Re: [talk-au] Bus stop info

[Andrew Harvey]

Looks perfect to me.

On Wed., 13 Feb. 2019, 3:48 pm Graeme Fitzpatrick  Have recently been tagging a number of bus stops, & suddenly had a thought
> of Am I doing it right?
>
> Here's one of them https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6273637341
>
> Is that all OK, or should it be done differently in some way?
>
> 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] Bus stop info

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Have recently been tagging a number of bus stops, & suddenly had a thought
of Am I doing it right?

Here's one of them https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6273637341

Is that all OK, or should it be done differently in some way?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Links with name

[Alex Sims]

Hi Petra,
I delete names like on example (2) on sight, it is confusing to give something 
a name that doesn’t actually have one, or it may be contested and also confuses 
most routing systems trying to produce meaningful directions and displays on 
GPS.
I’ve never seen case (1) and it looks pretty, ..meh.., and should be deleted in 
the same way as type (1) unless you can actually find a street-sign bearing the 
name, which I doubt exists. Looks like mapping for the renderer.
For example (3) there is a choice, remove the name and leave as a link (of the 
higher class road) or alternatively change the road type to that of the minor 
road. So either  “highway=residential”,”name=Jennings Street” or 
“highway=tertiary_link” will do. I would look at imagery to decide between the 
two as to which better resembles what is on the ground. There seems to be a 
slip lane on the street turning into Jennings Street, so I would go with 
“highway=tertiary_link”.
Alex
From: "Petra Rajka - (p)" https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4972970

 *   links take name from the upcoming road exactly as it is

ex. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/15958927

 *   links (or other way categories) between dual carriageways take the 
name from one of the adjacent roads

ex. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/172829556



In our mapping process we use this wiki page: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link where it’s specified that 
links shouldn’t have name, so we are wondering if there are any local 
rules/conventions regarding this in Australia? Should the links have name? It’s 
a particularity we didn’t found until now.



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

Re: [talk-au] Links with name

[Mark Pulley]

That third example is part of the residential street 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/172830002 so that name should be kept. 
(Should it be reclassified as residential?)

Mark P.

> On 12 Feb 2019, at 6:22 pm, Petra Rajka - (p)  wrote:
> links (or other way categories) between dual carriageways take the name from 
> one of the adjacent roads
> ex. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/172829556 
> 
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au