Re: [talk-au] Intersections
Gday Ross - Good news is there are mappers out there who'd love the challenge of fixing this intersection up, so instead of letting this bring you down, I think a better idea is to report this on openstreetbugs. The Melbourne region is 'clean' of bugs which to me indicates either nobody reports them, or somebody does a great job at fixing them. Also I read somewhere that OSM encourages contributors to be bold when it comes to fixing others mistakes, so I wouldn't hesitate to dive in and get your hands dirty if you're keen. Well aware of this, but there's only so much time. Currently I'm eradicating all oneway=-1 within Australia. Reversing the way and changing it to oneway=yes. Came across these intersections while doing this. Cheers, Ben PS - my first post to the list. Please forgive me if I've not followed some special protocol. Well done and welcome. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] [Fwd: [OpenStreetMap] Re: Roundabouts]
Interesting attitude by some people when your just trying to help. Cheers Ross Original Message Subject: [OpenStreetMap] Re: Roundabouts From:** m-154722-c98...@messages.openstreetmap.org Date:Fri, December 31, 2010 4:42 pm To: i...@4x4falcon.com -- Hi Rosscoe, ** has sent you a message through OpenStreetMap with the subject Re: Roundabouts: == Yes I did it, I thought it would render it differently in mapink. I was not sure what the proper way was. Thanks for that link. I also did it in Grange too, I had not changed them back yet. Go f*** yourself. Cheers Up Yours On 2010-12-31 04:18:58 UTC Rosscoe wrote: Hi, I noticed you changed lots of drawn roundabouts in Henley to single nodes. This is incorrect. Please see here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Roundabouts They should be drawn out in full. Don't change them back. Cheers Ross == You can also read the message at http://www.openstreetmap.org/message/read/154722 and you can reply at http://www.openstreetmap.org/message/reply/154722 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] airports import
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:11 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: I can't remember which side you fell on, but wouldn't this fall into the same category as private pools? or private tennis courts... etc? Yeah, though I think the case might be stronger for airstrips. One reason that occurs to me is that a private airstrip, if used to receive mail or visitors, is something like an address, which we store. Actually not. Private means exactly that, it's private and you generally need permission to operate to them. Some of them are marginally operational and can only accommodate certain aircraft. As Liz pointed out the imported ones are generally not in the correct location and are therefore of little use. So we either delete them or move them to the correct place if you know where they should be. As for the RFDS using them that's marginal as it really depends on the nature of the emergency and what other facilities are available. It's not a case of you going to the closest airstrip they will advise where to go. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] mapping marsh at the edge of a bay
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-34.03275lon=151.13694zoom=17layers=M Along the edge of the bay/water there is land-- | --trees in water-- | -- water A B C In the changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6723657 I moved the edge of the water (which did cover both B and C) in towards the center of the bay, and made section B marsh. But I'm not sure if that was the right thing to do. Maybe it would be better if the natural=bay/water area included both B and C, and the boundary for B just laid on top of the B/C area. But since we use a proper mulitpolygon for doughnut geometries, just dumping B on top wouldn't look so nice What if B was tagged as marsh, C as water, and then add B and C to a multipolygon tagged as the bay? Or is how its mapped currently how it should be? Any thoughts? Interesting question - to be honest I'm finding it a bit hard to understand your exact situation (moved the edge of the water...in towards the centre of the bay?) But I don't know for sure what the coastline should represent, so I'd be interested to hear opinions on this too. I think a similar example is here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch2lat=-38.298693lon=145.199326zoom=18 Steve I usually map these as in the second example, ie coastline along the water to marsh/mangrove boundary then separate area for the marsh/mangroves. I'd also suggest that the treed area should be natural=wetland wetland=mangrove rather than natural=marsh. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] a mapping conflict in Sydney, help appreciated
Are you sure this is the right changeset. It only shows one deleted node and one new node. Cheer Ross On 5 December 2010 17:43, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: I think that this http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6545161 should be reverted on the grounds that my source tags were deleted with no better replacement (along with other tags deleated). I don't like that this person has just deleted my hard work without even an explanation as to why it was deleted. The same user did this exact same thing before, and when I notified them about this and made the revert, they just reverted my revert. I don't want to start an edit war, so I am asking other mappers if you also think that this changeset was deconstructive. If you do then hopefully we won't have an edit war. Previously I asked this user directly about data that appeared very much like that from Google Maps, they said they may have copied directly from a Google Map, in our exchanges they said to me, I find your tone condescending and offensive. Because of this I want to avoid sending a message to them again, so I would much rather conduct my communication in the public here. Thank you. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Adelaide out of copyright street directory
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:21:02 +1000 (EST) i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: Nick, My worry with the Old map + yahoo combo is that some armchair mappers may over-ride existing surveyed data (I've already seen surveyed stuff over-ridden by someone looking at yahoo a few times) maybe even as far as changing the name to the old map name. :/ But I think the overall gains that will be made in getting the map to a basic usable state so the 'masses' can operate with it, and provide the detail feed back is more important. Until we have that we're just making a toy for ourselves and we can strive to make it perfect but it'll be useless to everyone else. This is really simple. If the source=survey don't change it unless you have resurveyed it. Under no circumstances change source=survey data with traced data. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Adelaide out of copyright street directory
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: This is really simple. If the source=survey don't change it unless you have resurveyed it. Under no circumstances change source=survey data with traced data. It is simple, but there are mappers who have done so. Then if someone has not marked the source of the data who knows whether it should be corrected or not? There is a substantial amount of data with no source tag. I'd really like to know whether it was traced or surveyed, because then I'd know whether to go down that street or not. My thoughts on this is if it's not tagged then it's not surveyed. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Adelaide out of copyright street directory
I have since been tagging very extensively with source. I only trace stuff like rivers, canals and railways that I am not going to be travelling down. Like wise. Maybe there needs to be some thought put into the osm side of things about survey being a required tag. ie the editors (josm etc) will not upload until a source tag is entered. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tracing items.
And if someone enjoys tracing roads or some other feature exclusively are we to tell them to go away because it's not our idea of the best way to spend their time on OSM? Missed the point of my suggestion totally didn't you. I am not saying don't do it just that if you want to improve the whole map in osm then here are some things that will help to do that. OSM is not just about streets/roads/highways. It's about the whole map. Look at some of the parts of UK and Europe. There's now even proposals to include the street numbers. All things that add to the navigation assistance available. As to using josm etc that's fine if I've got the laptop running or sitting at home at the desktop connected to the internet. But when I'm on the road and I've got gpsdrive with mapnik running and the osm data is from last thursday and I'm not connected to the internet, I can't tell if the road was traced from Yahoo etc or from a gps upload. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
