Re: [talk-au] Melbourne Intersections with duplicate ways and turn lanes

[me]

Thanks Andrew,

I've reached out to the user on a changeset, and will hopefully have a 
good conversation about it.


In the meantime, I've found about 30-50 intersections with these 
duplicate ways and lanes. Would it be useful to add notes, or fix me 
tags to those intersections? I'm wary about flooding any feedback 
channels with many instances of the same problem, but it could help keep 
track of where work is needed?


D.

On 2021-09-13 00:26, Andrew Harvey wrote:

Thanks I see what you mean by these changes (much easier to visualise 
in OSMCha).


Usually I see this as an older style mapping, before turn lane tagging 
was more common and sometimes done for routing so that people were 
warned earlier. But these days it's much better to use turn:lanes 
tagging and only split the way at the point where you can no longer 
physically change lanes.


It's possible to revert changesets, but it's not always 
straightforward.


Leaving a changeset comment is the best first step, as they might not 
be aware of standard practice and other tags like turn:lanes.


On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 08:07,  wrote:

Thanks Andrew, that was my last understanding as well. In particular, 
modeling right hand turns as separate, curved ways when there is no 
separate roadway.


Here are of changesets which introduce the types of issues I mentioned. 
They mostly seem to be around dual carriageways.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/108100471#map=15/-37.8844/145.2793

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82795947#map=14/-37.9685/145.0608 
[1]


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82695023#map=14/-37.9878/145.0739=N

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/109871984#map=15/-38.1460/145.1279=N

Diacritic

On 2021-09-13 06:57, Andrew Harvey wrote:

Do you have a link to a changeset of one you worked on?

I haven't been able to find an example of where it was an issue, but 
generally the rule of thumb is only using separate ways when they are 
physically separated, so sometimes you're splitting into two parallel 
ways for either direction, but not usually for each lane of the road in 
a single direction.


On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 01:15,  wrote:

Hi,

I'm relatively new, but I wanted to bring something g to your 
attention.


I came across a couple of intersections that seemed overly complicated; 
they had lots of turn lanes drawn and were very messy. I created an 
account, learned the standards for intersections and tried my best to 
fix them. I started at Heidelberg Rd/Chandler Hwy, and then found more 
on Punt Road/Hoddle St. I changed those as best I could as well. Then I 
saw more, and more. Once I started looking, it was everywhere; 
intersections with multiple ways for lanes, two or three turn lanes 
with broken restrictions. The West Gate has some sections of parallel 
lanes as ways for a few hundred meters. Whenever I try and route using 
one of these intersections, there are multiple confusing steps and 
"forks" that don't exist in reality


Almost all the edits have been from one user; I've sent them a message 
on their most recent change set, but I'm daunted by the scale of the 
fixes required. Does this group have any suggestions on where and how 
to start?


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



Links:
--
[1] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82795947#map=14/-37.9685/145.0608layers=N___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Melbourne Intersections with duplicate ways and turn lanes

[me]

Thanks Andrew, that was my last understanding as well. In particular, 
modeling right hand turns as separate, curved ways when there is no 
separate roadway.


Here are of changesets which introduce the types of issues I mentioned. 
They mostly seem to be around dual carriageways.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/108100471#map=15/-37.8844/145.2793

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82795947#map=14/-37.9685/145.0608 
[1]


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82695023#map=14/-37.9878/145.0739=N

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/109871984#map=15/-38.1460/145.1279=N

Diacritic

On 2021-09-13 06:57, Andrew Harvey wrote:


Do you have a link to a changeset of one you worked on?

I haven't been able to find an example of where it was an issue, but 
generally the rule of thumb is only using separate ways when they are 
physically separated, so sometimes you're splitting into two parallel 
ways for either direction, but not usually for each lane of the road in 
a single direction.


On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 01:15,  wrote:


Hi,

I'm relatively new, but I wanted to bring something g to your 
attention.


I came across a couple of intersections that seemed overly 
complicated; they had lots of turn lanes drawn and were very messy. I 
created an account, learned the standards for intersections and tried 
my best to fix them. I started at Heidelberg Rd/Chandler Hwy, and then 
found more on Punt Road/Hoddle St. I changed those as best I could as 
well. Then I saw more, and more. Once I started looking, it was 
everywhere; intersections with multiple ways for lanes, two or three 
turn lanes with broken restrictions. The West Gate has some sections 
of parallel lanes as ways for a few hundred meters. Whenever I try and 
route using one of these intersections, there are multiple confusing 
steps and "forks" that don't exist in reality


Almost all the edits have been from one user; I've sent them a message 
on their most recent change set, but I'm daunted by the scale of the 
fixes required. Does this group have any suggestions on where and how 
to start?


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



Links:
--
[1] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82795947#map=14/-37.9685/145.0608layers=N___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Melbourne Intersections with duplicate ways and turn lanes

[me]

Hi,

I'm relatively new, but I wanted to bring something g to your attention.

I came across a couple of intersections that seemed overly complicated; 
they had lots of turn lanes drawn and were very messy. I created an 
account, learned the standards for intersections and tried my best to 
fix them. I started at Heidelberg Rd/Chandler Hwy, and then found more 
on Punt Road/Hoddle St. I changed those as best I could as well. Then I 
saw more, and more. Once I started looking, it was everywhere; 
intersections with multiple ways for lanes, two or three turn lanes with 
broken restrictions. The West Gate has some sections of parallel lanes 
as ways for a few hundred meters. Whenever I try and route using one of 
these intersections, there are multiple confusing steps and "forks" that 
don't exist in reality


Almost all the edits have been from one user; I've sent them a message 
on their most recent change set, but I'm daunted by the scale of the 
fixes required. Does this group have any suggestions on where and how to 
start?


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

Re: [Talk-GB] un-named roads in UK

[me]

On 29/08/18 21:21, Jubal Harpster wrote:

Rosneath Castle Caravan Park

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/92291906

https://goo.gl/maps/5zn1EEXwYER2

https://binged.it/2BCrYOr



OSM has the name on the actual caravan park, which sounds more likely:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/114942183


When I looked at this, this my feeling was that this looks like a 
private road to the Caravan Park and therefore is very unlikely to have 
a name.


Also, there has been quite a but a local activity in the area and it 
would be very unlikely that that they would have completely missed this 
if wrong.


Finally I check the council road list and this road isn't listed which 
means that it's unmaintained and increasing the likely hood that it will 
be unnamed.


The caravan site is interesting, from it's website it's probably 
Rosneath Castle Park (without the Caravan) - originally mapped by 
Central America who is based in Edinburgh, it would need a survey to see 
how it's actually signposted.


Cheers
Chris 



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Use of Drones

[me]

On 18/09/17 at 12:53pm, Philip Barnes wrote:
>There was a talk by 'the only licensed drone pilot in Scotland' at SOTM
>Scotland a couple of years ago.
> 
>I missed the outdoor demo as I went to the NLS map library.

Yes Paul has a eBee senseFly - https://www.sensefly.com/drones/ebee.html

Because it's a "winged" craft then with the right permissions it is
possible to fly over populated areas. So can get aerial footage for
relatively low cost, but is a more expensive investment than some of
the very low cost drones that seem to be more targeted towards filming.

It's also ideal for imagery as it will fly a preset route capturing the
required stills to cover the area needed, and then lands.`

Cheers
Chris


> 
>On 18 September 2017 12:14:01 BST, Marc Gemis 
>wrote:
> 
>  Oleksiy Muzalyev seems to be pretty knowledgable on drones. He has
>  posted about it a couple of times on the talk mailing list.
>  e.g. 
> [1]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2016-September/076758.html
> 
>  But he's not living in the UK.
> 
>  regards
> 
>  m.
> 
>  On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Brian Prangle  wrote:
> 
>   The regulations on the use of drones in the UK are already quite restrictive
>   (if, of course, you're a  responsible memeber of society) and are imminently
>   to become even more restrictive with licensing and proof of competence
>   becoming requirements. I'm pessimistic about being able to make use of
>   drones to capture imagery. Does anyone have any experience of using drones?
> 
>   regards
> 
>   Brian
> 
>--
> 
>   Talk-GB mailing list
>   Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>   [2]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
>--
> 
>  Talk-GB mailing list
>  Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>  [3]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
>--
>Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> 
> References
> 
>Visible links
>1. 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2016-September/076758.html
>2. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>3. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Queensferry Crossing

[me]

On 30/08/17 at 10:28am, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 30/08/17 10:26, Tom Hughes wrote:
> 
> > As best I can tell from wikipedia the new bridge is the M90 and under
> > motorway conditions with the old bridge presumably expected to carry
> > non-motorway traffic as the A9000.
> 
> So from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-41086779
> it seems it is non-motorway for now but will become a motorway once the old
> bridge has been "adapted for public transport".

I am just double checking things now. As far as I can make out the new
bridge is as Tom said the M90 but with a 40mph speed limit until
October. 

To make things more complicated the Queensferry Crossing is open for 2
days, then closed for 6 before re-opening. My thinking is to leave it as
open rather than close it for 6 days. 

The old bridge is effectively closed to all motor traffic, until
October/November... 

Usefully one of the colleagues filmed the crossing this morning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25SdGmTPlf0

Cheers
Chris

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

[me]

On 04/08/17 at 09:20am, SK53 wrote:
>Around here (Nottingham) we generally put something like demolished:
>building=* on the old way. Particular ly useful if you have several active
>mappers not all knowing about recent demolitions.

This is exactly what we try and do in Edinburgh. An example is here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/372571074

When something new is build then these will get deleted. We have had
occasions where building have been re-added based on imagery.

We work a similar plan on shops or businesses that close, rather than delete
we would mark as disused:shop= or shop=vacant 

Cheers
Chris


>On 4 Aug 2017 07:19, "David Fox" <[1]davefoxfa...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> 
>  Add the new building. We should map what is currently on the ground.
>  Please don't be slave to out of date data or fear of edits being
>  reversed.
> 
>  On 4 August 2017, at 06:42, Warin <[2]61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>  How different is the footprint of the new building?
> 
>  I would think that the new building will be of a similar size to the old
>  one - given the planing permissions.
> 
>  So unless you intend to put in the new building .. I would leave it
>  alone - that gives at least an indication that there is a building
>  there.
> 
>  Add a note to say it has been replaced with something similar?
> 
>  On 04-Aug-17 09:37 AM, Dan S wrote:
>  > [3]https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:demolished:
>  >
>  > (your note is not likely to be noticed by someone who is in the middle
>  > of editing, I suggest)
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > 2017-08-03 16:39 GMT+01:00 Andrew Black
>  <[4]andrewdbl...@googlemail.com>:
>  >> What should one do if there are building that have been knocked down
>  and
>  >> rebuilt.
>  >> Loathe just to delete them because an armchair mapper will come back
>  and add
>  >> them back. The new building is not in current bing imagary.
>  >> I have added a note  #1077006
>  >>
>  >> I am loathe to take photos or roam with a GPS in a hospital grounds!
>  >>
>  >> ___
>  >> Talk-GB mailing list
>  >> [5]Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>  >> [6]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>  >>
>  > ___
>  > Talk-GB mailing list
>  > [7]Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>  > [8]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
>  ___
>  Talk-GB mailing list
>  [9]Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>  [10]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>  ___
>  Talk-GB mailing list
>  [11]Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>  [12]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
> References
> 
>Visible links
>1. mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com
>2. mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com
>3. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:demolished
>4. mailto:andrewdbl...@googlemail.com
>5. mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>6. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>7. mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>8. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>9. mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>   10. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>   11. mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>   12. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Museums in Berwick-upon-Tweed

[me]

On 28/05/17 at 11:54am, David Woolley wrote:
> On 28/05/17 10:24, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > "The two Museum symbols at NU 00023 52563 and NT 99988 52538 are no
> > longer relevant as the museums closed several years ago and the area is
> > now private housing."
> > 
> > I'll leave it to you to figure out what these coordinates mean and which
> > museums may need to be checked
> 
> 
> Longitude: -2.00120135375
> 
> Latitude: 55.76641149
> 
> and
> 
> Longitude: -2.00175915259
> 
> Latitude: 55.7661868566
> 
> according to
> .
> 
> However, I would suggest that 10 figure OS national grid references could
> only have come from a council database based on OS data, so may not be
> usable.  They are precise to 1 square metre.
> 
> The objects that best match are:
>  and
> .

For now I've added a note.

I'm thinking about a long bike ride, so might might check it out myself.

Cheers
Chris

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging redevelopment and closed roads

[me]

On 20/09/16 at 11:28am, Donald wrote:
>If a building or road is removed, and nothing has replaced it, then i
>think it is good to have some sort of lifestyle prefix like
>demolished:building or removed:road, especially as they are usually still
>visible from aerial images.
> 
>I have also used highway=no not:name= for the ITO analysis.
> 
>Once the new development goes in these can and should probably be deleted.

Worth adding the main advantage of this, is if an armchair mapper comes
along tracing, then it *should* be obvious to them that those items no
longer exist and have been deliberatly removed.

Cheers
Chris 


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

Re: [Talk-GB] New user renaming highway=cycleway with NCN references

[me]

On 10/05/16 at 08:59pm, Eric Grosso wrote:
> I removed the NCN names associated to the roads/paths in Edinburgh (at
> least until the City By-pass) modified this week-end and I also re-added
> the railway=abandoned parts as it was before tintin2873's edits --
> changeset #39226002.
> 
> I discovered that some parts of the Union Canal Towpath and the Water of
> Leith Walkway are mapped as highway=path, some others as highway=cycleway.
> tintin2873 changed all of these highways in cycleways (tagged previously as
> paths). Despite the fact that these highways became part of the NCN, I
> still consider that these highways are still primarily paths by nature.

Think parts of the towpath are debatable, but given the narrow width and
shared use. path with designanated bicycle is probably most correct. 
> 
> What do you think? Do we, OSM contributors, tag all the highways part of a
> NCN as cycleways? What to do when in some cases, a highway is both part of
> a NCN route and a hiking route (e.g the John Muir Way)?

I think it depends of the width of the path and likelyhood of being
shared, needing to slow down for pedestrians. On a cycleway, it should
not normally be necessary to reduce speed to pass. 

Cheers
Chris 


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

[OSM-talk-be] hoofdwegfietsweg

[me]

Dag-ge-dag,

Wat bezig zijnde met verbeteren van fouten volgens keep_right!, komt 
nogal vaak de melding: This highway intersects the cycleway/footpath 
#xyz but there is no junction node.  Meestal komt dat omdat er een 
fietspad naast de hoofdweg getekend is, en de knooppunten met zijwegen 
niet aangestipt zijn (en... oei, oneway=yes veelal vergeten is). 
Evenwel: Dit fietspad is vaak overbodig omdat de hoofdweg reeds de tag 
cycleway:lane/track heeft.


- Wat te doen:
+ het fietspad laten (en al de knopen met de zijwegen bijtekenen)
+ de tag op de hoofdweg wegnemen (en desgevallend nog een fietspad aan 
de andere kant van de weg bijtekenen?
+ het fietspad wegnemen en de betreffende mapper frustreren omdat zijn 
werk nutteloos was?


- In verband met dit laatste, het zou leuk zijn moest, bij het 
verwijderen van andermans ingebracht werk, dat de betreffende mapper 
automatisch ook een bericht (E_mail b.v) krijgt dat e.e.a verwijderd is, 
EN WAAROM...
Het is al voorgekomen dat wegen, destijds ingetekend, verdwenen en 
geheel overnieuw gemapt zijn ipv 'verbeterd'.  Misschien terecht, maar 
toch.  Bovendien kan een gewiste situatie niet meer teruggevonden worden 
(of wel?) om het uit te zoeken.

Waarschijnlijk weet wel iemand een antwoord? Waarvoor alvast dank.

Groetje, meannder

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

[Talk-ca] Lake Simcoe - two versions?

[Me (Gmail)]

I've been working on improving the Barrie, Ontario area, and I'm
trying to figure out what is going on with/what to do about Lake
Simcoe.

There are multiple CanVec-imported ways that together make up a fairly
detailed, accurate representation of the lake. A single low-detail way
[1] is overlapping these, and obscures the accurate detail in many
places when rendered [2].

[1]: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4997263
[2]: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2398828/lake-simcoe-josm.png

Not having much experience dealing with large or tiled objects in OSM,
my question is if the low-resolution object is serving a purpose, and
whether I should bother editing it so as to not overlap with the
high-detail version, or whether it can just be deleted.

-- 
AJ Ashton

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Lake Simcoe - two versions?

[Me (Gmail)]

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Frank Steggink stegg...@steggink.org wrote:
 The Canvec version is clearly better, so the lowres version can be deleted.

Ok, I've deleted the low-res version, including nodes that weren't
part of anything else. Thanks for the help.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8297098

-- 
AJ Ashton

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca