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

[Luke Stewart]

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

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

[Luke Stewart]

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 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

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

[Luke Stewart]

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 Ågesson 
> *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 Ågesson ; 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 Ågesson ; 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 Ågesson 
> *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:

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

[Luke Stewart]

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 Ågesson ; 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 Ågesson 
> *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 (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:
> <
> 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 

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

[Luke Stewart]

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 Ågesson 
> *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 (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:
> <
> 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 blindly click buttons from this state,ent alone, and yet
> people will come to your defence lmao
>
>
>
> From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:10 AM
> To: 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 

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

[Luke Stewart]

"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"

On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 08:59, Luke Stewart 
wrote:

> From *legislation.sa.gov.au <http://legislation.sa.gov.au>*:
>
> 40: " A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection with traffic
> lights unless there is a U-turn permitted sign at the intersection."
>
> 41: " 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*"
>
> In this case, it would be the same as NSW where you can make a U-turn at a
> median break provided there is no sign against it, and there is a right
> turn arrow (or no arrow) on the ground.
>
> You'll also find that the way you are replying to emails is incorrect, and
> has created several different threads:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-May/thread.html
>
> On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 08:52, 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 (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:
>> <
>> 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 blindly click buttons from this state,ent alone, and yet
>> people will come to your defence lmao
>>
>>
>>
>> From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> 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 R

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

[Luke Stewart]

>From *legislation.sa.gov.au *:

40: " A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection with traffic
lights unless there is a U-turn permitted sign at the intersection."

41: " 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*"

In this case, it would be the same as NSW where you can make a U-turn at a
median break provided there is no sign against it, and there is a right
turn arrow (or no arrow) on the ground.

You'll also find that the way you are replying to emails is incorrect, and
has created several different threads:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-May/thread.html

On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 08:52, 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 (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:
> <
> 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 blindly click buttons from this state,ent alone, and yet
> people will come to your defence lmao
>
>
>
> From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:10 AM
> To: 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:
> <
> pr3p192mb0927765cf14135074d2b08a2cc...@pr3p192mb0927.eurp192.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; 

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

[Luke Stewart]

Hi, if you look at the intersection you will see that there are 4 valid
no_u_turn restrictions in place. Modelling the intersection with diagonals
like that is contrary to established practice, but modelling it correctly
rendered 45 of the restrictions redundant.

Cheers,
Luke

On Mon, 2 May 2022 at 22:57, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:

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

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

[Luke Stewart]

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 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 
> 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 o

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

[Luke Stewart]

"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 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 
> 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.
>
>
>
> Whilst on this point, concerns have been raised about your mapping of
> intersections, by adding diagonal ways (see this as an example, which
> apparently has 69 turn restriction relations:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.77083/138.63419). Pe

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

[Luke Stewart]

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


*Members1 memberNode 6357628400 as via*



On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 20:25, Luke Stewart 
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.
>
> Whilst on this point, concerns have been raised about your mapping of
> intersections, by adding diagonal ways (see this as an example, which
> apparently has 69 turn restriction relations:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.77083/138.63419). Perhaps the
> community can also agree that this is clearly incorrect
>
> I suggest that you attempt to interact with fellow mappers in an
> appropriate and constructive manner, particularly given this is not the
> first situation like this. We are all working on a community project with
> good intentions, and this sort of interaction isn't helpful to anyone.
>
> Cheers,
> Luke
>
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 16:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>> Anthony
>>
>> Could I suggest that you check keepright for your area:
>> https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?zoom=14=-33.87613=151.17154
>> (Defaults to Sydney) & look at the "Restrictions" & "Geometry Glitches"
>> reports.
>>
>> These will show spots that the system considers are in error, & will also
>> allow you to advise that the error is a false positive, if you consider
>> that what is shown is OK.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 15:42, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:
>>
>>> 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 <
>>> 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
>>>
>

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

[Luke Stewart]

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.

Whilst on this point, concerns have been raised about your mapping of
intersections, by adding diagonal ways (see this as an example, which
apparently has 69 turn restriction relations:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.77083/138.63419). Perhaps the
community can also agree that this is clearly incorrect

I suggest that you attempt to interact with fellow mappers in an
appropriate and constructive manner, particularly given this is not the
first situation like this. We are all working on a community project with
good intentions, and this sort of interaction isn't helpful to anyone.

Cheers,
Luke

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 16:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Anthony
>
> Could I suggest that you check keepright for your area:
> https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?zoom=14=-33.87613=151.17154
> (Defaults to Sydney) & look at the "Restrictions" & "Geometry Glitches"
> reports.
>
> These will show spots that the system considers are in error, & will also
> allow you to advise that the error is a false positive, if you consider
> that what is shown is OK.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 15:42, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:
>
>> 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 <
>> 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 

Re: [talk-au] JOSM multipolygon how-to?

[Luke Stewart]

Hi Graeme,

Having downloaded the full relation, the boundary is completely closed and
there is nothing wrong with it. It's simply a warning to say that JOSM has
not downloaded the whole relation. Unless you right-click > Download
members, JOSM only has the tags of the relation and the members within the
bounding box that you downloaded.

Cheers,
Luke

On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 15:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 15:36, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> It means JOSM hasn't downloaded all the member ways, in one of the panels
>> on the right showing the relation, right clicking download incomplete
>> members will fetch them all.
>>
>
> Ah, so everything is in fact actually OK, it's just not showing up
> properly, right now?
>
> 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] JOSM multipolygon how-to?

[Luke Stewart]

Hi Graeme,

I'm not sure about a tutorial however, once you click 'create
multipolygon', a new relation should appear in the section on the right (if
you can't see a box for relations you can select Windows at the top of the
screen and make sure that relations is checked). From there you can select
your new multipolygon in the list of relations and edit/add tags with the
pencil+paper icon. At the top section of the popup box you can add tags and
at the bottom section you can re-order the members or add roles.

Cheers,
Luke

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 14:21, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> I meant to add that I can start OK:
> Draw the outer box,
> draw the inner box,
> select them both,
> click on "Create multipolygon" ...
> but that's where I hit trouble!
>
> How do you add tags etc?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 13:15, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>> Does anybody know of a simple, straight-forward, how-to for creating
>> multipolygons using JOSM?
>>
>> If possible, I'd prefer a document rather than video, but beggars can't
>> be choosers!
>>
>> I've already found a couple, but they either don't explain how-to, or I
>> get different results when I do what they say?
>>
>> That "could" be because I'm using JOSM for Windows? (Have to as no Java
>> on my laptop!)
>>
>> 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] Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

[Luke Stewart]

>From what I have seen, I think the mapping styles in OSM vary even by
state, e.g. in Sydney most things are mapped correctly however in other
places they are more commonly mapped before physical division starts; I'm
almost certain that this would be because of the different contributors in
each region, with different ideas on how things should be mapped (even if
contrary to the wiki)

On Wed, 9 Mar 2022, 08:59 Dian Ågesson,  wrote:

> Thanks Luke,
>
> I appreciate your comments. I have been slowly working towards
> "de-spaghetti-fying" these intersections, but there are just so much! This
> user seems to get his way through attrition - he's been around for 10 years
> doing these changes. When I eventually give up, like many others in the
> past have, I'm sure he will slowly begin changing it back to how he likes
> it.
>
> I was questioning my sanity; there are so many I can't have been the only
> person to notice.
>
> Dian
>
> On 2022-03-04 17:44, Luke Stewart wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The standard rule and the way that I map is to only begin a new way if
> there is some form a physical separation, so extra turning ways which can
> be completed with a box but are modelled as curves aren't following this
> rule (same goes for ways that start when lanes start rather than branching
> off where the physical separation begins).
>
> Whilst there are arguments like "it looks better" or "helps with
> routing/direction finding/navigation", these are not reasons to break osm,
> rather to improve software.
>
> As for how to resolve with this user, probably affirming a regional
> consensus would be most convincing.
>
> Cheers,
> Luke
>
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022, 16:33 Dian Ågesson,  wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'd like some assistance resolving a disagreement I'm involved with
> regarding the correct mapping of dual carriageways at intersections. I have
> previously mentioned this topic on the mailing list here:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-September/014968.html
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-September/014968.html,>
> .
>
> To summarise briefly, a very active contributor prefers to model dual
> carriageway intersections in a manner that I don't believe is correct.
>
> Turn lanes are split from main carriageways at the start of the new turn
> lane, then cross over each other in an "X" shape, rather than a Box shape
> that I've seen documented. (Examples, because I am bad at explaining: Burwood
> Hwy/Mountain Hwy <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8917929878>, Smith
> St/Dandenong Rd <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2951838115/history>, 
> Burwood
> Hwy/Dorset Rd <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8925914559/history>, Princes
> Hwy/William Rd <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/779286918/history>)
> Additional highways are introduced for left hand turns where there is no
> physical separation (eg, Mt Dandenong Tourist Rd/Mountain Highway
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/113685299/history>, Greville St
> N/Sturt St <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/97655/history>, Glenleith
> St/Church St <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/75040109/history>). This
> editor has been an extremely active contributor for many, many years: I
> found these examples by just zooming in on a given town or suburb, found
> intersection that was modelled this way, and checked the history to confirm
> the source.
>
> I initially engaged with the user in September (111051481
> <https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/111051481>), and after some initial
> delay, we have engaged in a productive conversation
> <https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=206929>
> since. To the user's credit, they have been patient and understanding in
> our interactions, and have made adjustments to their mapping style based on
> my feedback. Unfortunately, we have reached a fundamental point of
> disagreement <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118038711>, and I
> don't believe further changeset discussions are going to be productive.
>
> I'm now a little too close to this discussion to be objective, and I would
> really appreciate some assistance with this disagreement. Due to the
> extraordinary output of this user, simply avoiding editing in similar areas
> isn't going to be practical. But am I incorrect in my assessment of
> intersection modelling? Is this a question of style, or of accuracy?
>
> Kind Regards,
> Dian.
> ___
> 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] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

[Luke Stewart]

Personally, for shallow slip lanes like this, I map with the angle of the
island and do not make curves where it joins the new road.

On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 10:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Continuing on with that line of thought & looking at the example mentioned
> in the other thread:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=20/-31.99548/115.99338
>
> How should that left turn from Tonkin Hwy to Hale Rd be mapped?
>
> As a relatively smooth curve the way it is now, or as an abrupt 45° angle
> at the physical traffic island eg ___/_|__ ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 08:58, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>> Looking back at the notes from the previous discussion & spotted this
>> comment:
>>
>> "only split the way at the point where you can no longer physically change 
>> lanes."
>>
>> Physically, or legally?
>>
>> Looking at the  Princes Hwy/William Rd
>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/779286918/history> example, yes,
>> there's only a painted line & island that you can physically cross, but
>> that would mean doing an illegal lane change.
>>
>> Are we supposed to worry about that, or not?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 at 19:57, Luke Stewart 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> (forgot to x-post to talk-au)
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The standard rule and the way that I map is to only begin a new way if
>>> there is some form a physical separation, so extra turning ways which can
>>> be completed with a box but are modelled as curves aren't following this
>>> rule (same goes for ways that start when lanes start rather than branching
>>> off where the physical separation begins).
>>>
>>> Whilst there are arguments like "it looks better" or "helps with
>>> routing/direction finding/navigation", these are not reasons to break osm,
>>> rather to improve software.
>>>
>>> In the case of the Princes Hwy/William Rd
>>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/779286918/history> intersection, the
>>> residential road should be drawn straight through the intersection, with
>>> the right turn lane specified with keys such as turn:lanes and change:lanes.
>>>
>>> As for how to resolve with this user, probably affirming a regional
>>> consensus would be most convincing.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Luke
>>> ___
>>> 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] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

[Luke Stewart]

There are many situations in Australia where you are permitted to cross an
unbroken white line (for instance, moving to a special purpose lane). The
wiki is pretty unambiguous, "where traffic flows are physically separated
by a barrier (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements
between said flows". Emergency vehicles are an obvious class where crossing
legal barriers such as lines on the road is perfectly fine.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

[Luke Stewart]

(forgot to x-post to talk-au)

Hi,

The standard rule and the way that I map is to only begin a new way if
there is some form a physical separation, so extra turning ways which can
be completed with a box but are modelled as curves aren't following this
rule (same goes for ways that start when lanes start rather than branching
off where the physical separation begins).

Whilst there are arguments like "it looks better" or "helps with
routing/direction finding/navigation", these are not reasons to break osm,
rather to improve software.

In the case of the Princes Hwy/William Rd
 intersection, the
residential road should be drawn straight through the intersection, with
the right turn lane specified with keys such as turn:lanes and change:lanes.

As for how to resolve with this user, probably affirming a regional
consensus would be most convincing.

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

Re: [talk-au] Strange street type

[Luke Stewart]

Could it possibly be Plantation?

Cheers, Luke

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 at 12:58, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Another question re Notes!
>
> On https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1688984#map=19/-33.93526/116.02726,
> the OP commented "Southampton Pltn".
>
> I asked what that meant & they said it was what was on the sign‽
> https://postimg.cc/TpwrMCRZ
>
> Any thoughts on Pltn?
>
> The only thing I can think of could be Platoon, but that's usually only
> Pl, or sometimes Pln / Plt.
>
> There is a group of buildings & a water tank just down the road the sign
> is pointing to which "could" relate to Rural Firies, which "could" then
> relate to Platoon, but that's definitely a bit of a stretch!
>
> Any thoughts, especially from you Sandgropers‽ :-)
>
> 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] train tour

[Luke Stewart]

I've added this signal based on imagery, as well as footage from a
third-party YouTube channel where we have been given explicit permission to
use the footage for mapping.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 at 12:42, Luke Stewart 
wrote:

> My guess would be that it is the reference number for the signal in/near
> that location... CU - Tallawong station was going to be called Cudgegong
> Road.
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] train tour

[Luke Stewart]

My guess would be that it is the reference number for the signal in/near
that location... CU - Tallawong station was going to be called Cudgegong
Road.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta

[Luke Stewart]

With their reasons for deletion:

"largely they are fragmented, and consist of riding on roads without any
dedicated infrastructure" - this is representative of routes across
Australia; many routes in Sydney are like this and area just sharrows,
however as they are still signposted they are mapped as routes.

"the signage has not been maintained, and maintenance is the responsibility
of the respective local government authority ... signage has been
maintained ad-hoc" - this may be the case however councils likely maintain
a list/map of routes (at least thats how it works in NSW). Signage is also
not always maintained properly in my experience.

"if you live in Perth, I seriously doubt you would have ever used these
routes for navigation, nor would you have ever purposefully ridden by the
route, instead of taking a more direct or safer route option as to on road
cycling." - they are still routes nonetheless, often times I find myself
following or deviating from a route at will however that does not change
the fact that they are routes and infrastructure is generally designed to
cater for these routes.

"The routes are circuitous" - see above

"The OSM information has not been maintained to reflect changes, and the
OSM application of the routes were not consistent" - in this case then
routes should be reviewed and updated where necessary, but I do not think
that outright deletion is warranted

Cheers,
Luke

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 at 02:14,  wrote:

> Well, he has answered a changeset comment:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116656873
>
> I'll leave it to the WA OSM community if that's a valid reason to simply
> delete a whole bunch of routes for which there definitely are signs on the
> ground, and what to do about it.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Collinson 
> Sent: Thursday, 10 February 2022 17:36
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging
> Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta
>
> Seems to have it in for Perth cyclists:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116655265#map=12/-32.0362/115.8349
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117224600
>
> Not from Perth so can't judge correctness but it doesn't look right.
>
>
> On 2022-02-10 18:13, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> >
> > Probably
> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/aaronsta
> >
> >  Who is Aaronsta?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Is it anyone participating in this mailing list?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Have any of these changes been discussed somewhere?
> >>
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Tagging_G
> >> uidelines
> >>  >> Guidelines=revision=2262794=2250661>
> >> =revision=2262794=2250661 (ignore the street cabinet
> >> stuff at the bottom, that’s from someone else)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Thorsten
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> >> Sent: Thursday, 10 February 2022 08:41
> >> To: OSM-Au 
> >> Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging
> >> Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 at 22:35, OpenStreetMap Wiki
> >>  >>  > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> The OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been
> >> changed on 9 February 2022 by Aaronsta, see
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines for
> >> the current revision.
> >>
> >> Editor's summary: Fix undiscussed changes
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sorry but that's a bit ironic, or did I miss the discussion about
> >> these changes?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> One I noticed is that you've taken it upon yourself to include:
> >>
> >> "Cycling is not permitted on footpaths in NSW, QLD, or Vic."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Would you like to share this with Qld Transport?
> >>
> >> https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/wheeled-devices/bicycle
> >>
> >>
> >> Riding on a footpath or shared path
> >>
> >>
> >> On footpaths and shared paths, you share the space with pedestrians.
> >>
> >> You must:
> >>
> >> *keep left and give way to all pedestrians
> >> *always ride to the left of bicycle riders coming toward you.
> >>
> >> Looks like we may need a major reversion done here?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta

[Luke Stewart]

In regards to the wiki edits, it seems that the tagging for shared and
similar paths have been changed by this user without any community
discussion. I was of the view that this page was meant to reflect a
consensus, in which case these changes should be reverted and discussed.

(I was working on a detailed page to collect tagging for these kinds of
features with the hope of eventually presenting it for feedback & community
discussion, before incorporating it into the ATG, thus I may have to
continue work on this)

Cheers,
Luke

On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 at 20:07,  wrote:

> Hi
> https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?aaronsta is interesting reading. This user
> has had29% of their edits reverted and 2 blocks but is still the 14th
> highest contributor in Australia. Members of this talk-au , we'll k
> nown ones, have had multiple discussions with the user but it seems
> like nobody has joined the dots.
>
> A similar situation happened recently with another user. Many of the
> regular contributors to this list had crossed paths with him but it
> seemed none realised the scale of his edits.
>
> Would it be possible to have training or sandards of communication and
> consultation that high volume users need to reach?
>
> Maybe it would be good to not display the ranking of users at hdyc
>
> Tony
>
> > Also seems to be zealously removing source tags:
> > https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=117189529
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Michael Collinson 
> > Sent: Thursday, 10 February 2022 17:36
> > To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging
> > Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta
> >
> > Seems to have it in for Perth cyclists:
> >
> >
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116655265#map=12/-32.0362/115.8349
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117224600
> >
> > Not from Perth so can't judge correctness but it doesn't look right.
> >
> >
> > On 2022-02-10 18:13, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> >>
> >> Probably
> >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/aaronsta
> >>
> >>  Who is Aaronsta?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Is it anyone participating in this mailing list?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Have any of these changes been discussed somewhere?
> >>>
> >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Tagging_G
> >>> uidelines
> >>>  >>> Guidelines=revision=2262794=2250661>
> >>> =revision=2262794=2250661 (ignore the street cabinet
> >>> stuff at the bottom, that’s from someone else)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> Thorsten
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> >>> Sent: Thursday, 10 February 2022 08:41
> >>> To: OSM-Au 
> >>> Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging
> >>> Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 at 22:35, OpenStreetMap Wiki
> >>>  >>>  > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been
> >>> changed on 9 February 2022 by Aaronsta, see
> >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines for
> >>> the current revision.
> >>>
> >>> Editor's summary: Fix undiscussed changes
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Sorry but that's a bit ironic, or did I miss the discussion about
> >>> these changes?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> One I noticed is that you've taken it upon yourself to include:
> >>>
> >>> "Cycling is not permitted on footpaths in NSW, QLD, or Vic."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Would you like to share this with Qld Transport?
> >>>
> >>> https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/wheeled-devices/bicycle
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Riding on a footpath or shared path
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On footpaths and shared paths, you share the space with pedestrians.
> >>>
> >>> You must:
> >>>
> >>> *keep left and give way to all pedestrians
> >>> *always ride to the left of bicycle riders coming toward you.
> >>>
> >>> Looks like we may need a major reversion done here?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >
> > _
> > This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
> > see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list

Re: [talk-au] Discord #oceania channel?

[Luke Stewart]

Hi Graeme,

Discord is a text and voice chat platform, like Slack, Skype, or other
platforms. "OpenStreetMap World" is the name of the server, although to my
knowledge it isn't "official" in any sense. (some other servers are listed
on the wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discord). There's just
over 2,800 members on this server.

The oceania channel has conversations specific to mapping in Australia &
the Pacific, however due to a small number of members the conversation
focuses on Australia most of the time.

Anyone is welcome to join and participate; essentially it is more of a
real-time "how do I tag this", rather than reaching out to the mailing list
anytime there is confusion, as well as containing other conversation.
However it is *not *intended or designed to be a replacement of mailing
lists or anything, but just another communication channel where mappers can
communicate.

Cheers,
Luke

On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 at 11:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 at 10:31, Sam Wilson  wrote:
>
>> And mainly I'm just wondering: how much Australia-related discussion is
>> happening elsewhere other than this list?
>>
> I'm curious about that as well?
>
> 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] Discord #oceania channel?

[Luke Stewart]

Hi Sam,

The channel by default is locked unless you select the oceania role in the
#rules-and-roles channel near the top of the list. Once you select that you
should be able to view and participate.

Cheers,
Luke

On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 at 11:31, Sam Wilson  wrote:

> The recent posts about bus stops have included a bunch of links to an OSM
> Discord server , but I'm a bit confused
> because it seems that there's a (locked?) channel called #oceania, which it
> seems to not want to let me see. (I'm not really a very active Discord user
> so sorry if I'm missing something obvious).
>
> And mainly I'm just wondering: how much Australia-related discussion is
> happening elsewhere other than this list?
>
> —Sam
> ___
> 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] Use of macrons in name:en

[Luke Stewart]

Similar to the case with New Zealand, I would support the use of macrons if
they are either official or used on-the-ground in terms of signage etc.
Regardless, having a namespace tag for English and Pitjantjatjara is
definitely a good idea.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 04:32, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> There is a good discussion going on at talk-nz about use of macrons and
> names
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-nz/2021/thread.html#318
>
> There was talk about if macrons should appear in the English name
> (name:en), which got me checking Uluṟu and Kata Tjuṯa.
>
> So should that be tagged as
>
> name=Kata Tjuṯa
> name:en=Kata Tjuta
> name:pjt Kata Tjuṯa
>
> or
>
> name=Kata Tjuṯa
> name:en=Kata Tjuṯa
> name:pjt Kata Tjuṯa
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7474225
> ___
> 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] "All Bicycles" signage and the associated permissions

[Luke Stewart]

G'day talk-au,

Increasingly at major intersections, there has been an effort to improve
cyclist safety, which has led to some cycle lanes terminating before the
intersection and providing a ramp for cyclists to join a shared path and
use push button traffic lights to cross separated from the carriageway. As
such, there has been an increasing use of "All Bicycles" signage, which
from my research is legally enforceable.

Some examples:

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/dQy7A06SHDfBKcN7xBKRFA (cycle lane
terminates before the intersection)

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/2alrT9RBIzuY7JiFrnq6lQ (cycle lane
terminates due to narrow bridge, so cyclists must use the adjacent shared
path)

My tagging mechanism for the connection between the roadway and the
cycleway/shared path (via the flush ramp) has been

highway=cycleway
oneway=yes
surface=paved

Possibly not the best solution, but the best that I have come up with so
far.

As for the road after the ramp, I generally tag it with cycleway=no since
the infrastructure disappears. However in addition to the
aforementioned tagging scheme, I'm curious to whether the road beyond
should be tagged with bicycle=no up until the next intersection. For
instance, the first example would be tagged bicycle=no from the ramp until
Tumbi Road. Whilst bicycles are not explicitly prohibited, the logical
result from requiring cyclists to leave the carriageway is that they aren't
allowed on the road, and I'm wondering how to replicate that properly in
OSM so that routers can understand.

Interested to hear your thoughts,
Thanks,
Luke
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] TfNSW Cycleways use in OSM

[Luke Stewart]

*I'd agree - that's what I thought was going on? I understand
shared_lane as when they paint a bike in the leftmost lane of a road, or in
the middle of an alley/small residential road.With that said, TfNSW's
definition - "On road facility type shared with moving vehicles" - is a lot
vaguer, so I wonder if they're tagging some unmarked routes..*

I also agree with this; without any bicycle stencil, that should be classed
as no bicycle specific facilities. Considering they already have lane and
segregated lanes in separate classes, a stencil is about the only other
class I could think of that meets the TfNSW definition.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] foot/bicycle = yes/designated (was Re: TfNSW Cycleways use in OSM)

[Luke Stewart]

My understanding is as follows:

yes means that there is the legal right to use something e.g. you have the
right to walk by foot on a sidewalk.

designated means that there is a legal instrument (generally signage and/or
possibly road marking depending on your state) that *specifically* gives
you permission to use a given feature. For instance, a shared path is one
which bicycles and pedestrians can legally use together, and this is
designated by a shared path sign (AU:R8-2
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3AAustralia_R8-2.svg?wprov=sfla1). In
this case it would be appropriate for a shared pathway to have both foot
and bicycle be set to designated in my opinion.

Theoretically you could add foot=yes to every sidewalk and/or footway
however my understanding is this key is implied, and will also throw and
error in osmose.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Mapwithai Roads now available in Australia

[Luke Stewart]

Just a heads up that mapwith.ai now works in Australia for adding roads
(but not buildings at this stage).

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

[talk-au] (NSW) Email Update – Changes to permanent speed limits

[Luke Stewart]

Thank you all for your comments. I will send off an email later today to
see if we can get a higher level of permission, but I agree that planning a
survey is not by nature in violation of any license—seeing copyrighted
advertising about a new shop does not mean that surveying that shop is in
violation of copyright. I will forward any responses to the mailing list
if/should I get a reply.

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

[talk-au] (NSW) Email Update – Changes to permanent speed limits

[Luke Stewart]

In case you were not aware, there is a bi-monthly service from the NSW
government advising when and where new speed limits have been introduced
across the state, allowing us to keep our maxspeeds up to date.

https://www.saferroadsnsw.com.au/emailupdates.aspx

I was considering adding a note to the locations that have been changed
each time the email is sent, but would this count as adding non-copyrighted
data, even though it would only request a resurvey?

Interested to hear your thoughts,
Luke
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Luke Stewart]

The "local traffic only" sign is not present in the QLD, NSW, or Australian
Road Rules legislation, nor is an explanation of what it means. Councils
don't have the power to restrict the use of a road to "local traffic" under
the Local Government Act, at least as far as I can understand.

http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/vic/consol_act/lga1989182/sch10.html

http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/vic/consol_act/lga1989182/sch11.html

It's not on the page of Road Signs in Australia, although I acknowledge it
may be incomplete.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Australia

It seems to me it's similar to a "No Through Road" sign—merely advisory.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Luke Stewart]

Perhaps "motor_vehicle=discouraged"?

>From the wiki:
A legal right of way exists (see yes
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dyes>) but usage is
officially discouraged (e.g., HGVs on narrow but passable lanes). Only if
marked by a traffic sign (subjective otherwise).

Although that may be getting too far away from the meaning of the sign, but
the original intention is to discourage through and non-local traffic

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 15:31, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

> I guess https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access does say "Access
> values describe legal permissions/restrictions. What happens on the ground
> may be different: for instance, many footpaths are used as de facto bike
> paths, without a legal right to do so. (Various 'greyzone' tags have been
> proposed to deal with such situations, but this is controversial and is not
> described here.)"
>
> Similar to existing "maxspeed:advisory"
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:advisory perhaps if
> these aren't legal restrictions but still signposted on the ground we could
> use "motor_vehicle:advisory=destination". Does that work better?
>
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 13:04, Luke Stewart 
> wrote:
>
>> As far as I have read, these signs are not enforceable by councils, nor
>> do they appear in the NSW (or Australian) Road Rules. So unless the road
>> itself is on private property and this sign is present, the access would
>> still be public and it has the same meaning as discouraging the use of the
>> street in favour of main roads.
>> ___
>> 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 traffic only

[Luke Stewart]

As far as I have read, these signs are not enforceable by councils, nor do
they appear in the NSW (or Australian) Road Rules. So unless the road
itself is on private property and this sign is present, the access would
still be public and it has the same meaning as discouraging the use of the
street in favour of main roads.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] LPI NSW Lot Boundaries—worthwile to request?

[Luke Stewart]

Also with the boundary only layer you can have the satellite view in full
focus whilst also editing without having the other features of the base map
such as address, buildings, etc.

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

Re: [talk-au] LPI NSW Lot Boundaries—worthwile to request?

[Luke Stewart]

I'm not proposing to import the boundaries into the database, only showing
up as an overlay in the editor. Whether there is a feature there to be
mapped along the boundary can of course only be determined by aerial
imagery.

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

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 148, Issue 35

[Luke Stewart]

Apologies, this was sent in error.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] LPI NSW Lot Boundaries—worthwile to request?

[Luke Stewart]

It would be similar to how the suburb and other overlays currently
work--one could see the aerial imagery in the background with the lot
boundaries on top.

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

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 148, Issue 35

[Luke Stewart]

It would be similar to how the suburb and other overlays currently
work--one could see the aerial imagery in the background with the lot
boundaries on top.

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

Re: [talk-au] LPI NSW Lot Boundaries—worthwile to request?

[Luke Stewart]

  Yes, I was referring to inclusion only in the editor. I am unsure whether
our current waiver from LPI NSW services includes access to lot boundaries.

Cheers,
Luke

On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 15:15, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> You're just asking to see these layers in editors, not actually importing
> those boundaries into OSM right?
>
> The layers are defined at
> https://github.com/osmlab/editor-layer-index/tree/gh-pages/sources/oceania/au/nsw
> .
>
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 11:22, Luke Stewart 
> wrote:
>
>> I didn't notice the lot boundaries on the base map but it seems you're
>> right. In which case it would make this proposal redundant. Thank you for
>> pointing that out.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Luke
>> ___
>> 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] LPI NSW Lot Boundaries—worthwile to request?

[Luke Stewart]

I didn't notice the lot boundaries on the base map but it seems you're
right. In which case it would make this proposal redundant. Thank you for
pointing that out.

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

[talk-au] LPI NSW Lot Boundaries—worthwile to request?

[Luke Stewart]

G'day guys,

Looking at the sixmaps website they have a lot boundaries overlay which
does exactly what it says on the tin. Would it be worthwhile requesting
permission to access this? My thoughts are that it could assist with
armchair mapping for determining whether a road is for public access or
whether its actually just a long driveway or the like? We already have the
imagery dates overlay in iD so I presume it wouldn't be too difficult to
add?

Interested to hear your thoughts.

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

Re: [talk-au] Facebook RapiD Roads

[Luke Stewart]

Whilst I doubt we are the target country, anything that facilities the
creation of good map data is beneficial, particularly out in the stix.

Also they seem to be using Maxar imagery which seems to be the most up to
date across the country, thus it had new housing subdivisions.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Suburban Tunnel at Sydney Central Station

[Luke Stewart]

To address the points raised:

Until we properly know what is going on, I think they disused would be a
better option.

access=private seems more appropriate then access=no

As far as I have seen, it is an official name for the walkway.

Thank you all for your comments—I will update the tags in the coming days.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Suburban Tunnel at Sydney Central Station

[Luke Stewart]

G'day,

As of 13/10/19, part of the suburban tunnel at Central station has been
closed off of public access due to Metro works (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-33.88344/151.20682). I originally
changed the access tag from "customers" to "no" on the affected segments,
but am wondering whether it may be appropriate to delete the element all
together. My though processes is as there are various other tunnels that
are closed but blocked off like this one, it should remain with access=no
until such time that we can confirm they are demolished (i.e. when the new
walkway opens in a few years).

What do you think? Thanks.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Newcastle to Ballina Pacific Highway classification

[Luke Stewart]

On the 100km/hr speed limit, there are many dual carriageways within and
outside that have a 100 limits, including (virtually) the entire ring road
and the M4 (NSW speed zone guidelines stipulates that 100km/hr is for urban
motorways and 110km/hr for non-built up area motorways or rural divided
roads). A dual carriageway with at least two lanes would seem appropriate
to be called a motorway to me.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging of Aboriginal flag

[Luke Stewart]

Was not aware of the wikidata tag. Perfect, thanks
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Tagging of Aboriginal flag

[Luke Stewart]

G'day

The only flag:type listed in the wiki are national and governmental, and
taginfo doesn't show any existing tagging scheme for what I want.

Do you think that flag:type=indigenous is appropriate for an Aboriginal
flag_pole? Only issue there is that there is no differentiation between
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. It's not like either of them have an
ISO code so I can't use country=XX

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