This is taken directly from the OpenStreetMap website. If you can not see the problem with it, and why TheSwavu deleted it, then I suggest you familiarise yourself with the documentation: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction#Examples
Version #2 fixed intersection routing Edited about 2 months ago by slice0 · Changeset #118293106 Tags restriction no_u_turn type restriction *Members1 memberNode 6357628400 as via* On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 20:25, Luke Stewart <suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com> wrote: > I genuinely can't tell if you are being straightforward with the > community, or attempting to rouse trouble because it is amusing to you. I > guarantee I am not the only one who has this opinion. Several other > mappers, including TheSwavu himself, have already provided in-depth > explanations of their (correct) reasoning on this talking list. > > iD has a habit of breaking relations. One of the u-turn relations that you > commented on was broken *by you* within a day of you adding it (aka, it > lost two of its members), making it unusable for routing. Fundamentally the > validators are looking at the OSM data verbatim, without the lens of > presets or a GUI, and it is quite simple: if a turn restriction does not > have at least 3 members (from, via, to), then it is definitionally invalid, > unusable for routers, and requires correction as TheSwavu did in this case. > > OpenStreetMap, whilst it does favour local knowledge, also values remote > edits, particularly when it is (generally) simple to solve, like in the > case of these edits. > > There was a long, drawn out community discussion across multiple platforms > with the mass edit of Australian bus stops. To me, this feels like a very > similar situation. It seems like you don't quite understand the purpose of > OpenStreetMap, or how validators, tools, and other programs interact with > it. OpenStreetMap is designed to work across a myriad of platforms and > devices, not a single router or renderer. > > Whilst on this point, concerns have been raised about your mapping of > intersections, by adding diagonal ways (see this as an example, which > apparently has 69 turn restriction relations: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.77083/138.63419). Perhaps the > community can also agree that this is clearly incorrect > > I suggest that you attempt to interact with fellow mappers in an > appropriate and constructive manner, particularly given this is not the > first situation like this. We are all working on a community project with > good intentions, and this sort of interaction isn't helpful to anyone. > > Cheers, > Luke > > On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 16:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Anthony >> >> Could I suggest that you check keepright for your area: >> https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?zoom=14&lat=-33.87613&lon=151.17154 >> (Defaults to Sydney) & look at the "Restrictions" & "Geometry Glitches" >> reports. >> >> These will show spots that the system considers are in error, & will also >> allow you to advise that the error is a false positive, if you consider >> that what is shown is OK. >> >> Thanks >> >> Graeme >> >> >> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 15:42, Anthony Panozzo <pan...@outlook.com> wrote: >> >>> Diaz, i’m sorry I can’t sympathise with these excuses “it’s not me it >>> the validator” the bottom line is that this user is breaking perfectly fine >>> routing all for the sake of some crappy validator gives him a pat on the >>> back because it says so, that is irresponsible and foolish editing and >>> deserves no credit for simply saying the validator told me so, it’s >>> basically bot editing using that excuse, I will be watching all edits this >>> guy makes from now on and will be reporting every single edit he makes that >>> breaks routing to the DWG and by the report button itself on the user page, >>> then he can explain himself there >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org < >>> talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> >>> *Sent:* Saturday, April 30, 2022 2:35:26 PM >>> *To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >>> *Subject:* Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 >>> >>> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to >>> talk-au@openstreetmap.org >>> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>> talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org >>> >>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>> talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org >>> >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." >>> >>> >>> Today's Topics: >>> >>> 1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46 (Dian ?gesson) >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 15:04:05 +1000 >>> From: Dian ?gesson <m...@diacritic.xyz> >>> To: OSM Australian Talk List <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >>> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46 >>> Message-ID: <06b0964db149a5343954af20fe2e3...@diacritic.xyz> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Anthony, >>> >>> I can sympathise with your sense of frustration. It does feel irritating >>> when you feel as though your work is being undermined or broken. I know >>> I've spent a lot of time making changes for better routing, only to find >>> the same errors get reintroduced. >>> >>> I think your frustration is misdirected at Andrew here, though. If >>> validation tools are detecting issues with some data, someone will >>> eventually notice and try to fix it; whether it be Andrew or some other >>> editor. In a collaborative, decentralised community it isn't possible to >>> stop other editors from making changes in an area. >>> >>> In this specific case, these errors are a result of problems using the >>> iD editor which create "orphaned" relations that would not be used in >>> routing anyway. Andrew has indicated that he isn't trying to undo the >>> changes that have been added, rather to resolve the validation errors. >>> >>> I've created a few of these errors myself inadvertently, and it wasn't >>> until I started to use JOSM that I realised how much easier and more >>> powerful that tool can be. If you are spending hours trying to get these >>> restrictions perfect, I'd strongly recommend giving that a try. >>> >>> Both Andrew and yourself are trying to improve the quality of the map, >>> and no one benefits when frustrations boil over in this way. It's better >>> to try and work together constructively so we can all spend more time >>> doing the fun stuff. :) >>> >>> Dian >>> >>> On 2022-04-30 14:20, Anthony Panozzo wrote: >>> >>> Let me put it this way, it very easy for you to come along with your >>> validator toll and get on your high horse and point out how trash some >>> routing edits are... but you have no clue at all how much effort it take >>> to get some intersections functioning as intended as per the rule of the >>> intersection, the one you pointed out was pretty simple and was >>> functioning 100% correctly before you touched it now it allows u-turns, >>> you're pointing out the tiny issue that your validator points out but >>> what you don't realize is that the validator doe not see the big picture >>> either, its pretty much just pointing out conflicting restrictions which >>> are even sometimes left in intentionally, this is not the first time ive >>> ran into your edits but I have had enough of it, it takes a lot more >>> knowledge and effort to get them working as intended per the rules than >>> for you to come along with your little tool, if you personally don't >>> know the intended routing and can't see any errors using the routing >>> engine itself LEAVE IT ALONE, OSM is only meant to be edited by people >>> with local knowledge of the areas, I put a lot of time into what I do >>> including random routing on my gps to see what it will throw at me, I do >>> not need to be worry about you and your tool coming along to destroy it. >>> I am not proff reading this so sorry if there are spelling errors! >>> >>> From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org >>> Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 1:33 PM >>> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org >>> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46 >>> >>> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to >>> talk-au@openstreetmap.org >>> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>> talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org >>> >>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>> talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org >>> >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." >>> >>> Today's Topics: >>> >>> 1. iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, >>> Issue 44) (Andrew Davidson) >>> 2. Re: iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol >>> 178, Issue 44) (Andrew Davidson) >>> 3. Re: iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol >>> 178, Issue 44) (Phil Wyatt) >>> 4. FW: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44 (Phil Wyatt) >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 11:53:53 +1000 >>> From: Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com> >>> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org >>> Subject: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, >>> Vol 178, Issue 44) >>> Message-ID: <9d7c85e4-257e-f7b0-bd48-bf425c9c3...@gmail.com> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed >>> >>> On 30/4/22 00:45, Anthony Panozzo wrote: >>> >>> > This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know >>> > more than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing >>> > correction this account comes along and ?fixes? it based on ?knowledge? >>> >>> Some terminology before we start. To be valid a turn restriction >>> relation needs to have: >>> >>> 1. A way with the role "from" >>> 2. A way with the role "to" >>> 3. One or more "via" s that can be either a node or one or more ways >>> 4. The members must connect in a way that you can travel >>> >>> When I say "broken" I mean that one of the rules is broken and when I >>> say "knowledge" I mean I know what a valid turn restriction should be. >>> >>> > from the notes, let me just say I looked over some of the edit this >>> > account does and it breaks the routing for the most part, Changeset: >>> > 120344373 | OpenStreetMap >>> >>> This changeset deleted this turn restriction: >>> >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13905961 >>> >>> which you added in changeset 118257827 and then broke in 118293106 (it >>> only had a node via member). When I reviewed this one I decided to >>> delete it because it would only duplicate this turn restriction: >>> >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/14044389 >>> >>> which you added in changeset 119769921, if I fixed it. >>> >>> > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373> and Changeset: >>> > 120198383 | OpenStreetMap >>> >>> This intersection had 15 broken turn restriction relation in it: >>> >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477255 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477256 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477257 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477258 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477260 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477261 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477263 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477268 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477269 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13557714 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761157 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761161 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761169 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761170 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13991446 >>> >>> You broke 14 and added one new broken relation (13991446). While I was >>> deleting these I noticed that the intersection had some sort of >>> cross-your-heart thing going on with added ways for turn lanes, so I >>> simplified it to a standard traffic light box intersection: >>> >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.76387/138.59277 >>> >>> You can turn right from each arm which means we don't have to have any >>> no-right turns. There are 4 no-left turns because each approach has a >>> slip lane. Since it's SA and at traffic lights then there are four no >>> u-turns to cover that. This is exactly the same routing information that >>> was there before, but now in a simpler easier to maintain format. >>> >>> > < >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120198383#map=17/-34.76452/138.59301 >>> > >>> > are two examples of this account breaking routing, ive been wasting my >>> > time spending hours and hours fixing routing just for this shitty bot >>> > to >>> > come along and fuck it all up over and over again, I would like to ask >>> > DWG to take a real close look at this account and see if it can be >>> > banned from any further edits under the bot edit policy or straight out >>> > vandalism! >>> >>> I am not a bot. Just a mapper with overpass, the JOSM validator, the >>> to-do plugin, and many hours of puzzling over the question of what a >>> broken turn restriction relation was supposed to be doing. >>> >>> A couple of years ago I spent quite a bit of time fixing all the turn >>> restrictions around AU, but I have to keep coming back every couple of >>> months, as 100-200 newly broken ones get created every month. Mostly >>> because iD will quietly break existing turn restrictions or let you >>> create invalid ones and then upload them to OSM. I used to put changeset >>> comments on the ones that had broken them until a user asked me how they >>> could stop doing it and I discovered that there isn't a way to do that >>> in iD. >>> >>> My fixes should not be changing any routing outcomes as they are almost >>> all deleting turn restrictions that iD didn't clean up after a mapper >>> reconfigured an intersection. None of the examples you have pointed to >>> have changed the routing outcomes as I check to make sure I understand >>> what someone was trying to map before I fix it. >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 2 >>> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 12:25:31 +1000 >>> From: Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com> >>> To: OpenStreetMap <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >>> Subject: Re: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au >>> Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44) >>> Message-ID: >>> >>> <cacxr7k1ujx2wqzf5nsgxrd+6crp-upx7mpasjsvlogg5de9...@mail.gmail.com> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>> >>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, 11:53 Andrew Davidson, <thesw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/14044389 >>> > >>> > >>> > Cut and paste error there. The existing no u-turn restriction is: >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13909088 >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: >>> < >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220430/418ba850/attachment-0001.htm >>> > >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 3 >>> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 13:53:14 +1000 >>> From: "Phil Wyatt" <p...@wyatt-family.com> >>> To: "'Andrew Davidson'" <thesw...@gmail.com>, >>> <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >>> Subject: Re: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au >>> Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44) >>> Message-ID: <000d01d85c45$d472c5e0$7d5851a0$@wyatt-family.com> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" >>> >>> Many thanks for the detailed explanation >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com> >>> Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 11:54 AM >>> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org >>> Subject: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol >>> 178, Issue 44) >>> >>> On 30/4/22 00:45, Anthony Panozzo wrote: >>> >>> > This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know >>> > more than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing >>> > correction this account comes along and ?fixes? it based on ?knowledge? >>> >>> Some terminology before we start. To be valid a turn restriction >>> relation needs to have: >>> >>> 1. A way with the role "from" >>> 2. A way with the role "to" >>> 3. One or more "via" s that can be either a node or one or more ways 4. >>> The members must connect in a way that you can travel >>> >>> When I say "broken" I mean that one of the rules is broken and when I >>> say "knowledge" I mean I know what a valid turn restriction should be. >>> >>> > from the notes, let me just say I looked over some of the edit this >>> > account does and it breaks the routing for the most part, Changeset: >>> > 120344373 | OpenStreetMap >>> >>> This changeset deleted this turn restriction: >>> >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13905961 >>> >>> which you added in changeset 118257827 and then broke in 118293106 (it >>> only had a node via member). When I reviewed this one I decided to >>> delete it because it would only duplicate this turn restriction: >>> >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/14044389 >>> >>> which you added in changeset 119769921, if I fixed it. >>> >>> > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373> and Changeset: >>> > 120198383 | OpenStreetMap >>> >>> This intersection had 15 broken turn restriction relation in it: >>> >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477255 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477256 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477257 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477258 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477260 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477261 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477263 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477268 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477269 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13557714 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761157 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761161 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761169 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761170 >>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13991446 >>> >>> You broke 14 and added one new broken relation (13991446). While I was >>> deleting these I noticed that the intersection had some sort of >>> cross-your-heart thing going on with added ways for turn lanes, so I >>> simplified it to a standard traffic light box intersection: >>> >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.76387/138.59277 >>> >>> You can turn right from each arm which means we don't have to have any >>> no-right turns. There are 4 no-left turns because each approach has a >>> slip lane. Since it's SA and at traffic lights then there are four no >>> u-turns to cover that. This is exactly the same routing information that >>> was there before, but now in a simpler easier to maintain format. >>> >>> > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120198383#map=17/-34.76452/13 >>> > 8.59301> are two examples of this account breaking routing, ive been >>> > wasting my time spending hours and hours fixing routing just for this >>> > shitty bot to come along and fuck it all up over and over again, I >>> > would like to ask DWG to take a real close look at this account and >>> > see if it can be banned from any further edits under the bot edit >>> > policy or straight out vandalism! >>> >>> I am not a bot. Just a mapper with overpass, the JOSM validator, the >>> to-do plugin, and many hours of puzzling over the question of what a >>> broken turn restriction relation was supposed to be doing. >>> >>> A couple of years ago I spent quite a bit of time fixing all the turn >>> restrictions around AU, but I have to keep coming back every couple of >>> months, as 100-200 newly broken ones get created every month. Mostly >>> because iD will quietly break existing turn restrictions or let you >>> create invalid ones and then upload them to OSM. I used to put changeset >>> comments on the ones that had broken them until a user asked me how they >>> could stop doing it and I discovered that there isn't a way to do that >>> in iD. >>> >>> My fixes should not be changing any routing outcomes as they are almost >>> all deleting turn restrictions that iD didn't clean up after a mapper >>> reconfigured an intersection. None of the examples you have pointed to >>> have changed the routing outcomes as I check to make sure I understand >>> what someone was trying to map before I fix it. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-au mailing list >>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 4 >>> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 14:00:38 +1000 >>> From: "Phil Wyatt" <p...@wyatt-family.com> >>> To: "OSM-Au" <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >>> Subject: [talk-au] FW: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44 >>> Message-ID: <001301d85c46$dc381a40$94a84ec0$@wyatt-family.com> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>> >>> From: Phil Wyatt <p...@wyatt-family.com> >>> Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 2:00 PM >>> To: 'Anthony Panozzo' <pan...@outlook.com> >>> Subject: RE: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44 >>> >>> Hi Anthony, >>> >>> There are multiple tools out there for finding 'errors' in OSM data and >>> many >>> people use them to keep the OSM data up to date. You might also like to >>> share the OSM software that you are using on your vehicle GPS as it may >>> turn >>> out that it doesn't handle relations or routing of some situations. >>> >>> Cheers - Phil >>> >>> From: Anthony Panozzo <pan...@outlook.com <mailto:pan...@outlook.com >>> <pan...@outlook.com>> > >>> Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 10:35 AM >>> To: Phil Wyatt <p...@wyatt-family.com <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com >>> <p...@wyatt-family.com>> > >>> Subject: RE: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44 >>> >>> The biggest issue I have with this account is that they don't find >>> routing >>> errors on their own, this person stalks other peoples edits and >>> "correcs" >>> them using knowledge as their source, I find these routing errors 100% >>> myself in real world situations, I have been editing and using OSM on my >>> car >>> gps for many years, this user edits other users edits based on no >>> knowledge >>> of the intersection at all, having a user like this should put anyone >>> off >>> making any routing edits when this person randomly edits 10 different >>> intersections in 10 minutes and says they have knowledge. >>> >>> From: Phil Wyatt <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com <p...@wyatt-family.com>> >>> Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:44 AM >>> To: 'Anthony Panozzo' <mailto:pan...@outlook.com <pan...@outlook.com>> ; >>> talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org >>> <talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> >>> Subject: RE: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44 >>> >>> Hi Anthony (slice0), >>> >>> Can I suggest the best way to get some resolution is to actually spell >>> out >>> in a changeset comment why you think the change made by Swavu is >>> incorrect. >>> That way everyone gets to learn from 'conflicts'. I also suggest you >>> restrain your language or you may also face the wrath of the DWG. >>> >>> PS Swavu is not a bot. >>> >>> Cheers - Phil (tastrax) >>> >>> From: Anthony Panozzo <pan...@outlook.com <mailto:pan...@outlook.com >>> <pan...@outlook.com>> > >>> Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 12:46 AM >>> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org >>> <talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> >>> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44 >>> >>> User TheSwavu >>> >>> This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know >>> more >>> than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing >>> correction >>> this account comes along and "fixes" it based on "knowledge" from the >>> notes, >>> let me just say I looked over some of the edit this account does and it >>> breaks the routing for the most part, Changeset: 120344373 | >>> OpenStreetMap >>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373> and Changeset: >>> 120198383 | OpenStreetMap >>> < >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120198383#map=17/-34.76452/138.5930 >>> 1> are two examples of this account breaking routing, ive been wasting >>> my >>> time spending hours and hours fixing routing just for this shitty bot to >>> come along and fuck it all up over and over again, I would like to ask >>> DWG >>> to take a real close look at this account and see if it can be banned >>> from >>> any further edits under the bot edit policy or straight out vandalism! >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: >>> < >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220430/d0f732e2/attachment.htm >>> > >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Subject: Digest Footer >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-au mailing list >>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46 >>> **************************************** >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-au mailing list >>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: < >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220430/fa430fd0/attachment.htm >>> > >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Subject: Digest Footer >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-au mailing list >>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 >>> **************************************** >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-au mailing list >>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-au mailing list >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
