Re: [talk-au] more SEO spam?

The note content (a bit obfuscated by the Javascript..) is at https://github.com/osmlab/onosm.org/blob/gh-pages/js/site.js#L121-L141 Graeme’s point is a good one though — someone will still need to go in and see the note

Re: [talk-au] more SEO spam?

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:53 AM wrote: > Hi, I'm thinking it might be worth emailing the businesses being > advertised and telling them that the SEO company that they engaged is > making edits that they might not want their business associates. > Tony > > > Concur. Be ruthless. These people are

Re: [talk-au] more SEO spam?

Onosm.org generates a structured note. Source code at https://github.com/osmlab/onosm.org On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 3:41 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 06:51, Martijn van Exel wrote: > >> You can point businesses to https://www.onosm.org/ which gives >> businesses an

Re: [talk-au] more SEO spam?

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 06:51, Martijn van Exel wrote: > You can point businesses to https://www.onosm.org/ which gives businesses > an easy way to add themselves. It generates a note on OSM, that mappers can > then turn into an actual node or whatever OSM type is relevant to add the >

Re: [talk-au] Question on how to fix this intersection

+1 to that. Looking at the eastern side imagery again, I'd make a general comment that will help elsewhere: There really should be a node about where the pedestrian crossing is and pushing the road slightly north. This would bring it closer the traffic engineer's intention, which is that the

Re: [talk-au] Question on how to fix this intersection

Hi Dion, I'd say a bit of both. The junction is topologically correct but looking at the aerial imagery and the node that you circled, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1691043684 , then it could be moved very slightly north and a bit more aggressively west to lessen the change of

Re: [talk-au] Question on how to fix this intersection

Especially if the street name does not change AND the road splits into two oneway segments of the same name AND the angle of the ’turn’ is very slight, the software should figure this out, and I would say this is indeed an OSMAnd problem. In any case, the mapping looks correct to me. Sort of

Re: [talk-au] Question on how to fix this intersection

I agree there should be a better way, but I would solve this problem by bring the road split to the east of the the intersection in this case. The road divides on the eastern side of the intersection anyway. Then there will be no option but to continue straight. Ian. On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at

[talk-au] Question on how to fix this intersection

G'day all! In the intersection of Liverpool road and Burwood road in Burwood, Sydney (see attached), if I am travelling in the direction shown by the red arrow, then my GPS device should tell me to continue and drive straight at the intersection. However, because at that junction, the map

Re: [talk-au] more SEO spam?

You can point businesses to https://www.onosm.org/ which gives businesses an easy way to add themselves. It generates a note on OSM, that mappers can then turn into an actual node or whatever OSM type is relevant to add the information to the map in a responsible way.

Re: [talk-au] more SEO spam?

Hi, I'm thinking it might be worth emailing the businesses being advertised and telling them that the SEO company that they engaged is making edits that they might not want their business associates. Tony Concur. Be ruthless. These people are akin to nuisance callers and should be publicly

Re: [talk-au] more SEO spam?

Concur. Be ruthless. These people are akin to nuisance callers and should be publicly flogged. Ian On 30/1/19 7:22 pm, nwastra wrote: We seem to be getting a lot of business edits in this form lately with only a name and description tag, often with address details or just spam in the

Re: [talk-au] more SEO spam?

On 30/01/2019 10:25, Andrew Harvey wrote: I agree, unless they come to the table to discuss we should block as much as possible to limit their abuse of OSM. On Wed., 30 Jan. 2019, 7:24 pm nwastra wrote: ...

Re: [talk-au] more SEO spam?

I agree, unless they come to the table to discuss we should block as much as possible to limit their abuse of OSM. On Wed., 30 Jan. 2019, 7:24 pm nwastra We seem to be getting a lot of business edits in this form lately with > only a name and description tag, often with address details or just

Re: [talk-au] more SEO spam?

I agree. - Ben. On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 19:24, nwastra wrote: > We seem to be getting a lot of business edits in this form lately with > only a name and description tag, often with address details or just spam in > the description tag. > As is usual with spam like business edits, they use a

[talk-au] more SEO spam?

We seem to be getting a lot of business edits in this form lately with only a name and description tag, often with address details or just spam in the description tag. As is usual with spam like business edits, they use a throw away email to make the edit and you never get a response from any