Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 at 10:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 19:39, Andrew Harvey > wrote: > >> >> If I were to design the ideal tag for Australia, it would be something >> like: >> >> technicality=0-3 >> >> 0. Well formed, even surface (could almost walk it blindfolded). >>

Re: [talk-au] OSM Notes

On 26/1/22 14:48, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: Changing subject from tracks for a minute :-), I was reading the weekly Newsletter yesterday & spotted this article https://www-openstreetmap-org.translate.goog/user/AngocA/diary/398423?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=EN&_x_tr_hl=en-GB

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On 26/1/22 10:04, Andy Townsend wrote: On 25/01/2022 22:43, David Wales via Talk-au wrote: 2. Practically invisible on the ground, except for bits of red tape hanging from tree branches every 50-100 metres! Every 50-100 meters?  Luxury! :) My recollection is that the signage on the bits of

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

On 26/1/22 19:01, Andrew Harvey wrote: On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 at 10:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 19:39, Andrew Harvey wrote: If I were to design the ideal tag for Australia, it would be something like: technicality=0-3 0. We

Re: [talk-au] OSM Notes

Thanks Graeme, I will have a crack at a few in Southern Tasmania (which has nearly 1900 of them!). I am hoping ‘Multi Pass’ and his import account of ‘Round Circle’ is intending to come back and fix a few of his! Cheers - Phil From: Graeme Fitzpatrick Sent: Wednesday, 26 January 20

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 at 18:01, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > Obviously river conditions change, but I think it's useful to tag what's > usually the case: > > 1. creek crossing where generall the water level is so low that you won't > have water ingress in your shoes > 2. creek crossing where your body

[talk-au] Am I using addr:unit correctly?

Hello, I had assumed that the addr:unit tag would be the appropriate place for a unit number in a subdivided block (specifically a complex such as this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1024067987 [1]). The wiki seems to suggest that the addr:unit is for subdivisions of a single building

Re: [talk-au] Am I using addr:unit correctly?

Your use of addr:unit looks correct here, I don't believe it needs to be subdivisions of a single building. You could have villa style townhouses where each dwelling is a separate building on a single site, where each building has it's own addr:unit and they all share the same addr:housenumber. We

Re: [talk-au] OSM Notes

Thanks fellas! I understand if it's very low on the priority list! :-) One other aspect of it to think about though ... Looking at the list of Notes, there are a number of entries going back several years, where people have provided details to "Please list my business", but they haven't yet been

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

Just a quick thing I noticed – the main tagging page says not to use do not use highway= footway and the preference is highway=