Re: [talk-au] Missing street signs in Sydney

Steve Bennett wrote "Or maybe the difference between people who think all "navigation" takes place on four wheels and the rest of us." It's interesting that you choose to use the "I presume to speak for lots of other people and imply that there are way more of us than there are or you" approach.

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Ian Sergeant wrote: > This is why route numbers were invented.  So routes can be followed across > multiple road names.  The route numbers are on the ground, or otherwise > discoverable. I'm not sure if we're disagreeing or not, but: assuming that there is an uncon

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

On 6 September 2011 13:59, Ross Scanlon wrote: > But your saying what I'm saying map what is on the ground. > > All of the above can be included in the relation a route does not have to > be a through route. It may have side branches as in the Sutherland example. > But if the sign says Old Pri

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

On 6 September 2011 13:48, Steve Bennett wrote: > Ian, the world is a complicated place, and the answers to these > questions are not always straightforward to answer. It doesn't mean we > should just delete everything. > Agreed, but not by any stretch what I'm suggesting. > Yes, it means tha

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

On 06/09/11 11:43, Ian Sergeant wrote: On 6 September 2011 13:21, Ross Scanlon mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com>> wrote: No. The route is still the Princes Highway as per here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/__wiki/Australian_Tagging___Guidelines#Route_Numbers

Re: [talk-au] Missing streets in Sydney

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Nick Hocking wrote: > "Yep. A one-way street mapped as a two-way street is better than nothing." > To me this statement absoluetly defines the difference between people who > just want to see lots of lines on the map and people who want to actually > use the map fo

Re: [talk-au] Contribution review??

On 6 September 2011 13:44, Ross Scanlon wrote: > > If you look in the history you will see that it's prior to 17 July 2011 and > not added by Richard as a source he has just added more detail. > > Oops, sorry, I should have checked the history. Thanks for picking that up. Ian. _

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Ian Sergeant wrote: > But what is the new route, and what is the old route?  If we can't answer > this question, then we can't map it. Ian, the world is a complicated place, and the answers to these questions are not always straightforward to answer. It doesn't mea

Re: [talk-au] Contribution review??

On 06/09/11 11:26, Ian Sergeant wrote: Hi Richard, Welcome to OSM. A few observations. Nearmap is no longer an acceptable source for OSM, since they do not allow traces from their imagery to be re-licensed. I notice at least one of your edits sourced nearmap, and that isn't allowed any more.

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

On 6 September 2011 13:21, Ross Scanlon wrote: > > No. The route is still the Princes Highway as per here: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/Australian_Tagging_** > Guidelines#Route_Numbers > > How do I tell w

Re: [talk-au] Contribution review??

Hi Richard, Welcome to OSM. A few observations. Nearmap is no longer an acceptable source for OSM, since they do not allow traces from their imagery to be re-licensed. I notice at least one of your edits sourced nearmap, and that isn't allowed any more. If you were using Potlatch, perhaps you

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

On 06/09/11 10:50, Ian Sergeant wrote: On 6 September 2011 07:13, Ben Kelley mailto:ben.kel...@gmail.com>> wrote: In general I think it is common that a highway has a different name when it goes through a town. Here the route continues, and will often be signposted with the route num

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

On 6 September 2011 07:13, Ben Kelley wrote: > In general I think it is common that a highway has a different name when it > goes through a town. Here the route continues, and will often be signposted > with the route number. > So best to use the route number to define a route when it exists, ra

Re: [talk-au] Missing streets in Sydney

I wrote: > > Personally, I think people shouldn't map areas when they don't have any > > knowledge of the topology and layout because I think fixing errors takes > > several orders of magnitude longer than the tracing. > On 6 September 2011 10:31, Stephen Hope wrote: Who cares? Um, Me? May

Re: [talk-au] Missing streets in Sydney

Someone wrote "Yep. A one-way street mapped as a two-way street is better than nothing." To me this statement absoluetly defines the difference between people who just want to see lots of lines on the map and people who want to actually use the map for navigation. Many moons ago I was driving on

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Ian Sergeant wrote: > The Princes Highway isn't really a route.  I can't get my head around > including roads that are not the Princes Highway (where it deviates, changes > name, etc) in a relation called the Princes Highway.  It is just wrong IMO. I'm not sure wha

Re: [talk-au] Missing streets in Sydney

On 5 September 2011 19:18, Ian Sergeant wrote: > Personally, I think people shouldn't  map areas when they don't have any > knowledge of the topology and layout because I think fixing errors takes > several orders of magnitude longer than the tracing. Who cares? That's not the right comparison. D

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

I don't know about that road in particular, but I do know that in at least some highways around country NSW that when they go through a small town, the name can change to a local street name, but it is also still part of the highway. Sometimes you'll actually see both names on a sign, mostly you do

[talk-au] Contribution review??

Hi - I am a new contributor to OSM and in the spirit of "people shouldn't map areas when they don't have any knowledge of the topology and layout because I think fixing errors takes several orders of magnitude longer" I would appreciate a 'contribution review'. I know the area but I little kn

Re: [talk-au] Missing streets in Sydney

I wonder if this thread may have deviated a little from my original topic, but anyway: I noticed some un-mapped streets on Sydney's northern beaches. They look to be under construction on Bing (and not particularly clear in the photo) so they could use a survey, if anyone happens to be in the area

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

In general I think it is common that a highway has a different name when it goes through a town. Here the route continues, and will often be signposted with the route number. I'm not sure if that is the case for every road in this relation though. - Ben. On Sep 6, 2011 7:04 AM, "Ian Sergeant"

[talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

Does anyone have a good justification for keeping this road route reln? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/538443 The Princes Highway isn't really a route. I can't get my head around including roads that are not the Princes Highway (where it deviates, changes name, etc) in a relation c

Re: [talk-au] Missing streets in Sydney

On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote: > The imagery never becomes available before the on the ground > geography. Giving eager mapers time to fill in via survey before the > imagery comes. Not always true, actually. New building sites appear on Nearmap (yes, I know...) before publ

Re: [talk-au] Missing streets in Sydney

On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Ian Sergeant wrote: > As I said, it is an issue as old as OSM that isn't likely to be resolved > here and now.  You may recall in the early days of segments, there was a > capability to add a path from tracing, which didn't appear on the map, and > then when it was

Re: [talk-au] Missing streets in Sydney

On 5 September 2011 14:31, Steve Bennett wrote: You need to be explicit about the comparison you're > making. This is volunteer labour, and you can't meaningfully compare > the contribution that people are willing to make against the > contribution you'd prefer they make. And if you want to, you