Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification contributions in SA via Microsoft Open Maps Team - contact point?

[Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au]

We were about to start OSM editing, but we haven't started since we were hoping 
for more potential answers. We didn't want to start it based on just one 
solution/reply.

We will wait for at least three more days to see if anyone else has something 
to add.

Thanks,
Nemanja

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2021 6:54 AM
To: o...@97k.com
Cc: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification 
contributions in SA via Microsoft Open Maps Team - contact point?



On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 13:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
if it's named on the Govt data, then highway=unclassified + access=public; if 
not named highway=unclassified + access=private.

I'm going to have to re-think this theory!

While it's nowhere near as remote as SA, over this last week we've been out in 
SEQ country.

Spotted a few signposted, named roads with gates across them as soon as you 
leave the main road.

eg (Easier using G maps than uploading my dash cam footage!)

https://goo.gl/maps/FrFvKNKZViRVR6uq6

https://goo.gl/maps/irEj1y4iywBxXPF79

OSM

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-28.19174/152.54437
 - Wickman Rd is actually the unmaintained track, not the short service road

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=17/-28.17766/152.54006
 - shows Wilkinson Rd but it hasn't yet been mapped at all

Looking at imagery, it would appear that these would both be best mapped as 
highway=service + service=driveway + access=private.

Hope that doesn't throw everything into confusion again!

Thanks

Graeme

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

Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification contributions in SA via Microsoft Open Maps Team - contact point?

[Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au]

Hi all,

Thanks for the replies!
Before we start, please confirm one last thing.
Since we were able to find many cases like this:
https://prntscr.com/1b1ktyz
what would you suggest to do in the shown example?

Please note that it might be the case that we are unable to find any gates or 
barriers on the aerial imagery.

I suppose that access=public is here just to emphasize that road is public, but 
it is an implicit tag.

Thanks once again,
Nemanja

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2021 5:20 AM
To: o...@97k.com
Cc: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification 
contributions in SA via Microsoft Open Maps Team - contact point?

Hi Nemanja

Sorry, been busy packing to go away!

Thanks for asking for further feedback :-)

Yep, I'd go along with Michael - if it's named on the Govt data, then 
highway=unclassified + access=public; if not named highway=unclassified + 
access=private.

You'd probably also be able to add surface=unpaved to just about all of them.

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 09:56, cleary mailto:o...@97k.com>> wrote:
Hello again Nemanja

I response to your question, based on my experience, I still have the view that 
unnamed roads in South Australia are not intended for public access. Therefore, 
if mapped, they should be tagged as access=private. I don't think there would 
be any exceptions but, if there are, individual mappers who survey such areas 
could later amend the access tags and/or add names as appropriate.

If the roads actually exist then I have no problem with mapping them. My 
particular concern is that failing to tag them as private could endanger lives 
and livelihoods.

Thanks for your diligence in following up this issue

Michael Cleary





On Mon, 12 Jul 2021, at 11:07 PM, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I know it might be a vacation period for most people, but if you are
> still online, we would like to know which method is more acceptable for
> the whole community before we proceed.
>
> I really appreciate any help you can provide.
> Nemanja
>
> *From:* Nemanja Bracko (E-Search)
> *Sent:* Monday, July 5, 2021 8:59 AM
> *To:* Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>>; Ewen Hill
> mailto:ewen.h...@gmail.com>>
> *Cc:* OSM Australian Talk List 
> mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>>
> *Subject:* RE: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification
> contributions in SA via Microsoft Open Maps Team - contact point?
>
> Thanks again for the constructive suggestions.
>
> My team will treat this very carefully and as a high priority.
>
> Two main questions are here:
>  * Do you want us to correct the classification for every of these
> ~2500 segments?
>* If the answer is Yes, please tell us what to do with the access
> tag. We will strictly follow your guideline. We would like to fix it in
> one pass.
>  * Do you want us to remove all these roads entirely from the map?
>
> Both options are completely fine with us since we have a list of these
> segments already. In any of these two cases, we will process them one
> by one. No bulk edits will be made.
>
> Thanks,
> Nemanja
>
> *From:* Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>>
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 4, 2021 2:26 AM
> *To:* Ewen Hill mailto:ewen.h...@gmail.com>>
> *Cc:* OSM Australian Talk List 
> mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>>
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification
> contributions in SA via Microsoft Open Maps Team - contact point?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 at 17:28, Ewen Hill 
> mailto:ewen.h...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > The examples below could cause significant resentment to OSM and I would 
> > suggest that all are private driveways that I can see. Perhaps we need to 
> > stop updating, reset and look at how to improve the existing edits. An 
> > initial suggestion could be to set all new roads to private, add a fixme 
> > and perhaps organise a map-roulette of these? Of the ten edits I sampled, 
> > all ten appeared to be private driveways on private property.
> >
> > I am sure a few of us would be happy to discuss some of these changesets 
> > with the MS team so we can both learn a little more and see how we can 
> > assist before large changesets.
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id=955658598#map=16/-33.8579/137.7863<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2Fedit%3Feditor%3Did%26way%3D955658598%23map%3D16%2F-33.8579%2F137.7863=04%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C654932de7df740885b6e08d945adca64%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637617435169910066%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ

Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification contributions in SA via Microsoft Open Maps Team - contact point?

[Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au]

Hi all,

As promised, I'm providing an update regarding the internal check.
Our maintenance team has checked what happened, and here are the results:

  *   We have used the following query to 
filter all ways that may be affected for this task which we have started on 
06/09;
  *   The total number of the ways (segments) is 4,089 produced by our team;
  *   1,566 ways had no issues at all;
  *   1,244 individual roads (mapped as 2,523 segments) had classification 
error, however:
 *   409 roads (1,137 segments) provide some connectivity; these roads are 
not dead ends, however:
*   60 roads have barrier tag;
*   349 roads (945 segments) provide connectivity and do not have any 
barrier tag;

Conclusion:
We have to fix these 349 roads that provide connectivity and do not have any 
barrier tag. We can adjust their classification in the form of 
unclassified|residential > service + service=driveway (if/where applicable), 
but we cannot add any access=private|destination tags since we do not have 
ground truth.

The rest of the roads will not affect any routing engine since these are either 
deadends or have a barrier tag.

Thank you for raising this issue. We will try to prevent such situations in the 
future.

If you have any additional questions regarding this or any future issues, 
please don't hesitate to contact me.

Thank you all,
Nemanja

From: Nemanja Bračko 
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 5:46 PM
To: Frederik Ramm 
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [talk-au] Low quality road classification contributions 
in SA via Microsoft Open Maps Team - contact point?

Thank you all for support. I have learned that baby's nails nay be razor sharp. 
:)

Anyway, the maintenance team has stopped their work until my colleagues finish 
the analysis - what happened. Most of these are dead ends and these do not 
provide any connectivity (between two roads) so it won't have any influence for 
the missing attribute/tag access=private/destination. We do not have such 
information, except to trace the road per available resources.

We already had such discussion here, and we made corrections in our policies 
regarding to that discussion.

Anyway, I do not want to spoil or to provide any wrong feedback atm, so I'll 
get back to all of you in Monday. Editorial work is stopped for now regarding 
this task.

Thanks,
Nemanja
Sent from my phone

On Tue, Jun 22, 2021, 09:43 Frederik Ramm 
mailto:frede...@remote.org>> wrote:
Hi,

@Nemanja in a personal capacity, all the best for your kid!

@Nemanja in a business capacity, just so that there are no
misunderstandings: if there are doubts about the quality of an organised
editing activity, that activity needs to pause until the doubts are
resolved.

Getting back to the community after investigation is fine, but the
activity must not continue and potentially introduce more errors in the
mean time.

@AU community, If further bad data is added after a problem has been
flagged, please report the participating accounts to DWG so that we can
stop them.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  
N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
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] [EXTERNAL] Re: Mapping each lane as a new way

[Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au]

Thanks for the suggestion what can be our next step, also thanks for the 
recommendation about "not naming individuals, unless it isn't an obvious 
vandalism". I'll keep that in mind.

Sent from my phone

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>


From: Ewen Hill 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 10:18:36 PM
To: Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) 
Cc: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [talk-au] Mapping each lane as a new way

Nemanja,
Hi, have those you mentioned responded and how did you contact them? Was it 
via changeset comments or via an OSM message?

   It's probably best you contact data[, “ат”]openstreetmaporg (see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FData_working_group=04%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C1113a9ad2c354efe656508d879f4bb47%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637393439305503557%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=xuhdJoWPIlv0mcME3XeqPNrUxLSaTZOSS9mbZZELC78%3D=0>)
 and explain the situation and this group may place a temporary block on them 
until they have read a message from them..

   I am not a huge fan of naming individuals here unless it is blatant and 
obvious vandalism

Ewen

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 at 07:32, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

Hi everyone,



My team has recognized that there are a couple of users who are repeatedly 
making questionable modeling choices.

We’ve contacted them, and while some specific issues were fixed, new ones kept 
appearing. We wanted to reach out and to hear your opinions on this matter.



User 
Supt_of_Printing<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2Fuser%2FSupt_of_Printing=04%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C1113a9ad2c354efe656508d879f4bb47%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637393439305503557%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=%2F%2FVWOD8ow4e65SkkD%2FeJiVUk2QgI8%2FwyGaoMdQnjkXk%3D=0>

This user is not using existing ways but he adds a new way on top of the 
existing one, making a lot of duplicates. The example can be:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/819833424<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2Fway%2F819833424=04%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C1113a9ad2c354efe656508d879f4bb47%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637393439305513558%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=o67cCEBJw190k4804926kLVYkJ0S8F7AW45waWe8Wdg%3D=0>

There is a way that is classified as track, but just over the existing one he 
added a new unclassified road.



https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/746933130<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2Fway%2F746933130=04%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C1113a9ad2c354efe656508d879f4bb47%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637393439305513558%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=QqSEy42JT%2BFqZ6TUCNLlgcO5gvbcO%2BhSuRdhHIOQM3Y%3D=0>

The other type of issue that we recognized is roundabout modeling.

You can see in the provided example that way goes as a part of the roundabout. 
Also, it is noticeable that half of the roundabout has a [oneway] tag, but the 
other doesn’t.



Users 
Map_baker<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2Fuser%2FMap_baker=04%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C1113a9ad2c354efe656508d879f4bb47%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637393439305523556%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=iU%2BsdM10f%2BMJtX0ml%2B%2FzOzfHyax4P6MqibBSTnEiflc%3D=0>
 and 
Supt_of_Printing<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2Fuser%2FSupt_of_Printing=04%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C1113a9ad2c354efe656508d879f4bb47%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637393439305523556%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=o%2FSimP0v0fZhw5%2BQEgR4DHIfHoL%2FPpPtSClF5ZTKeH8%3D=0>

They have remodeled a couple of junctions so each lane is one way, like here:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/746563860/history<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2Fway%2F746563860%2Fhistory=04%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C1113a9ad2c354efe656508d879f4bb47%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637393439305533543%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=nA4HN7y5DOjlm%2FcQEQ5CtjhQtOX6wISJMrXN%2FRtm9Gw%3D=0>



What’s happeni

[talk-au] Mapping each lane as a new way

[Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au]

Hi everyone,



My team has recognized that there are a couple of users who are repeatedly 
making questionable modeling choices.

We've contacted them, and while some specific issues were fixed, new ones kept 
appearing. We wanted to reach out and to hear your opinions on this matter.



User Supt_of_Printing

This user is not using existing ways but he adds a new way on top of the 
existing one, making a lot of duplicates. The example can be:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/819833424

There is a way that is classified as track, but just over the existing one he 
added a new unclassified road.



https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/746933130

The other type of issue that we recognized is roundabout modeling.

You can see in the provided example that way goes as a part of the roundabout. 
Also, it is noticeable that half of the roundabout has a [oneway] tag, but the 
other doesn't.



Users Map_baker and 
Supt_of_Printing

They have remodeled a couple of junctions so each lane is one way, like here:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/746563860/history



What's happening with this remodeling:

  *   Destination relations are broken;
  *   Bus routes are not connected properly;
  *   For navigation purposes additional turn restrictions would be needed to 
avoid unpleasant turn suggestions;
  *   In some cases, roads cross each other without an intersection point;
  *   It is impossible to apply correct lane information.


Another example of remodeling:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/789300431

There are no physical barriers, so it should be modeled as a single way, but 
the actual osm data is currently divided based on lane information.

Although we recognize that there are different approaches to modeling 
junctions, these users are creating a lot of issues by remodeling in this way.

Please can you advise what to do now since I believe that all osm users need to 
spend a significant amount of time checking all their previous edits?


Users Map_baker and 
travaudat

They are going across Australia and converting multiple way roundabouts into 
one. We had a discussion on Talk-AU about that, where I have tried to explain 
why it is not okay to do (since attributes may change within the roundabout), 
but I can see that practice has continued.

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

Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Duplicate of the same airport

[Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au]

Thanks Greame for the valuable input!

Can you please, or someone who is familiar with the airport modeling, apply 
changes to other 3 (three) airports?

Thank you in advance,
Nemanja

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2020 12:36 AM
To: Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) 
Cc: Michael James ; OpenStreetMap 

Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [talk-au] Duplicate of the same airport




On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 18:31, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) 
mailto:v-neb...@microsoft.com>> wrote:

However, according to this Wikipedia 
page,
 it is said that in AU there are 4 such airports.

I'd add Canberra to that list!

One side is Canberra International Airport 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-35.30767/149.19034,
 while the other is still used for military flights 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-35.30218/149.19963

This page 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairbairn,_Canberra,
 says that RAAF Fairbairn was decommissioned in 2003, but it is still the home 
of 34 Squadron who are responsible for most VIP flights in & out of Canberra.

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Duplicate of the same airport

[Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au]

Hi everyone,

I need the assistance of the community here…
I got a feeling in March this year when military and civilian airports are 
sharing the same strip/area we should keep it as 2 separate polygons. This is 
why I’m using the same thread again.

However, according to this Wikipedia 
page<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_by_ICAO_code:_Y>, it is 
said that in AU there are 4 such airports.

  1.  Darwin International Airport<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/216110357> 
and RAAF Base Darwin<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/833764002> YPDN (DRW)
  2.  Newcastle Airport<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6263052> and 
RAAF Base Williamtown<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4145466> YWLM (NTL)
  3.  Townsville Airport<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/372778463> YBTL 
(TSV) - which is tagged as military/civilian
  4.  RAAF Base Learmonth<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/187114230> YPLM 
(LEA) - which is tagged as military only

If we do at this way, no problem, however IATA and ICAO will be duplicated (yes 
it can be merged into one polygon at the consumer side), however can someone 
create polygons for other 2 airports to have a consistent data here, or you 
think it is okay to have tagging as it is in Townsville?

Thank you in advance,
Nemanja

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 10:56 PM
To: Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) 
Cc: Michael James ; OpenStreetMap 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [talk-au] Duplicate of the same airport

No, I would leave it as 2 separate airfields, with the same info against both.

If that causes a problem, then take the codes off the airbase, as strictly 
speaking, that side of the airfield isn't an air transport destination.

Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 22:10, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
Thank you all for clarification.

Thank you James for more local details.

So by your opinion is it better to have 2 separate airports with duplicated 
data (such as IATA, ICAO, etc.), or to combine into one polygon.
Taking into consideration Cleary's and Andrew's answer I would leave as is, but 
since this is isolated case in AU, and some data will be duplicated, I would 
join two polygons. Don't know what to do. 

Thank you in advance for the response.

Nemanja

-Originalna poruka-
Od: Michael James mailto:mich...@techdrive.com.au>>
Poslato: sreda, 25. mart 2020. 12:21
Za: OpenStreetMap mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>>
Tema: [EXTERNAL] Re: [talk-au] Duplicate of the same airport

It is a military base that allows civilian air traffic to use its runway.

As far as air traffic goes it's called Williamtown, only the civilian terminal 
area is called Newcastle airport. (28 hectares of land)

https://www.newcastleairport.com.au/corporate/about/board-governance<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newcastleairport.com.au%2Fcorporate%2Fabout%2Fboard-governance=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C15c4ae38b7c74ed3bc8608d7d107663f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637207702025849697=W5erkIhOTLoORjk8aILFjO69mjMqib6p1S2FkrKy7C4%3D=0>

Hope that helps, though no map of that land parcel that they lease for the 
civilian side.

> -Original Message-
> From: cleary mailto:o...@97k.com>>
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 March 2020 6:29 PM
> To: OpenStreetMap 
> mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Duplicate of the same airport
>
>
>
> I think the air force base and civilian airport share the same runway
> but they are two distinct entities with separate buildings etc. Same
> applies in some other cities including Canberra. I would defer to
> someone more knowledgeable but I think it remains appropriate to have two 
> separate entities mapped in OSM.
>
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2020, at 7:06 PM, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > There are two relations in OSM that are referring to the same airport:
> >
> >  * 
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6263052<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2Frelation%2F6263052=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C15c4ae38b7c74ed3bc8608d7d107663f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637207702025849697=3mc2D3APB2oxY1iah%2BWiDMZqgj2DxBZhqckvabE989c%3D=0>
> >  * 
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4145466<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2Frelation%2F4145466=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C15c4ae38b7c74ed3bc8608d7d107663f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637207702025859694=yb7iHhzizZrsloMTgdj%2B4BSg47nWHjV%2FwZePSBNj3cw%3D=0>
> >
> >
> >
> > The first one has a *aeroway:aerodrome

Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Join roundabouts

[Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au]

Hey Warin,

Thanks for the reply!

I just want to clarify my initial post where I have stated:
In the same time, “intersecting” members haven’t been added, so the relation is 
invalid;
I don’t mind if users add intersection node after joining ways – no problem!
But there is an issue when everything is merged into one way, but without 
“intersection” member – which can be only a node.

However there are rare edge cases where we are forced to make a split – I have 
gave an example later. Also some of the attributes such as lane information 
will also be lost after joining – since number of lanes are different on each 
part of the roundabout – more often case than I have presented with the 
destination signs.

Thanks,
Nemanja

From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 12:25 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Join roundabouts

On 9/4/20 5:40 pm, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au wrote:

Hi everyone!



Thank you all for responding to this thread.



Thank you Harvey for suggestion to contact them directly, and we left comments 
on changesets.



I am really sad when someone claims that we are trying to adapt OSM to our 
needs, instead of adapting to OSM. I can strongly confirm that statement is not 
true at all, and we are trying to adapt to each country separately because 
community is doing same things with different approach.



People are people and can be offended where no offense was meant.

The internet has no tone to imply things and some times things written would be 
better expressed in more kindly words. Just don't take it personally, you'll be 
much happier if you don't.





Anyway... We are trying to stick to OSM Wiki as much as possible, but in very 
early days when we were starting AU editing, I had some discussion with Andrew 
Harvey regarding surface tags and OSM Wiki, and couple of community members and 
him told me one very useful thing at that time and I really appreciate it: OSM 
Wiki is not a specification of OSM data, but rather guideline how to use some 
option or tag. Also it is full of contradictories as well.



Yes the wiki can be very confusing! At best it is a guide and sometimes need 
careful thought and further exploration into similar features or sub tags to 
work out the best way to use the tags.





Anyway, back to roundabouts...

When approaching to roundabout, you will see at least one signpost which 
informs you that you approaching to the roundabout. It will look like this:

https://tinyurl.com/uam667d<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftinyurl.com%2Fuam667d=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C0f09322c6cff4d08b38408d7dc709843%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637220248469639533=4izeot7455cXV%2BR5yE79N2t08XRVC5fjuotz7lHMoE8%3D=0>



Not all roundabouts are so well sign posted.





and then, within the roundabout you have a new signpost which can be totally 
different than it was before the junction:

https://tinyurl.com/wagdlv3<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftinyurl.com%2Fwagdlv3=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C0f09322c6cff4d08b38408d7dc709843%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637220248469639533=hMfYTyliL54UizQtcTLuDcAzeV5lwulo2oT0X%2FM8CA8%3D=0>



Well that sign is actual on the exit road of the roundabout, not the roundabout 
itself.

While it is visible from the roundabout  not technically part of the roundabout.

This sign is meant to give confidence that you have chosen the correct exit 
rather than find out miles down the road.





*in this example these are the same.



The reason why do we split it into couple of ways is to properly put direction 
where it is possible to see the sign for the first time.



Use a node. A way has a length that is less specific than a node.





Davdson said, by OSM Wiki, everything is optional, except member "to". Yes, you 
are correct, but if you put both of these relations in "to" - how could you 
recognize which one is before another?

The 'to' will give the order?

The other thing is that if you put first signpost in relation with "to" member 
only (or with "intersection" and "to" members), but without "from" - 
destination signpost would be displayed from ANY direction that you are coming 
from.



In a roundabout all go in the same direction so where you come from is not 
relevant.





Thanks,

Nemanja



-Original Message-

From: Andrew Davidson <mailto:thesw...@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 11:09 AM

To: Andrew Harvey <mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>

Cc: Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) 
<mailto:v-neb...@microsoft.com>; OpenStreetMap 
<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [talk-au] Join roundabouts



On 7/4/20 9:13 am, Andrew Harvey wrote:

I mean when the from member should be the roundabout way, think of a

large roun

Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Join roundabouts

[Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au]

Update: Green are 2 different relations, so call it 1A and 1B - one (1A) is 
towards Brisbane and 1B is towards Sydney. We are focusing here on 1B.
If you do not split the road, you will have whole roundabout I section TO/FROM.

Thanks,
Nemanja

-Original Message-
From: Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) 
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 12:08 PM
To: Andrew Davidson 
Cc: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [talk-au] Join roundabouts

Honestly it would take too much time to look for these, but here's the example:
https://prnt.sc/rw0jhf

Please focus on a green relation, segment TO Sydney.

Thanks,
Nemanja

-Original Message-
From: Andrew Davidson  
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 11:34 AM
To: Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) ; Andrew Harvey 

Cc: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [talk-au] Join roundabouts

On 9/4/20 5:40 pm, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) wrote:
> 
> Anyway, back to roundabouts...
> When approaching to roundabout, you will see at least one signpost which 
> informs you that you approaching to the roundabout. It will look like this:
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftiny
> url.com%2Fuam667ddata=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7Ca52744
> 1a54e645ec45e708d7dc691d9e%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%
> 7C637220216336463661sdata=l80zq8dFvc6HbZmiqdhLhYIJxc1YahXtqBfRYPp
> fms0%3Dreserved=0
> 
> and then, within the roundabout you have a new signpost which can be totally 
> different than it was before the junction:
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftiny
> url.com%2Fwagdlv3data=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7Ca52744
> 1a54e645ec45e708d7dc691d9e%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%
> 7C637220216336463661sdata=pbkEzfoJIAOn3gGUFkNQvrNLoP2%2FE7olll%2B
> 08URY46k%3Dreserved=0

If you have two different destination signs then you have two separate 
destination_sign relations.
> 
> The reason why do we split it into couple of ways is to properly put 
> direction where it is possible to see the sign for the first time.

You do not need to split the ways. If you read the wiki page you will find that 
the members of the relation can be specified using the *nodes*

> 
> Davdson said, by OSM Wiki, everything is optional, except member "to". Yes, 
> you are correct, but if you put both of these relations in "to" - how could 
> you recognize which one is before another? The other thing is that if you put 
> first signpost in relation with "to" member only (or with "intersection" and 
> "to" members), but without "from" - destination signpost would be displayed 
> from ANY direction that you are coming from.
> 

Do you have a real world example? If you do I can tag it for you, it's going to 
be easier than trying to explain it.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Join roundabouts

[Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au]

Honestly it would take too much time to look for these, but here's the example:
https://prnt.sc/rw0jhf

Please focus on a green relation, segment TO Sydney.

Thanks,
Nemanja

-Original Message-
From: Andrew Davidson  
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 11:34 AM
To: Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) ; Andrew Harvey 

Cc: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [talk-au] Join roundabouts

On 9/4/20 5:40 pm, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) wrote:
> 
> Anyway, back to roundabouts...
> When approaching to roundabout, you will see at least one signpost which 
> informs you that you approaching to the roundabout. It will look like this:
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftiny
> url.com%2Fuam667ddata=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7Ca52744
> 1a54e645ec45e708d7dc691d9e%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%
> 7C637220216336463661sdata=l80zq8dFvc6HbZmiqdhLhYIJxc1YahXtqBfRYPp
> fms0%3Dreserved=0
> 
> and then, within the roundabout you have a new signpost which can be totally 
> different than it was before the junction:
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftiny
> url.com%2Fwagdlv3data=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7Ca52744
> 1a54e645ec45e708d7dc691d9e%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%
> 7C637220216336463661sdata=pbkEzfoJIAOn3gGUFkNQvrNLoP2%2FE7olll%2B
> 08URY46k%3Dreserved=0

If you have two different destination signs then you have two separate 
destination_sign relations.
> 
> The reason why do we split it into couple of ways is to properly put 
> direction where it is possible to see the sign for the first time.

You do not need to split the ways. If you read the wiki page you will find that 
the members of the relation can be specified using the *nodes*

> 
> Davdson said, by OSM Wiki, everything is optional, except member "to". Yes, 
> you are correct, but if you put both of these relations in "to" - how could 
> you recognize which one is before another? The other thing is that if you put 
> first signpost in relation with "to" member only (or with "intersection" and 
> "to" members), but without "from" - destination signpost would be displayed 
> from ANY direction that you are coming from.
> 

Do you have a real world example? If you do I can tag it for you, it's going to 
be easier than trying to explain it.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Join roundabouts

[Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au]

PS. There are some edge cases as well when "from" member is in the roundabout 
(on exit node you will have destination signpost that will state: Exit - 
Brisbane; Next Exit - Sydney). This kind of marking is very rare but we could 
find couple of these on a very big roundabouts.

Thanks,
Nemanja

-Original Message-----
From: Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au  
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 9:41 AM
To: Andrew Davidson ; Andrew Harvey 

Cc: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Join roundabouts

Hi everyone!

Thank you all for responding to this thread.

Thank you Harvey for suggestion to contact them directly, and we left comments 
on changesets.

I am really sad when someone claims that we are trying to adapt OSM to our 
needs, instead of adapting to OSM. I can strongly confirm that statement is not 
true at all, and we are trying to adapt to each country separately because 
community is doing same things with different approach.

Anyway... We are trying to stick to OSM Wiki as much as possible, but in very 
early days when we were starting AU editing, I had some discussion with Andrew 
Harvey regarding surface tags and OSM Wiki, and couple of community members and 
him told me one very useful thing at that time and I really appreciate it: OSM 
Wiki is not a specification of OSM data, but rather guideline how to use some 
option or tag. Also it is full of contradictories as well.

Anyway, back to roundabouts...
When approaching to roundabout, you will see at least one signpost which 
informs you that you approaching to the roundabout. It will look like this:
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftinyurl.com%2Fuam667ddata=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C4c0195ed00a848bcbfc908d7dc59873f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637220149396716611sdata=irX0unpWa2ricEAdcUnY0FrDHS0cBHfVg0e5dWRZkss%3Dreserved=0

and then, within the roundabout you have a new signpost which can be totally 
different than it was before the junction:
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftinyurl.com%2Fwagdlv3data=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C4c0195ed00a848bcbfc908d7dc59873f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637220149396716611sdata=PvWp7vJbQiEjKa0cWuRnMXkD9vYR5ogsKsTD1BoMpP8%3Dreserved=0

*in this example these are the same.

The reason why do we split it into couple of ways is to properly put direction 
where it is possible to see the sign for the first time.

Davdson said, by OSM Wiki, everything is optional, except member "to". Yes, you 
are correct, but if you put both of these relations in "to" - how could you 
recognize which one is before another? The other thing is that if you put first 
signpost in relation with "to" member only (or with "intersection" and "to" 
members), but without "from" - destination signpost would be displayed from ANY 
direction that you are coming from.

Thanks,
Nemanja

-Original Message-
From: Andrew Davidson 
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 11:09 AM
To: Andrew Harvey 
Cc: Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) ; OpenStreetMap 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [talk-au] Join roundabouts

On 7/4/20 9:13 am, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> I mean when the from member should be the roundabout way, think of a 
> large roundabout where the destination sign exists on the roundabout 
> exit, the from is not the leading way it's the roundabout itself.

If the sign is on the exit of a roundabout you can:

1. Tag the outbound way using destination=* 2. Use a destination_sign 
relationship with a to and intersection member but no from member (it's 
optional in this case because the destination sign is identical from all 
inbound directions).
3. Use a destination_sign relation with to, intersection, and from
*node* members. You can use either a way or a node on that way to specify a 
member of a destination_sign relation.

That's three alternatives to splitting the roundabout way to make a 
destination_sign relation.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk-audata=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C4c0195ed00a848bcbfc908d7dc59873f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637220149396716611sdata=FgcwEhccAZm8DGVYaWfTdCFzWnY9mHqvQaqWaZbjE8I%3Dreserved=0
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Join roundabouts

[Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au]

Hi,

We could see that couple of users started joining ways that have an attribute 
junction=roundabout into single way.
By doing so, we recognize following (potential) issues:

  *   We have added plenty of destination relations (overpass 
query) across Australia, and by joining 
roundabout ways into one, relation could be broken because members "from" are 
lost. In the same time, "intersecting" members haven't been added, so the 
relation is invalid;
  *   If lanes (in real life) are changed within the roundabout (usually 2 
lanes at some parts of the roundabout and 1 lane at the other), attributes 
regarding lane information are lost;
  *   Route relations could also be broken;
  *   If junctions are NOT roundabouts (but have a circular/elliptical shape), 
and ref id's were correctly set, after joining ways, refs would probably miss 
or just one would be present.

Some examples:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/717778304
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/39804616
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/717765311 - travaudat actually added 
"intersecting" role, but it is clear that lanes are changed within the 
roundabout

I would ask users to try not to brake existing relations, and to note that 
multiple ways can be a part of single roundabout so it is not necessary to join 
these.

Thank you,
Nemanja

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

Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Sydney City Tunnels name= vs tunnel:name=

[Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au]

I want to update community here.

We have seen that we haven't took all cases into consideration since full stops 
were missing in our regex queries, and we haven't picked up cases where 
"bridge" or "tunnel" are at the beginning or at the end of the name string.

Updated strings are:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/S11 (92 cases)
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/S18 (817 cases)

We haven't made any diffs between previous 257 bridge names and 817 that we got 
by new query, so these will be inspected again, since average time is <50 
seconds per item in very obvious cases.

Thanks,
Nemanja

-Originalna poruka-----
Od: Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au  
Poslato: petak, 27. mart 2020. 10:30
Za: o...@97k.com; OpenStreetMap 
Tema: Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Sydney City Tunnels name= vs tunnel:name=

Hi,

I can share more details about this one.

We have used following two Overpass queries to manually check each of bridge 
and tunnel names:
Brigde names: 
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Foverpass-turbo.eu%2Fs%2FRWRdata=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7Ce17fb22ae93246e6092908d7d231b906%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637208983313189552sdata=BQctgm%2Bexam5yoLnsZ0%2Fe7NCqryNfmZfb%2B4BVjJKTpM%3Dreserved=0
Tunnel names: 
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Foverpass-turbo.eu%2Fs%2FRYBdata=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7Ce17fb22ae93246e6092908d7d231b906%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637208983313189552sdata=vxhCqmSqHByCR%2Fx3DgL5iBiuzqh7peHJ2sh4Ns8DdvM%3Dreserved=0

We could see that all 257 bridges had the name of the street that contains 
"bridge" word (so all of these were false positives), but we found and applied 
~10 minor fixes here (layer tag was missing, or even there was a bridge polygon 
with the actual bridge name, but way had no attributes about it).

Regarding tunnels, we could fix 6 ways, and 17 were false positives. However, 
we could see that some users used tunnel:name tag, but other were using 
name:tunnel.

I could see, in my country, that all tunnels got names (especially on a 
highways/motorways), and some users made a change and added tunnel names into 
the name tag. They've done that because "it is nicer if you see the name". We 
have to have as unique data as possible, not to adjust because of render. 
@Warin61, sounds familiar with landuse/landcover? Render needs to be changed, 
and that is the other story.

I'm at your disposal for any further questions.

Thanks,
Nemanja

-Originalna poruka-
Od: cleary  
Poslato: petak, 27. mart 2020. 10:06
Za: OpenStreetMap 
Tema: [EXTERNAL] Re: [talk-au] Sydney City Tunnels name= vs tunnel:name=


Unless the road has a different name (and I think that would be rare) I agree 
that the road name is the tunnel name. 

In my experience, signs show the tunnel name without any other road name.  
Where there are differences of opinion, I think local knowledge is always to be 
preferred.





On Fri, 27 Mar 2020, at 1:03 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> There were changes done recently by MS Open Maps team which moved
> name=* to tunnel:name=*.
> 
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fosmc
> ha.org%2Fchangesets%2F82675900data=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft
> .com%7Ca3066fb7cc0c4084c67e08d7d22e69d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011
> db47%7C1%7C0%7C637208969101872477sdata=loYkgMthjo%2B6RaBDB5AUptpN
> %2FMFIWEMegl6TpfEPgaY%3Dreserved=0
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fosmc
> ha.org%2Fchangesets%2F82676173data=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft
> .com%7Ca3066fb7cc0c4084c67e08d7d22e69d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011
> db47%7C1%7C0%7C637208969101872477sdata=dRa2uAyAnyQNddGJEKspeJOfob
> NiLH60V1UO9sQpx%2F4%3Dreserved=0
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fosmc
> ha.org%2Fchangesets%2F82676226data=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft
> .com%7Ca3066fb7cc0c4084c67e08d7d22e69d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011
> db47%7C1%7C0%7C637208969101872477sdata=wbVQe2kajNtwnYhOY%2BrXLELB
> iEtE5A7ARH1MoV37CCs%3Dreserved=0
> 
> I don't think these have seperate tunnel vs road names unlike some 
> bridges which do, and in many cases the road name is considered to be 
> the tunnel name.
> 
> Does anyone have thoughts on if we should tag name=* and tunnel:name=* 
> as the same, omit name= and just add tunnel:name=*?
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist
> s.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk-audata=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%4
> 0microsoft.com%7Ca3066fb7cc0c4084c67e08d7d22e69d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91
> ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637208969101872477sdata=pNLPXOYI%2B6NphF
> MWRtaoDOz10nXKacfqNSixhgJNZgc%3Dreserved=0
>

_

Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Sydney City Tunnels name= vs tunnel:name=

[Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au]

Hi,

I can share more details about this one.

We have used following two Overpass queries to manually check each of bridge 
and tunnel names:
Brigde names: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/RWR
Tunnel names: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/RYB

We could see that all 257 bridges had the name of the street that contains 
"bridge" word (so all of these were false positives), but we found and applied 
~10 minor fixes here (layer tag was missing, or even there was a bridge polygon 
with the actual bridge name, but way had no attributes about it).

Regarding tunnels, we could fix 6 ways, and 17 were false positives. However, 
we could see that some users used tunnel:name tag, but other were using 
name:tunnel.

I could see, in my country, that all tunnels got names (especially on a 
highways/motorways), and some users made a change and added tunnel names into 
the name tag. They've done that because "it is nicer if you see the name". We 
have to have as unique data as possible, not to adjust because of render. 
@Warin61, sounds familiar with landuse/landcover? Render needs to be changed, 
and that is the other story.

I'm at your disposal for any further questions.

Thanks,
Nemanja

-Originalna poruka-
Od: cleary  
Poslato: petak, 27. mart 2020. 10:06
Za: OpenStreetMap 
Tema: [EXTERNAL] Re: [talk-au] Sydney City Tunnels name= vs tunnel:name=


Unless the road has a different name (and I think that would be rare) I agree 
that the road name is the tunnel name. 

In my experience, signs show the tunnel name without any other road name.  
Where there are differences of opinion, I think local knowledge is always to be 
preferred.





On Fri, 27 Mar 2020, at 1:03 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> There were changes done recently by MS Open Maps team which moved
> name=* to tunnel:name=*.
> 
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fosmc
> ha.org%2Fchangesets%2F82675900data=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft
> .com%7Ca3066fb7cc0c4084c67e08d7d22e69d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011
> db47%7C1%7C0%7C637208969101872477sdata=loYkgMthjo%2B6RaBDB5AUptpN
> %2FMFIWEMegl6TpfEPgaY%3Dreserved=0
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fosmc
> ha.org%2Fchangesets%2F82676173data=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft
> .com%7Ca3066fb7cc0c4084c67e08d7d22e69d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011
> db47%7C1%7C0%7C637208969101872477sdata=dRa2uAyAnyQNddGJEKspeJOfob
> NiLH60V1UO9sQpx%2F4%3Dreserved=0
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fosmc
> ha.org%2Fchangesets%2F82676226data=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft
> .com%7Ca3066fb7cc0c4084c67e08d7d22e69d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011
> db47%7C1%7C0%7C637208969101872477sdata=wbVQe2kajNtwnYhOY%2BrXLELB
> iEtE5A7ARH1MoV37CCs%3Dreserved=0
> 
> I don't think these have seperate tunnel vs road names unlike some 
> bridges which do, and in many cases the road name is considered to be 
> the tunnel name.
> 
> Does anyone have thoughts on if we should tag name=* and tunnel:name=* 
> as the same, omit name= and just add tunnel:name=*?
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist
> s.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk-audata=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%4
> 0microsoft.com%7Ca3066fb7cc0c4084c67e08d7d22e69d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91
> ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637208969101872477sdata=pNLPXOYI%2B6NphF
> MWRtaoDOz10nXKacfqNSixhgJNZgc%3Dreserved=0
>

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk-audata=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7Ca3066fb7cc0c4084c67e08d7d22e69d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637208969101872477sdata=pNLPXOYI%2B6NphFMWRtaoDOz10nXKacfqNSixhgJNZgc%3Dreserved=0
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Duplicate of the same airport

[Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au]

Ok, thank you all for the clarification once again.

I will leave then as is.

Thanks,
Nemanja

Od: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Poslato: sreda, 25. mart 2020. 22:56
Za: Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) 
Cc: Michael James ; OpenStreetMap 

Tema: [EXTERNAL] Re: [talk-au] Duplicate of the same airport

No, I would leave it as 2 separate airfields, with the same info against both.

If that causes a problem, then take the codes off the airbase, as strictly 
speaking, that side of the airfield isn't an air transport destination.

Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 22:10, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
Thank you all for clarification.

Thank you James for more local details.

So by your opinion is it better to have 2 separate airports with duplicated 
data (such as IATA, ICAO, etc.), or to combine into one polygon.
Taking into consideration Cleary's and Andrew's answer I would leave as is, but 
since this is isolated case in AU, and some data will be duplicated, I would 
join two polygons. Don't know what to do. 

Thank you in advance for the response.

Nemanja

-Originalna poruka-
Od: Michael James mailto:mich...@techdrive.com.au>>
Poslato: sreda, 25. mart 2020. 12:21
Za: OpenStreetMap mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>>
Tema: [EXTERNAL] Re: [talk-au] Duplicate of the same airport

It is a military base that allows civilian air traffic to use its runway.

As far as air traffic goes it's called Williamtown, only the civilian terminal 
area is called Newcastle airport. (28 hectares of land)

https://www.newcastleairport.com.au/corporate/about/board-governance<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newcastleairport.com.au%2Fcorporate%2Fabout%2Fboard-governance=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C15c4ae38b7c74ed3bc8608d7d107663f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637207702025849697=W5erkIhOTLoORjk8aILFjO69mjMqib6p1S2FkrKy7C4%3D=0>

Hope that helps, though no map of that land parcel that they lease for the 
civilian side.

> -Original Message-
> From: cleary mailto:o...@97k.com>>
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 March 2020 6:29 PM
> To: OpenStreetMap 
> mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Duplicate of the same airport
>
>
>
> I think the air force base and civilian airport share the same runway
> but they are two distinct entities with separate buildings etc. Same
> applies in some other cities including Canberra. I would defer to
> someone more knowledgeable but I think it remains appropriate to have two 
> separate entities mapped in OSM.
>
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2020, at 7:06 PM, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > There are two relations in OSM that are referring to the same airport:
> >
> >  * 
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6263052<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2Frelation%2F6263052=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C15c4ae38b7c74ed3bc8608d7d107663f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637207702025849697=3mc2D3APB2oxY1iah%2BWiDMZqgj2DxBZhqckvabE989c%3D=0>
> >  * 
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4145466<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2Frelation%2F4145466=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C15c4ae38b7c74ed3bc8608d7d107663f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637207702025859694=yb7iHhzizZrsloMTgdj%2B4BSg47nWHjV%2FwZePSBNj3cw%3D=0>
> >
> >
> >
> > The first one has a *aeroway:aerodrome* tag, the second one has a
> > *military:airfield* tag.
> >
> >
> > I’m not sure should I merge these two relations since there are some
> > sporadic differences for the same tag in both relations. Please, I
> > need an extra hand on this.
> >
> >
> > This is an isolated case in whole Australia.
> >
> >
> > Thank you in advance,
> >
> > Nemanja
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk-au=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C15c4ae38b7c74ed3bc8608d7d107663f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637207702025869690=EmQk8Nw56GmgdF3AEV3X80ckcdzTWBkREr8vRKSxSTs%3D=0>
> >
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetm

Re: [talk-au] Duplicate of the same airport

[Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au]

Thank you all for clarification.

Thank you James for more local details. 

So by your opinion is it better to have 2 separate airports with duplicated 
data (such as IATA, ICAO, etc.), or to combine into one polygon.
Taking into consideration Cleary's and Andrew's answer I would leave as is, but 
since this is isolated case in AU, and some data will be duplicated, I would 
join two polygons. Don't know what to do. 

Thank you in advance for the response.

Nemanja

-Originalna poruka-
Od: Michael James  
Poslato: sreda, 25. mart 2020. 12:21
Za: OpenStreetMap 
Tema: [EXTERNAL] Re: [talk-au] Duplicate of the same airport

It is a military base that allows civilian air traffic to use its runway.

As far as air traffic goes it's called Williamtown, only the civilian terminal 
area is called Newcastle airport. (28 hectares of land)

https://www.newcastleairport.com.au/corporate/about/board-governance

Hope that helps, though no map of that land parcel that they lease for the 
civilian side.

> -Original Message-
> From: cleary 
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 March 2020 6:29 PM
> To: OpenStreetMap 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Duplicate of the same airport
> 
> 
> 
> I think the air force base and civilian airport share the same runway 
> but they are two distinct entities with separate buildings etc. Same 
> applies in some other cities including Canberra. I would defer to 
> someone more knowledgeable but I think it remains appropriate to have two 
> separate entities mapped in OSM.
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2020, at 7:06 PM, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > There are two relations in OSM that are referring to the same airport:
> >
> >  * https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6263052
> >  * https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4145466
> > 
> >
> >
> > The first one has a *aeroway:aerodrome* tag, the second one has a
> > *military:airfield* tag.
> >
> >
> > I’m not sure should I merge these two relations since there are some 
> > sporadic differences for the same tag in both relations. Please, I 
> > need an extra hand on this.
> >
> >
> > This is an isolated case in whole Australia.
> >
> >
> > Thank you in advance,
> >
> > Nemanja
> >
> > ___
> > 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
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Duplicate of the same airport

[Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au]

Hi,

There are two relations in OSM that are referring to the same airport:

  *   
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6263052
  *   
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4145466

The first one has a aeroway:aerodrome tag, the second one has a 
military:airfield tag.

I'm not sure should I merge these two relations since there are some sporadic 
differences for the same tag in both relations. Please, I need an extra hand on 
this.

This is an isolated case in whole Australia.

Thank you in advance,
Nemanja
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] "Missing" Roads in Queensland

[Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au]

Hi!

As it has been a month since we got this report at talk-au, we wanted to make a 
follow up to inform the community what were the results of our internal check.

We had revised our edits and changesets regarding added fences as roads, in the 
area of QLD. We’ve noticed that three (3) of our editors made total of 17 
misleading edits in period of October 14th – October 21st. They had marked 
fences as a road network. In just 4 of these 17 cases it was absolutely clear 
that was a fence. We checked 2,653 edits in total. Misleading edits were 
corrected.
It is 0.6% false ratio in this case. Rest of the edits were without any issues.

We have high standards when it comes to the quality of our edits, and we do not 
have any quantity quotas, so we are focused to the quality over quantity, but 
mistakes happens. We are constantly improving our processes and every area has 
its own specifics, so we are learning these specifics. In the future if you see 
any edit that is potentially misleading please let us know.

We just wanted to inform the community what were the results of our internal 
check.

Appreciate the support and looking forward to more collaboration.

Very best regards to you all,
Nemanja


Od: Nemanja Bracko (E-Search)
Poslato: četvrtak, 12. decembar 2019. 08:17
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Tema: Re: [talk-au] "Missing" Roads in Queensland

Thanks all for raising this issue! We are going to take a quick pause on our 
work in Queensland to take stock on this and make sure we’re going about this 
properly.


  *   Some concrete examples would be great, we’re currently reviewing our 
team’s work to identify reported issues. We’ve got 3 reports from Cleary @ 
10/25, 11/11 and 11/12. All these 3 issues have been fixed and we are paying 
more attention since then. We haven’t got any new reports, so we will re-check 
our edits. Once again, please send us more examples if you have.
  *   We’ve updated the wiki on organized editing projects – this is our bad, 
and we’ll do a better job keeping these up to date. We added this project and 
will make sure that this is kept up to date.

To address a few other topics brought up in the thread (and hopefully to 
assuage concerns about our team):


  *   We prioritize quality edits above all else and can guarantee we do not 
have edit quotas to fill.
  *   We actively QC our edits to OSM, but this is not to say this process is 
bulletproof. We are continually appreciative of keen eyes and local knowledge 
like yours to hold us accountable and push us to continue improving the way we 
do our work.

We’ll be following up, but don’t have all the answers at this moment. We want 
you all to know we take these criticisms seriously and will take steps to 
address any issues we can identify and avoid any potential future missteps.

Best Regards,
Nemanja Bračko
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Adding polygons of the aerodromes

[Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au]

Hi everyone,

We would like to manually add polygons around airports in whole Australia. We 
have added polygons for very few airports that were marked just with a single 
node.

By using THIS OverPass-Turbo link, you can see 
that there are nearly 1,200 airports that needs to be inspected.
We could recognize that other map competitors have properly marked most of 
these airports as polygons.

Anyway, we have doubt should we add polygons in the following situation(s):
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/73310214

There are no control tower nor any other buildings. It has a proper name Kulin 
Airport @-32.6721992, 118.1689987.
Should we add a polygon in such cases?

Please note that we won't add any polygons if the airport/airstrip/runway is on 
the water.

We believe that there is no need to preserve both way and a node of the same 
feature. Especially because that node is somewhere at the center of the airport 
and it doesn't represent entry of the airport area or entry of some building. 
Example should be Hamilton Airport @ 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/407705915. We would merge existing node of 
the airport in to polygon of the same polygon and we would remove tags from the 
merged node.

If we are adding new polygon, we would preserve existing airport node by 
keeping this node as a part of the new polygon.

Thanks in advance for the answers!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,
Nemanja

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

Re: [talk-au] "Missing" Roads in Queensland

[Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au]

Thanks all for raising this issue! We are going to take a quick pause on our 
work in Queensland to take stock on this and make sure we’re going about this 
properly.


  *   Some concrete examples would be great, we’re currently reviewing our 
team’s work to identify reported issues. We’ve got 3 reports from Cleary @ 
10/25, 11/11 and 11/12. All these 3 issues have been fixed and we are paying 
more attention since then. We haven’t got any new reports, so we will re-check 
our edits. Once again, please send us more examples if you have.
  *   We’ve updated the wiki on organized editing projects – this is our bad, 
and we’ll do a better job keeping these up to date. We added this project and 
will make sure that this is kept up to date.

To address a few other topics brought up in the thread (and hopefully to 
assuage concerns about our team):


  *   We prioritize quality edits above all else and can guarantee we do not 
have edit quotas to fill.
  *   We actively QC our edits to OSM, but this is not to say this process is 
bulletproof. We are continually appreciative of keen eyes and local knowledge 
like yours to hold us accountable and push us to continue improving the way we 
do our work.

We’ll be following up, but don’t have all the answers at this moment. We want 
you all to know we take these criticisms seriously and will take steps to 
address any issues we can identify and avoid any potential future missteps.

Best Regards,
Nemanja Bračko
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] New imageries in AU

[Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au]

Hi guys!

I’m in New Zealand, so I would be glad to meet you all and to chat regarding 
this (and other topics) if you have time.

The problem is that we are not aware and we are not informed once there is a 
new imagery for some particular area in AU.
What we are looking is to have some aggregated service/platform/mailing system 
where we can get information (or to be informed by email) once providers 
updates their imagery.
For example, we were informed about LPI update earlier this year (via talk-AU), 
but if there is just a small area, we are not being informed at all.

Side note: I have met Ewen in person yesterday, so we have agreed that he will 
publicly send bounding boxes of intermittent rivers/streams, so we will be able 
to respect these boundaries and we will be able to tag these missing water 
bodies properly.

Thanks,
Nemanja

Od: Ewen Hill 
Poslato: petak, 08. novembar 2019. 19:40
Za: Andrew Harvey 
Cc: Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) ; OSM Australian Talk 
List 
Tema: Re: [talk-au] New imageries in AU

Nemanja,
   Thank you for all the hard work. I am not a huge fan of using the Wiki as a 
basis as it will require a lot of work to keep it updated and if Alice Springs 
is updated, who will notice?

 Unless we could visualise the latest imagery by dates automatically, I would 
suggest that you just need to pop back and visit quarterly. Perhaps we could 
take a snapshot of tiles in specific 
place.to<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fplace.to=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C1c1a961ef01346928fcf08d764168cfd%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637087920348266027=72xAMLHKX2zLlQyAyfmq%2Br3mg4m6wbvOjX2uwpqdUqk%3D=0>
 check for variances?

  Also on another note, can you let your team know that most streams and rivers 
are intermittent outside the east coast Great Dividing Range and coastal areas 
and unless it declared a river, then it is probably a stream. A lot of 
Australia will appear to have stream lines but in reality will only be streams 
for exceedingly short periods after a thunderstorm.  There are a few rivers 
being added into OSM in the desert by the team that probably haven't seen water 
for 8 years as permanent and that you need to add fords or bridges to existing 
highways.

Have a great weekend

Ewen



On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 15:28, Andrew Harvey 
mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Active mappers who regularly check out the different imagery layers can usually 
tell when one gets refreshed with new imagery, but it does vary a lot based on 
location.

What if we had a wiki page, that tried to loosely track imagery freshness.

eg. just a list of cities Sydney with info like "currently freshest is Maxar". 
or "ESRI appeared to refresh within the last 6 months", etc. What do you think?

Keep in mind (this is even something I need to do better at), when armchair 
mapping from aerial imagery or street level imagery it's always a good idea to 
check the last edit date of the feature you're editing. If it's a few years old 
then it's usually safe to replace, but if it's within the last 6 months it 
could well be more current than the imagery.

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 01:58, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
Hi all,

Do we have any possibility to be informed once there is a new imagery published 
by other providers (Maxar, Esri, Mapbox, etc.)?
We are trying to develop the process which will involve constant update of AU 
map, but we are not sure how to focus to areas which might have most recent 
imagery?

Thank you in advance,
Nemanja
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk-au=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C1c1a961ef01346928fcf08d764168cfd%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637087920348275983=m04HfcOA6nCCOFPgCZNAQCzU0kwktc53r2N0EtZOTog%3D=0>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk-au=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C1c1a961ef01346928fcf08d764168cfd%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637087920348275983=m04HfcOA6nCCOFPgCZNAQCzU0kwktc53r2N0EtZOTog%3D=0>


--
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] New imageries in AU

[Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au]

Hi all,

Do we have any possibility to be informed once there is a new imagery published 
by other providers (Maxar, Esri, Mapbox, etc.)?
We are trying to develop the process which will involve constant update of AU 
map, but we are not sure how to focus to areas which might have most recent 
imagery?

Thank you in advance,
Nemanja
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Street names from gis.mn.gov?

[Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au]

Not sure that I have understood it correctly?

I’ve just confirmed what was Harvey’s assumption, because I know what could 
happen in our process. Nothing else.

Od: Mateusz Konieczny 
Poslato: utorak, 05. novembar 2019. 14:01
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Tema: Re: [talk-au] Street names from gis.mn.gov?

Is there anything wrong with that?

In this case it is also a weak confirmation that
"I'm their Lead." is true and not an impersonation.

5 Nov 2019, 11:51 by 
talk-au@openstreetmap.org:
… or if it is really necessary to reply from company mail address. 

Od: Nemanja Bračko mailto:brack...@gmail.com>>
Poslato: utorak, 05. novembar 2019. 11:45
Za: Sebastian Spiess mailto:mapp...@consebt.de>>
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>>
Tema: Re: [talk-au] Street names from gis.mn.gov?

Will do. I'm their Lead.

On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 11:44 AM Sebastian Spiess 
mailto:mapp...@consebt.de>> wrote:
I suggest to have the author add a changeset comment to clarify.


On 5/11/19 9:57 am, Nemanja Bračko wrote:
Yup, I can confirm that Harvey is right.
It is left from one of US editors which were moved from US edits to AU like 2 
months ago.

Thanks,
Nemanja

Sent from my phone

On Mon, Nov 4, 2019, 23:51 Andrew Harvey 
mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I'd recommend leaving a changeset comment to ask, it's likely they've used the 
wrong comment by mistake as that's a US data portal.

On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 at 09:45, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi

Sorry about the cryptic title :-)

Was looking at the map earlier & spotted a change made by one of the Microsoft 
mapping team that had the comment
"Adding missing roads from aerial imagery, and names from 
source=gisdata.mn.gov
 #maproulette"

What's 
gisdata.mn.gov?

This particular change was 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/74193595
  if you're interested, but this was only one of several dozen made by Melis on 
that day.

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



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

Re: [talk-au] Street names from gis.mn.gov?

[Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au]

… or if it is really necessary to reply from company mail address. 

Od: Nemanja Bračko 
Poslato: utorak, 05. novembar 2019. 11:45
Za: Sebastian Spiess 
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Tema: Re: [talk-au] Street names from gis.mn.gov?

Will do. I'm their Lead.

On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 11:44 AM Sebastian Spiess 
mailto:mapp...@consebt.de>> wrote:
I suggest to have the author add a changeset comment to clarify.


On 5/11/19 9:57 am, Nemanja Bračko wrote:
Yup, I can confirm that Harvey is right.
It is left from one of US editors which were moved from US edits to AU like 2 
months ago.

Thanks,
Nemanja

Sent from my phone

On Mon, Nov 4, 2019, 23:51 Andrew Harvey 
mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I'd recommend leaving a changeset comment to ask, it's likely they've used the 
wrong comment by mistake as that's a US data portal.

On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 at 09:45, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi

Sorry about the cryptic title :-)

Was looking at the map earlier & spotted a change made by one of the Microsoft 
mapping team that had the comment
"Adding missing roads from aerial imagery, and names from 
source=gisdata.mn.gov
 #maproulette"

What's 
gisdata.mn.gov?

This particular change was 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/74193595
  if you're interested, but this was only one of several dozen made by Melis on 
that day.

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


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