Greetings all. I usually confine my mapping to bush tracks and cycle paths as this is what I am most interested in and is often not available from other sources. With the recent devastation of the base map I am remapping some of my local area, and rapidly realising how little I really understand, so forgive this basic question. I also find the wiki very hard to practically understand as it assumes a level of knowledge that is beyond me.
I am interested in mapping/remapping the walking route the great north walk, which is an established relation. My specific question is, when the route passes down only part of a way, say just a few blocks of a longer street, how do you assign the relation to just a few internodes. Is it necessary to split the ways at the nodes and then just assign the relation to the segments between, or is it necessary to create a new way over the top which is just the walking route, or is there some method that is simpler that I have failed to appreciate. I am only able to use the potlach editor. Thanks, and regards, adrian. > From: [email protected] > Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 61, Issue 32 > To: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 06:05:00 +0100 > > Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: LTUAE (Ian Sergeant) > 2. Re: LTUAE (Michael Hampson) > 3. Re: Establishing Priorities on the Central Coast (Michael Hampson) > 4. Re: LTUAE (Ian Sergeant) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:18:12 +1000 > From: Ian Sergeant <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: talk-au <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] LTUAE > Message-ID: > <calda4ykrysq4m3uewjmty6p8wlqznbvkjsunttmvea-ddfp...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > But for metroad 10 for > > example, there were 2 x relations for metroad ten. I expected they were > for > > north and south bound routes as that is the way they appeared to be listed > > in some other areas I checked so that is what I have done. Put one > relation > > for north and the other for south. If that's not right let me know and I > > will fix. Not sure how a routing relation works anyway. > > For the Sydney metroads I have added directional route relations, that use > two directional relations for each metroad. This allows the connectivity > of the route to be checked quickly during the reconstruction phase, and > otherwise does no harm. When we have reached the next stage of maturity we > can decide if we want to merge them back into a single route relation with > directional elements. So, yes, what you have done is correct. > > > 2. for the road naming where the ref tag for metroad 10 was MR10 I have > > changed those to network=MR and ref=10. Same for the other roads I have > > worked on. Not *certain* that is correct though either so if someone > could > > enlighten me would be good thanks > > > > That is correct. See the Australian tagging guidelines in the wiki. > > > 3. state highway 29 continues from boundary street along pacific highway > and > > then along delhi road, which makes that small section of the pacific > highway > > sh29 *and* mr1. what should I use to reflect that? > > It can be part of both route relations. > > > Just my own view on the redaction process. No issue with people who > > declined the licence agreement. However it was annoying for me to see one > > of the very first things I used for practice vanish in a puff of smoke. It > > was just a building outline, a coles supermarket. I named it, put in the > > opening hours, telephone number, full address details eg addr: city: etc > > etc. I turned it into a thing of beauty by entering approx 10 odd pieces > of > > information, just for practice and learning. I thought it a bit harsh > just > > because someone traced a building roof everything I added went as well. > > Tracing the building would have taken less than a minute. I spent 40 > > minutes researching and entering that extra detail on that single item. > > Your change sets are still available. You should be able to at least refer > to the info you have added. And yes, the loss of data in this way is the > hardest. One person just traces from an aerial and then does not agree. > Others survey, add cycle facilities, names etc that are lost to OSM. I > don't know if it still possible to better use some of this "unattached" > data in the database down the track. > > Ian > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20120725/4a4432d9/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:55:24 +1000 > From: Michael Hampson <[email protected]> > To: Ian Sergeant <[email protected]> > Cc: talk-au <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] LTUAE > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" > > Ian, > > I did see some relations on the M4 that were broken, I'll go back and > check them. Must learn more about relations too. > > Glad to hear you a sticking around John. :) > > Regards, > > Michael > On 25/07/2012 8:18 AM, Ian Sergeant wrote: > > > > > But for metroad 10 for > > > example, there were 2 x relations for metroad ten. I expected they > > were for > > > north and south bound routes as that is the way they appeared to be > > listed > > > in some other areas I checked so that is what I have done. Put one > > relation > > > for north and the other for south. If that's not right let me know > > and I > > > will fix. Not sure how a routing relation works anyway. > > > > For the Sydney metroads I have added directional route relations, that > > use two directional relations for each metroad. This allows the > > connectivity of the route to be checked quickly during the > > reconstruction phase, and otherwise does no harm. When we have reached > > the next stage of maturity we can decide if we want to merge them back > > into a single route relation with directional elements. So, yes, what > > you have done is correct. > > > > > 2. for the road naming where the ref tag for metroad 10 was MR10 I have > > > changed those to network=MR and ref=10. Same for the other roads I have > > > worked on. Not *certain* that is correct though either so if > > someone could > > > enlighten me would be good thanks > > > > > > > That is correct. See the Australian tagging guidelines in the wiki. > > > > > 3. state highway 29 continues from boundary street along pacific > > highway and > > > then along delhi road, which makes that small section of the pacific > > highway > > > sh29 *and* mr1. what should I use to reflect that? > > > > It can be part of both route relations. > > > > > Just my own view on the redaction process. No issue with people who > > > declined the licence agreement. However it was annoying for me to > > see one > > > of the very first things I used for practice vanish in a puff of > > smoke. It > > > was just a building outline, a coles supermarket. I named it, put > > in the > > > opening hours, telephone number, full address details eg addr: city: etc > > > etc. I turned it into a thing of beauty by entering approx 10 odd > > pieces of > > > information, just for practice and learning. I thought it a bit > > harsh just > > > because someone traced a building roof everything I added went as well. > > > Tracing the building would have taken less than a minute. I spent 40 > > > minutes researching and entering that extra detail on that single item. > > > > Your change sets are still available. You should be able to at least > > refer to the info you have added. And yes, the loss of data in this > > way is the hardest. One person just traces from an aerial and then > > does not agree. Others survey, add cycle facilities, names etc that > > are lost to OSM. I don't know if it still possible to better use some > > of this "unattached" data in the database down the track. > > > > Ian > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-au mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20120725/5d8e2198/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:58:42 +1000 > From: Michael Hampson <[email protected]> > To: Paul HAYDON <[email protected]> > Cc: Talk-AU OSM <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Establishing Priorities on the Central Coast > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" > > Paul, > > I'll do a little bit around Woy Woy when I visit in a few weeks. Let me > know if there is anything specific you need looked at. > > Regards, > > Michael > On 25/07/2012 3:49 AM, Paul HAYDON wrote: > > SO, any takers interested in getting organised on the N.S.W. Central Coast? > > (For arguement's sake, let's call it Woy Woy to Swansea - unless someone > > has a preferred recommendation). > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20120725/ff00d903/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:04:31 +1000 > From: Ian Sergeant <[email protected]> > To: Michael Hampson <[email protected]> > Cc: talk-au <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] LTUAE > Message-ID: > <calda4y+su6j97xwbeynvtr0uq1ftnyxrn6mgiqt7pb-naq3...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Hi, > > If someone is going through the Lane Cove tunnel / Gore Hill junctions, or > the Eastern Distributor / Harbour Tunnel junctions. There is a bit of > complex topology here that is pretty essentially for getting our through > routing right again. > > Ian. > > On 25 July 2012 08:55, Michael Hampson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ian, > > > > I did see some relations on the M4 that were broken, I'll go back and > > check them. Must learn more about relations too. > > > > Glad to hear you a sticking around John. :) > > > > Regards, > > > > Michael > > On 25/07/2012 8:18 AM, Ian Sergeant wrote: > > > > > But for metroad 10 for > > > example, there were 2 x relations for metroad ten. I expected they were > > for > > > north and south bound routes as that is the way they appeared to be > > listed > > > in some other areas I checked so that is what I have done. Put one > > relation > > > for north and the other for south. If that's not right let me know and I > > > will fix. Not sure how a routing relation works anyway. > > > > For the Sydney metroads I have added directional route relations, that use > > two directional relations for each metroad. This allows the connectivity > > of the route to be checked quickly during the reconstruction phase, and > > otherwise does no harm. When we have reached the next stage of maturity we > > can decide if we want to merge them back into a single route relation with > > directional elements. So, yes, what you have done is correct. > > > > > 2. for the road naming where the ref tag for metroad 10 was MR10 I have > > > changed those to network=MR and ref=10. Same for the other roads I have > > > worked on. Not *certain* that is correct though either so if someone > > could > > > enlighten me would be good thanks > > > > > > > That is correct. See the Australian tagging guidelines in the wiki. > > > > > 3. state highway 29 continues from boundary street along pacific highway > > and > > > then along delhi road, which makes that small section of the pacific > > highway > > > sh29 *and* mr1. what should I use to reflect that? > > > > It can be part of both route relations. > > > > > Just my own view on the redaction process. No issue with people who > > > declined the licence agreement. However it was annoying for me to see > > one > > > of the very first things I used for practice vanish in a puff of smoke. > > It > > > was just a building outline, a coles supermarket. I named it, put in the > > > opening hours, telephone number, full address details eg addr: city: etc > > > etc. I turned it into a thing of beauty by entering approx 10 odd > > pieces of > > > information, just for practice and learning. I thought it a bit harsh > > just > > > because someone traced a building roof everything I added went as well. > > > Tracing the building would have taken less than a minute. I spent 40 > > > minutes researching and entering that extra detail on that single item. > > > > Your change sets are still available. You should be able to at least refer > > to the info you have added. And yes, the loss of data in this way is the > > hardest. One person just traces from an aerial and then does not agree. > > Others survey, add cycle facilities, names etc that are lost to OSM. I > > don't know if it still possible to better use some of this "unattached" > > data in the database down the track. > > > > Ian > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-au mailing > > [email protected]http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20120725/fd3d3ea8/attachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 61, Issue 32 > ***************************************
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
