Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

I have looked back at months of changesets by this user. Nearly all involve retagging which is at best arguable and at worst wrong. It appears to be largely done from satellite images and not survey. The largest category is changes of paths, (typically not those beside roads, not what are

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

Just a thought and I hope not too imperialist sounding:  in UK England and Wales law, a distinction evolved between a "footway" and a "footpath", just possibly pre-1900 (unclear): https://pedestrianliberation.org/the-law-2/ "'footway' is the modern legal term for ‘that part of the highway set

Re: [talk-au] Another Melbourne intersection for review

Hi Andrew, A couple of days ago I updated this intersection to remove a couple of short ways, merge some ways, and update the turn restrictions. There should now be only one ways to negotiate the intersection from any entry to exit. This may explain why online directions are working, while

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

Hi, I'd agree with Tony here. Personally I simply tag a footpath with highway=footway. The implication (in Victoria) is that adult bicycles are not permitted. I don't see the benefit of explicitly tagging with foot=yes and bicycle=no. Tagging also ignores the subtly of who is allowed to ride

Re: [talk-au] Albert Park Grand Prix Track

I can't find a similar equivalent in Australia to compare it to (not a big petrol-head) but Monaco, for example, doesn't have a raceway drawn across its roads, just a relation. Hi maybe this example helps Relation: Mount Panorama Circuit (6942508) Tony

Re: [talk-au] Another Melbourne intersection for review

On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 00:05, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au < talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > I haven't see a response to my question of when to use multiple lanes or > separate ways. In this intersection there are small plastic obstructions > between lanes. I can see arguments for modelling

Re: [talk-au] Albert Park Grand Prix Track

Here's the GC 600 track: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9325885#map=16/-27.9868/153.4270 Thanks Graeme On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 08:44, Diacritic wrote: > Thanks Ben and Tony, > > Interesting to see the other precedents for tagging a street circuit in > Australia. > > It seems like the

[talk-au] Albert Park Grand Prix Track

Hello, The Albert Park Grand Prix track is currently drawn as a separate 'raceway', broken up into sectors, using some nodes of Lakeside Drive and Aughtie Drive. It's pretty cool t see the route, but I'm not sure it's correct to have it drawn in that way. The race track only exists for one

Re: [talk-au] Albert Park Grand Prix Track

Other examples may be (though more street tracks) Adelaide, Newcastle, Gold Coast Get Outlook for Android From: fors...@ozonline.com.au Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 8:25:14 AM To: Benjamin Ceravolo Cc: Diacritic ;

Re: [talk-au] Shared driveways

Hi The possibility of retagging user HighRouleur's highway= service service=driveway ways to highway= service service=driveway driveway=pipestem occurred to me as well. But I have never heard of a pipestem before. Maybe its something that is only done in the US? My thought was that if I

Re: [talk-au] Albert Park Grand Prix Track

Yes it should and in the past has not been a race track with only the dedicated turn 9/10 section that diverges from the road. Now the that has been removed as part of the work being done to the track there shouldn't need to be any racetrack ways. Get Outlook for

[talk-au] Shared driveways

In doing the rounds of the Willoughby LGA, I've noticed there are quite a lot of shared driveways. This has likely come about from where one previously large block has been subdivided - sometimes multiple times. Each block typically has access to the main road via a narrow strip of land, on

Re: [talk-au] Albert Park Grand Prix Track

Thanks Ben and Tony, Interesting to see the other precedents for tagging a street circuit in Australia. It seems like the separated way for the racetrack should be deleted, and the relation updated to use the relevant segments from Aughtie, Lakeside, etc. D On 2021-09-22 22:31, Benjamin

Re: [talk-au] Shared driveways

When I've found the same situation, I've just left it as a single service=driveway from the road to where it splits, then two (or however many) more driveways from that point to each house. Thanks Graeme On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 08:37, Tom Brennan wrote: > In doing the rounds of the

Re: [talk-au] Shared driveways

On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 09:11, wrote: > Does a pipestem describe https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/203549225 > better > than the simpler highway= service? I think I prefer highway= service > I've also never heard of "pipestem" driveways. In regard to Lilliput Lane, it appears to have houses

Re: [talk-au] Shared driveways

"so why isn't it just a simple highway=residential?" in this case https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/203549225 either highway=service or highway=residential are OK with me highway=service can be achieved by reversion in this case and there are approximately 5000 ways to deal with. Not all are

Re: [talk-au] Shared driveways

Thanks to Phil for pointing out to me it's "pipestem" not "pipestream". On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 12:34, Alex Sims wrote: > Hi, > > I hadn't seen the "pipestream" before, and it does look to have some > utility. > > I'd much prefer that (legally) public roads be > highway=residential/unclassified

Re: [talk-au] Shared driveways

driveway=pipestream sounds good. It's got more usage than service=pipestream. It's nice to have a way to distinguish these from non-shared driveways. I've never heard the term before either, must be american, but that's fine, many of the existing key values are UK terms and don't apply globally,

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 23:27, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au < talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Likewise with highway=cycleway. In Victoria this means that both > pedestrians and bikes are allowed. Explicitly tagging foot=yes and > bicycle=yes adds unnecessary noise. > Victoria has some

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 22:02, wrote: > I have looked back at months of changesets by this user. Nearly all > involve retagging which is at best arguable and at worst wrong. It > appears to be largely done from satellite images and not survey. > > The largest category is changes of paths,

Re: [talk-au] Shared driveways

Hi, I hadn't seen the "pipestream" before, and it does look to have some utility. I'd much prefer that (legally) public roads be highway=residential/unclassified etc so as these will all be present in government data. If it's private (even shared between many people) then it should be a