"TheSwavu has already said he deleted it because the validator told him to" - What's most likely is that the validator located a relation that was incorrect, and he determined that he should delete it. Alternatively, it could have been added back. Regardless, the relation was non-functional and that is obvious given the single member
"have you figured out how to route bus stops with out the platform tag yet" - Stops should have a platform tag, either on the node or the area that is the platform, but mass adding them still remains incorrect as has been discussed ad nauseam "a bunch of people who all have the same opinion and wont listen to a word im saying" - This is not always the case, however if everybody else has a contrary opinion that may be an indication that you don't understand what we are saying or why you are incorrect So if you want to add the no-u-turn relation on the freeway off-ramp, then go for it, but it was non-functional to begin with. And a side-note, I am yet to see a validator that says "delete it, it's wrong". It most likely would say that there is an incorrect number of members, which then provides a mapper with two options on how to proceed and fix it. Please provide an example of where the routing is still incorrect, in a way that TheSwavu has 'broken' by using a validator. It is possible that deleting the relation, rather than re-adding the two missing members, was the wrong decision. However, it is also the case that you yourself broke the relation (again, perhaps inadvertently), within 24 hours of first adding it. P.S., make sure to use 'reply all', so that the message gets cross-posted to talk-au. Cheers, Luke On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 21:03, Anthony Panozzo <pan...@outlook.com> wrote: > Luke, > > > > TheSwavu has already said he deleted it because the validator told him > to, it wasn’t based on local knowledge or intersection rules. And have you > figured out how to route bus stops with out the platform tag yet? Do you > now understand the whole bus stop thing was about routing in the first > place? OMG it’s like Im speaking to a bunch of people who all have the same > opinion and wont listen to a word im saying. > > > > > > > > *From: *Luke Stewart <suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com> > *Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 7:59 PM > *To: *Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefi...@gmail.com> > *Cc: *Anthony Panozzo <pan...@outlook.com>; talk-au@openstreetmap.org > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 > > > > This is taken directly from the OpenStreetMap website. If you can not see > the problem with it, and why TheSwavu deleted it, then I suggest you > familiarise yourself with the documentation: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction#Examples > > Version #2 > fixed intersection routing > > Edited about 2 months ago by slice0 · Changeset #118293106 > > Tags > restriction no_u_turn > type restriction > > > *Members 1 member Node 6357628400 as via* > > > > > > > > On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 20:25, Luke Stewart <suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I genuinely can't tell if you are being straightforward with the > community, or attempting to rouse trouble because it is amusing to you. I > guarantee I am not the only one who has this opinion. Several other > mappers, including TheSwavu himself, have already provided in-depth > explanations of their (correct) reasoning on this talking list. > > > > iD has a habit of breaking relations. One of the u-turn relations that you > commented on was broken *by you* within a day of you adding it (aka, it > lost two of its members), making it unusable for routing. Fundamentally the > validators are looking at the OSM data verbatim, without the lens of > presets or a GUI, and it is quite simple: if a turn restriction does not > have at least 3 members (from, via, to), then it is definitionally invalid, > unusable for routers, and requires correction as TheSwavu did in this case. > > > > OpenStreetMap, whilst it does favour local knowledge, also values remote > edits, particularly when it is (generally) simple to solve, like in the > case of these edits. > > > > There was a long, drawn out community discussion across multiple platforms > with the mass edit of Australian bus stops. To me, this feels like a very > similar situation. It seems like you don't quite understand the purpose of > OpenStreetMap, or how validators, tools, and other programs interact with > it. OpenStreetMap is designed to work across a myriad of platforms and > devices, not a single router or renderer. > > > > Whilst on this point, concerns have been raised about your mapping of > intersections, by adding diagonal ways (see this as an example, which > apparently has 69 turn restriction relations: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.77083/138.63419). Perhaps the > community can also agree that this is clearly incorrect > > I suggest that you attempt to interact with fellow mappers in an > appropriate and constructive manner, particularly given this is not the > first situation like this. We are all working on a community project with > good intentions, and this sort of interaction isn't helpful to anyone. > > > > Cheers, > Luke > > > > On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 16:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Anthony > > > > Could I suggest that you check keepright for your area: > https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?zoom=14&lat=-33.87613&lon=151.17154 > (Defaults to Sydney) & look at the "Restrictions" & "Geometry Glitches" > reports. > > > > These will show spots that the system considers are in error, & will also > allow you to advise that the error is a false positive, if you consider > that what is shown is OK. > > > > Thanks > > > > Graeme > > > > > > On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 15:42, Anthony Panozzo <pan...@outlook.com> wrote: > > Diaz, i’m sorry I can’t sympathise with these excuses “it’s not me it the > validator” the bottom line is that this user is breaking perfectly fine > routing all for the sake of some crappy validator gives him a pat on the > back because it says so, that is irresponsible and foolish editing and > deserves no credit for simply saying the validator told me so, it’s > basically bot editing using that excuse, I will be watching all edits this > guy makes from now on and will be reporting every single edit he makes that > breaks routing to the DWG and by the report button itself on the user page, > then he can explain himself there > > > > > > > > *From:* talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org < > talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> > *Sent:* Saturday, April 30, 2022 2:35:26 PM > *To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > *Subject:* Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 > > > > Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to > talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46 (Dian ?gesson) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 15:04:05 +1000 > From: Dian ?gesson <m...@diacritic.xyz> > To: OSM Australian Talk List <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46 > Message-ID: <06b0964db149a5343954af20fe2e3...@diacritic.xyz> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" > > > > Hi Anthony, > > I can sympathise with your sense of frustration. It does feel irritating > when you feel as though your work is being undermined or broken. I know > I've spent a lot of time making changes for better routing, only to find > the same errors get reintroduced. > > I think your frustration is misdirected at Andrew here, though. If > validation tools are detecting issues with some data, someone will > eventually notice and try to fix it; whether it be Andrew or some other > editor. In a collaborative, decentralised community it isn't possible to > stop other editors from making changes in an area. > > In this specific case, these errors are a result of problems using the > iD editor which create "orphaned" relations that would not be used in > routing anyway. Andrew has indicated that he isn't trying to undo the > changes that have been added, rather to resolve the validation errors. > > I've created a few of these errors myself inadvertently, and it wasn't > until I started to use JOSM that I realised how much easier and more > powerful that tool can be. If you are spending hours trying to get these > restrictions perfect, I'd strongly recommend giving that a try. > > Both Andrew and yourself are trying to improve the quality of the map, > and no one benefits when frustrations boil over in this way. It's better > to try and work together constructively so we can all spend more time > doing the fun stuff. :) > > Dian > > On 2022-04-30 14:20, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > > Let me put it this way, it very easy for you to come along with your > validator toll and get on your high horse and point out how trash some > routing edits are... but you have no clue at all how much effort it take > to get some intersections functioning as intended as per the rule of the > intersection, the one you pointed out was pretty simple and was > functioning 100% correctly before you touched it now it allows u-turns, > you're pointing out the tiny issue that your validator points out but > what you don't realize is that the validator doe not see the big picture > either, its pretty much just pointing out conflicting restrictions which > are even sometimes left in intentionally, this is not the first time ive > ran into your edits but I have had enough of it, it takes a lot more > knowledge and effort to get them working as intended per the rules than > for you to come along with your little tool, if you personally don't > know the intended routing and can't see any errors using the routing > engine itself LEAVE IT ALONE, OSM is only meant to be edited by people > with local knowledge of the areas, I put a lot of time into what I do > including random routing on my gps to see what it will throw at me, I do > not need to be worry about you and your tool coming along to destroy it. > I am not proff reading this so sorry if there are spelling errors! > > From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 1:33 PM > To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46 > > Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to > talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, > Issue 44) (Andrew Davidson) > 2. Re: iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol > 178, Issue 44) (Andrew Davidson) > 3. Re: iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol > 178, Issue 44) (Phil Wyatt) > 4. FW: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44 (Phil Wyatt) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 11:53:53 +1000 > From: Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com> > To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, > Vol 178, Issue 44) > Message-ID: <9d7c85e4-257e-f7b0-bd48-bf425c9c3...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > On 30/4/22 00:45, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > > > This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know > > more than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing > > correction this account comes along and ?fixes? it based on ?knowledge? > > Some terminology before we start. To be valid a turn restriction > relation needs to have: > > 1. A way with the role "from" > 2. A way with the role "to" > 3. One or more "via" s that can be either a node or one or more ways > 4. The members must connect in a way that you can travel > > When I say "broken" I mean that one of the rules is broken and when I > say "knowledge" I mean I know what a valid turn restriction should be. > > > from the notes, let me just say I looked over some of the edit this > > account does and it breaks the routing for the most part, Changeset: > > 120344373 | OpenStreetMap > > This changeset deleted this turn restriction: > > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13905961 > > which you added in changeset 118257827 and then broke in 118293106 (it > only had a node via member). When I reviewed this one I decided to > delete it because it would only duplicate this turn restriction: > > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/14044389 > > which you added in changeset 119769921, if I fixed it. > > > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373> and Changeset: > > 120198383 | OpenStreetMap > > This intersection had 15 broken turn restriction relation in it: > > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477255 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477256 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477257 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477258 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477260 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477261 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477263 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477268 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477269 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13557714 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761157 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761161 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761169 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761170 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13991446 > > You broke 14 and added one new broken relation (13991446). While I was > deleting these I noticed that the intersection had some sort of > cross-your-heart thing going on with added ways for turn lanes, so I > simplified it to a standard traffic light box intersection: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.76387/138.59277 > > You can turn right from each arm which means we don't have to have any > no-right turns. There are 4 no-left turns because each approach has a > slip lane. Since it's SA and at traffic lights then there are four no > u-turns to cover that. This is exactly the same routing information that > was there before, but now in a simpler easier to maintain format. > > > < > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120198383#map=17/-34.76452/138.59301 > > > > are two examples of this account breaking routing, ive been wasting my > > time spending hours and hours fixing routing just for this shitty bot > > to > > come along and fuck it all up over and over again, I would like to ask > > DWG to take a real close look at this account and see if it can be > > banned from any further edits under the bot edit policy or straight out > > vandalism! > > I am not a bot. Just a mapper with overpass, the JOSM validator, the > to-do plugin, and many hours of puzzling over the question of what a > broken turn restriction relation was supposed to be doing. > > A couple of years ago I spent quite a bit of time fixing all the turn > restrictions around AU, but I have to keep coming back every couple of > months, as 100-200 newly broken ones get created every month. Mostly > because iD will quietly break existing turn restrictions or let you > create invalid ones and then upload them to OSM. I used to put changeset > comments on the ones that had broken them until a user asked me how they > could stop doing it and I discovered that there isn't a way to do that > in iD. > > My fixes should not be changing any routing outcomes as they are almost > all deleting turn restrictions that iD didn't clean up after a mapper > reconfigured an intersection. None of the examples you have pointed to > have changed the routing outcomes as I check to make sure I understand > what someone was trying to map before I fix it. > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 12:25:31 +1000 > From: Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com> > To: OpenStreetMap <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au > Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44) > Message-ID: > > <cacxr7k1ujx2wqzf5nsgxrd+6crp-upx7mpasjsvlogg5de9...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, 11:53 Andrew Davidson, <thesw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/14044389 > > > > > > Cut and paste error there. The existing no u-turn restriction is: > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13909088 > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > < > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220430/418ba850/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 13:53:14 +1000 > From: "Phil Wyatt" <p...@wyatt-family.com> > To: "'Andrew Davidson'" <thesw...@gmail.com>, > <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au > Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44) > Message-ID: <000d01d85c45$d472c5e0$7d5851a0$@wyatt-family.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Many thanks for the detailed explanation > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com> > Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 11:54 AM > To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol > 178, Issue 44) > > On 30/4/22 00:45, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > > > This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know > > more than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing > > correction this account comes along and ?fixes? it based on ?knowledge? > > Some terminology before we start. To be valid a turn restriction > relation needs to have: > > 1. A way with the role "from" > 2. A way with the role "to" > 3. One or more "via" s that can be either a node or one or more ways 4. > The members must connect in a way that you can travel > > When I say "broken" I mean that one of the rules is broken and when I > say "knowledge" I mean I know what a valid turn restriction should be. > > > from the notes, let me just say I looked over some of the edit this > > account does and it breaks the routing for the most part, Changeset: > > 120344373 | OpenStreetMap > > This changeset deleted this turn restriction: > > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13905961 > > which you added in changeset 118257827 and then broke in 118293106 (it > only had a node via member). When I reviewed this one I decided to > delete it because it would only duplicate this turn restriction: > > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/14044389 > > which you added in changeset 119769921, if I fixed it. > > > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373> and Changeset: > > 120198383 | OpenStreetMap > > This intersection had 15 broken turn restriction relation in it: > > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477255 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477256 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477257 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477258 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477260 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477261 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477263 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477268 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477269 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13557714 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761157 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761161 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761169 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761170 > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13991446 > > You broke 14 and added one new broken relation (13991446). While I was > deleting these I noticed that the intersection had some sort of > cross-your-heart thing going on with added ways for turn lanes, so I > simplified it to a standard traffic light box intersection: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.76387/138.59277 > > You can turn right from each arm which means we don't have to have any > no-right turns. There are 4 no-left turns because each approach has a > slip lane. Since it's SA and at traffic lights then there are four no > u-turns to cover that. This is exactly the same routing information that > was there before, but now in a simpler easier to maintain format. > > > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120198383#map=17/-34.76452/13 > > 8.59301> are two examples of this account breaking routing, ive been > > wasting my time spending hours and hours fixing routing just for this > > shitty bot to come along and fuck it all up over and over again, I > > would like to ask DWG to take a real close look at this account and > > see if it can be banned from any further edits under the bot edit > > policy or straight out vandalism! > > I am not a bot. Just a mapper with overpass, the JOSM validator, the > to-do plugin, and many hours of puzzling over the question of what a > broken turn restriction relation was supposed to be doing. > > A couple of years ago I spent quite a bit of time fixing all the turn > restrictions around AU, but I have to keep coming back every couple of > months, as 100-200 newly broken ones get created every month. Mostly > because iD will quietly break existing turn restrictions or let you > create invalid ones and then upload them to OSM. I used to put changeset > comments on the ones that had broken them until a user asked me how they > could stop doing it and I discovered that there isn't a way to do that > in iD. > > My fixes should not be changing any routing outcomes as they are almost > all deleting turn restrictions that iD didn't clean up after a mapper > reconfigured an intersection. None of the examples you have pointed to > have changed the routing outcomes as I check to make sure I understand > what someone was trying to map before I fix it. > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 14:00:38 +1000 > From: "Phil Wyatt" <p...@wyatt-family.com> > To: "OSM-Au" <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: [talk-au] FW: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44 > Message-ID: <001301d85c46$dc381a40$94a84ec0$@wyatt-family.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > From: Phil Wyatt <p...@wyatt-family.com> > Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 2:00 PM > To: 'Anthony Panozzo' <pan...@outlook.com> > Subject: RE: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44 > > Hi Anthony, > > There are multiple tools out there for finding 'errors' in OSM data and > many > people use them to keep the OSM data up to date. You might also like to > share the OSM software that you are using on your vehicle GPS as it may > turn > out that it doesn't handle relations or routing of some situations. > > Cheers - Phil > > From: Anthony Panozzo <pan...@outlook.com <mailto:pan...@outlook.com > <pan...@outlook.com>> > > Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 10:35 AM > To: Phil Wyatt <p...@wyatt-family.com <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com > <p...@wyatt-family.com>> > > Subject: RE: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44 > > The biggest issue I have with this account is that they don't find > routing > errors on their own, this person stalks other peoples edits and > "correcs" > them using knowledge as their source, I find these routing errors 100% > myself in real world situations, I have been editing and using OSM on my > car > gps for many years, this user edits other users edits based on no > knowledge > of the intersection at all, having a user like this should put anyone > off > making any routing edits when this person randomly edits 10 different > intersections in 10 minutes and says they have knowledge. > > From: Phil Wyatt <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com <p...@wyatt-family.com>> > Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:44 AM > To: 'Anthony Panozzo' <mailto:pan...@outlook.com <pan...@outlook.com>> ; > talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org > <talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> > Subject: RE: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44 > > Hi Anthony (slice0), > > Can I suggest the best way to get some resolution is to actually spell > out > in a changeset comment why you think the change made by Swavu is > incorrect. > That way everyone gets to learn from 'conflicts'. I also suggest you > restrain your language or you may also face the wrath of the DWG. > > PS Swavu is not a bot. > > Cheers - Phil (tastrax) > > From: Anthony Panozzo <pan...@outlook.com <mailto:pan...@outlook.com > <pan...@outlook.com>> > > Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 12:46 AM > To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org > <talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44 > > User TheSwavu > > This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know > more > than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing > correction > this account comes along and "fixes" it based on "knowledge" from the > notes, > let me just say I looked over some of the edit this account does and it > breaks the routing for the most part, Changeset: 120344373 | > OpenStreetMap > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373> and Changeset: > 120198383 | OpenStreetMap > < > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120198383#map=17/-34.76452/138.5930 > 1> are two examples of this account breaking routing, ive been wasting > my > time spending hours and hours fixing routing just for this shitty bot to > come along and fuck it all up over and over again, I would like to ask > DWG > to take a real close look at this account and see if it can be banned > from > any further edits under the bot edit policy or straight out vandalism! > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > < > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220430/d0f732e2/attachment.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > ------------------------------ > > End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46 > **************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220430/fa430fd0/attachment.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 > **************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > 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
