both Sebastian and Tony for the effort put in collaboratively 
improving the map. I'm currently on my annual 4 month Melbourne stint - 
living this time in Seaford this time and cycle commuting daily through 
to Cheltenham.  If either of you are in that area and want to meet up 
for a social coffee, I'd be delighted. Email me privately. Sadly, only 
two more weeks to go this time but will be back in Nov.


Mike

[1] 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/tonyf1?lat=-37.962247513974=145.01882162969002=18.085357379143982=158986949844367=photo 



On 2022-03-27 19:33, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Hi Sebastian and list,

2) are cycle routes cycleways or footways, specifically Changeset: 
118627943


I have provided a link to my photos and labeled the main ones at 
Changeset: 118627943


I believe that way 671174716 should be split in 2, the eastern part 
appears to be the footpath, there is only one side with a footpath, 
the bicycle route is intended for the road, St Andrews Ct, not the 
footpath


The west section through the parkland is a cycleway, photos 22 and 23 
show a bicycle route with green circle below. Its unclear what used to 
be in the circle before it faded.


Photo 21 end of McKay shows no signage. I looked.

18 and 19 are a bit confusing, they show a route coming out of Tricks 
Reserve


18 partly obscured shows a route east along McKay
51 shows this sign more clearly

Tony



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-auBEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:4.0
EMAIL;PREF=1:m...@ayeltd.biz
EMAIL:mike.collin...@ticketebo.com.au
FN:Michael Collinson
N:Collinson;Michael;;;
TEL;TYPE=work;VALUE=TEXT:+61 491 086 207
TEL;TYPE=cell;VALUE=TEXT:+46 73 581 22 19
X-MOZILLA-HTML;VALUE=BOOLEAN:TRUE
UID:fd70790f-e54a-1b4d-a9e3-7ea6b0059431
END:VCARD
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] HighRouleur edits

[forster]

Hi Sebastian and list,

2) are cycle routes cycleways or footways, specifically Changeset: 118627943

I have provided a link to my photos and labeled the main ones at  
Changeset: 118627943


I believe that way 671174716 should be split in 2, the eastern part  
appears to be the footpath, there is only one side with a footpath,  
the bicycle route is intended for the road, St Andrews Ct, not the  
footpath


The west section through the parkland is a cycleway, photos 22 and 23  
show a bicycle route with green circle below. Its unclear what used to  
be in the circle before it faded.


Photo 21 end of McKay shows no signage. I looked.

18 and 19 are a bit confusing, they show a route coming out of Tricks Reserve

18 partly obscured shows a route east along McKay
51 shows this sign more clearly

Tony



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