Hi, If someone is going through the Lane Cove tunnel / Gore Hill junctions, or the Eastern Distributor / Harbour Tunnel junctions. There is a bit of complex topology here that is pretty essentially for getting our through routing right again.
Ian. On 25 July 2012 08:55, Michael Hampson <mhamp...@fastmail.com.au> wrote: > Ian, > > I did see some relations on the M4 that were broken, I'll go back and > check them. Must learn more about relations too. > > Glad to hear you a sticking around John. :) > > Regards, > > Michael > On 25/07/2012 8:18 AM, Ian Sergeant wrote: > > > But for metroad 10 for > > example, there were 2 x relations for metroad ten. I expected they were > for > > north and south bound routes as that is the way they appeared to be > listed > > in some other areas I checked so that is what I have done. Put one > relation > > for north and the other for south. If that's not right let me know and I > > will fix. Not sure how a routing relation works anyway. > > For the Sydney metroads I have added directional route relations, that use > two directional relations for each metroad. This allows the connectivity > of the route to be checked quickly during the reconstruction phase, and > otherwise does no harm. When we have reached the next stage of maturity we > can decide if we want to merge them back into a single route relation with > directional elements. So, yes, what you have done is correct. > > > 2. for the road naming where the ref tag for metroad 10 was MR10 I have > > changed those to network=MR and ref=10. Same for the other roads I have > > worked on. Not *certain* that is correct though either so if someone > could > > enlighten me would be good thanks > > > > That is correct. See the Australian tagging guidelines in the wiki. > > > 3. state highway 29 continues from boundary street along pacific highway > and > > then along delhi road, which makes that small section of the pacific > highway > > sh29 *and* mr1. what should I use to reflect that? > > It can be part of both route relations. > > > Just my own view on the redaction process. No issue with people who > > declined the licence agreement. However it was annoying for me to see > one > > of the very first things I used for practice vanish in a puff of smoke. > It > > was just a building outline, a coles supermarket. I named it, put in the > > opening hours, telephone number, full address details eg addr: city: etc > > etc. I turned it into a thing of beauty by entering approx 10 odd > pieces of > > information, just for practice and learning. I thought it a bit harsh > just > > because someone traced a building roof everything I added went as well. > > Tracing the building would have taken less than a minute. I spent 40 > > minutes researching and entering that extra detail on that single item. > > Your change sets are still available. You should be able to at least refer > to the info you have added. And yes, the loss of data in this way is the > hardest. One person just traces from an aerial and then does not agree. > Others survey, add cycle facilities, names etc that are lost to OSM. I > don't know if it still possible to better use some of this "unattached" > data in the database down the track. > > Ian > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing > listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
