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

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

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46

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

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46

Let me put it this way, it very easy for you to come along with your validator toll and get on your high horse and point out how trash some routing edits are... but you have no clue at all how much effort it take to get some intersections functioning as intended as per the rule of the

[talk-au] FW: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44

From: Phil Wyatt Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 2:00 PM To: 'Anthony Panozzo' Subject: RE: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44 Hi Anthony, There are multiple tools out there for finding 'errors' in OSM data and many people use them to keep the OSM data up to date. You might

Re: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44)

Many thanks for the detailed explanation -Original Message- From: Andrew Davidson Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 11:54 AM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44) On 30/4/22 00:45, Anthony Panozzo wrote: >

Re: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44)

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, 11:53 Andrew Davidson, wrote: > > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/14044389 > > > Cut and paste error there. The existing no u-turn restriction is: https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13909088 ___ Talk-au mailing list

[talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44)

On 30/4/22 00:45, Anthony Panozzo wrote: This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know more than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing correction this account comes along and “fixes” it based on “knowledge” Some terminology before we start. To be

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44

Hi Anthony (slice0), Can I suggest the best way to get some resolution is to actually spell out in a changeset comment why you think the change made by Swavu is incorrect. That way everyone gets to learn from 'conflicts'. I also suggest you restrain your language or you may also face the wrath

Re: [talk-au] Tagging suggestions please - parking formal vs informal

Thanks all for your ideas (sorry a bit slow) Going for major use of "informal", making sure that there is a way route to/through "surface" features, stopping bays and super small LV stops as "laybys" and a stock(ish) description for uncommon situations. Also adding capacity:hgv based on a

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44

--- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220429/23823d18/attachment-0001.htm> -- Subject: Digest Footer ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openst

[talk-au] OSM Wiki Update - Fourth Tagging Guidelines Page ready for review

Hello, Thank you for the feedback for the subpages that have been completed so far. The fourth subpage of the Australian Tagging Guidelines: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Land_and_boundaries is ready for review. Of particular importance in this