Re: [talk-au] Can anyone make sense of this?
Looking at the example - this is a really complex situation where the roundabout is at the entrance to a multi-level car park with a fly-ramp taking off to an upper parking level. Is the roundabout on public land or is it part of the precinct for the associated shopping mall? I would imagine the "no U-turn" restriction applies to accessing the fly-ramp dangerously. So commenting generally based on this one situation is a bit risky. Adrian Get BlueMail for Android On 30 Jul 2021, 12:33, at 12:33, Andrew Harvey wrote: >Some of them like https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13031072 where >the >no-u-turn restriction is on the same way don't make sense, and it's >fair to >ask for further information about why it was added, and if that's not >provided then I think it's fine to remove. > >I admit that while I'd much prefer routers to fix their problems I've >been >given so much bad routing due to u-turns at intersections that I've >been >mapping some. I think microsoft mapped a lot, so it's common in the >database. I think at this point we might as well make an exception and >allow these traffic light no-u-turns to be mapped. > >In the roundabout case, that's why I dislike splitting the way into two >oneway. It would be better to have a single way and just tag it as a >traffic island or hard/soft median on that section or something. >Nonetheless some mappers do it this way and in that case, the no-u-turn >restriction is probably required. > >On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 at 09:46, Little Maps wrote: > >> If the edits are accurate, legally acquired, ethical and respectfully >> build upon the work of previous mappers then, imo, so be it. >“Necessary” vs >> “unnecessary” has never been a criteria for inclusion in OSM. If it >were, >> heaps of edits would be up for challenge. You’ve informed the editor >that >> the edits are not necessary and, assuming they’ve read your comment, >they >> are clearly happy to continue adding them. So be it. We all have >different >> interests and pre-occupations. That’s what makes OSM so unique and >> interesting, even if it is frustrating at times. It’s a big map. >> ___ >> 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] parking and bike lane
I am an occasional editor who fixes the occasional mistake affecting cyclists. As a cyclist I am one of many cyclists equally baffled by bike lanes that start and end randomly. Maybe we are expected to teleport. One such type in my suburb is short sections (3metres) of lane marking with the bike logo about every 100m of road. Saving paint I guess. But how to mark it up? Cheers Adrian Get BlueMail for Android On 29 Dec 2019, 14:21, at 14:21, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: >Thanks > >Graeme > > >On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 at 16:52, David Wales >wrote: > >> I prefer to use separate ways for separate foot paths. >> > >As do I. > > >> On 28 December 2019 3:02:30 pm AEDT, Sebastian Spiess > >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I do welcome comments. In particular regarding how to go about the >cycle >>> way and the roundabout. >>> >> >Looks OK to me, but I've also wondered how bike lanes are supposed to >work >through roundabouts, when there's nothing marked on the road? > > 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] Copying address from business website?
Might be issues where contact address (e.g. head office) being copied is different to physical location on map. Adrian Hobbs Sent from BlueMail On 22 Jul. 2019, 15:21, at 15:21, Andrew Harvey wrote: >This has come up a few times on the mailing lists, and the advise >usually >given is it's okay to source a few facts here and there like the >address or >contact number, but just don't start taking a whole database of venues >and >copy that database. > >On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 13:06, Kim Oldfield >wrote: > >> Is it acceptable to copy a street address (and other contact details) >> from a business's webpage? >> >> For example in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/72452124 (what >> changed is easier to see at >> https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/705884944 ) I added >the >> street address as listed on their website. >> >> If this isn't acceptable, what is an acceptable way of getting an >> address if it is not obvious during a site survey? >> >> Regards, >> Kim >> >> ___ >> 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] Wadbilliga Road south east NSW marked 4WD only
Are the two mutually exclusive? Road classification versus surface condition? First time I drove this road it was smooth as - just been graded. Last was after heavy rain and an army tank would have had trouble. Adrian Sent from BlueMail On 18 Jun. 2019, 16:08, at 16:08, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: >Hi, > >This appears to be an error. On the LPI Base map it looks like a >tertiary rd.. > >Way: Wadbilliga Road (380747553) ... this extends to the east as well. > > >Any objections to removing the 4WD only and upping it to tertiary >class? > > >___ >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] Road name abbreviation exception?
Maybe I am missing something here, but to my mind road and place naming is pretty clear cut. See:- "Guidelines for the determination of place names" a fact sheet by the Geographic Names Board of NSW http://www.gnb.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/58843/Guidelines_determination_placenames_2017.pdf and "6.7 Principles of Road naming" page 97 of the NSW Addressing User Manual http://www.gnb.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/199411/2018_NSW_Addressing_User_Manual.pdf Although these relate to NSW, I imagine there are similar arrangements in all states and territories. If OSM uses anything different it will only cause difficulties. I guess that, as with all standards, there will be exceptions. But OSM should then go with whatever the legal name is. Cheers Adrian Hobbs tel: 0427 310 938 email: adrian.ho...@grapevine.com.au On 29/06/2018 9:08 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Warin wrote: I expand these out to Saint. I think that is correct in the English language. It is expressly _incorrect_ in British English and if this were a UK discussion you would be asked to put them back to St. I can't speak for Australian English but it wouldn't surprise me if it were the same. https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/19609/saint-or-st-is-there-an-official-osm-policy Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Australia-f5416966.html ___ 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
