Reverted in 119151901 - this edit based on questionable licensing status of notes from anonymous, per Discord conversation. road names appear unable to be sourced with licensed data.

Reverted in 119151901 - this edit based on questionable licensing status of notes from anonymous, per Discord conversation. road names appear unable to be sourced with licensed data.

Reverting this edit based on questionable licensing status of notes from anonymous, per Discord conversation. road names appear unable to be sourced with licensed data.

Hi MapAnalyser,

What is your reasoning from changing these roads back into motorway_links? They don't appear to meet the criteria for a link roads: they aren't sliproads but are important roads in their own right.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119144105

Hey Paul,

Interesting that LASSI shows The Crescent; would probably be worth reaching out to the council to clarify it :)

Dian

Hey Via Velo.

When I changed the name of this road to "Beach Road", I confirmed with local street signs that the name of the road had changed, and that it is "Formerly" The Crescent.

Hello MapAnalyser.

It is incorrect to map each turn lane with a separate highway where there is no physical separation.

There are not three separate roads here. I will the unnecessary roads accordingly.

Hey Oscar,

Thanks for your contributions here. :)

I noticed that you converted a parking aisle on the rooftop of the shopping centre to an escalator/steps (786055966) was that intentional?

Also, quick tip in case you weren’t aware: you can use the ‘Q’ key to make the corners of building square. It saves me a lot of time and makes the angles nice and perfect.

Dian
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/118113177

Supt,

I respect that it is frustrating to have many changeset comments coming to you, and I really appreciate that you have remained civil and responsive in our interactions. I get the sense you feel as though this is a personal disagreement, and I really want to assure it is not.

There are always going to be differences in style, and I have tried to refrain from badgering you about stylistic choices that aren't wrong, even if they aren't my preference.

Unfortunately, modelling intersections to include ways like 1036691022 (a left turn way where there is no slip lane or physical separation) is just, well, wrong. I'm not trying to force a new standard or mapping rule onto you, I'm trying to bring your attention to how your methods differ from what is generally accepted.

You mentioned you get annoyed or disheartened when your changes are reverted. That's not going to stop if you and I simply agree to disagree personally: other mappers will eventually change these intersections back to what is considered "right".

I don't think more changeset comments are going to be productive, but I have raised the topic in the talk-au mailing list, again: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-March/015925.html.

Please, engage with the discussion there with other mappers. We are all bound by the community consensus and some objective, impartial input would be best to resolve this.

Take care,
Dian

Hey Supt. The intersection at Point/Narre Warren-Cranbourne Road has the same problems as we've previously discussed for dual carriageway intersections. I'm resolving a note in the area and have removed the unnessary/overlapping ways.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/118038711

This popped up on the list of recent comments, so I had a look. If it is a shared_zone, if might be best tagged as a living_street? :)

Hi HighRouleur.

I'm going to undo the chang you made here.

Kingston Central Boulevard has been extended across where this taxiway once was. I only very recently updated this road to match its new geometry.

I would strongly suggest that when a road looks glaringly out of sync with the aerial imagery that you check a few different sources. In this case, I have uploaded numerous Mapillary images driving down that road.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117383192

Sorry for the belated reply; I wanted to have a proper look at this on my home computer. :)

There are two options I would suggest:

The first (and best IMO) would be to model this as a regular dual-carriageway intersection. (https://imgur.com/a/DnCXKWe) It's a little bit awkward because the two parts of Homan Street don't align, but modelling the intersection in this way would allow all the required vehicle movements with accurate descriptions: Vehicles continuing on Homan would get a "continue straight" message or similar). Bonus is that this woud make it a lot easier to introduce no_u_turn restrictions where needed.

Alternatively, you could model it as two seperate T intersections. https://imgur.com/a/R0kdHK0 This accounts for the misalignment in Homan Street. Vehicles travelling along Homan would receive a "Turn Right then turn left" message". I wouldn't choose this option, as the turns are so close together to make it a bit unnecessary, but it would easily get the job done if you prefer that as well. :)

Dian

Incidentally, very interested to see the new bridge they are building there. Not sure if you are a local or a tourist there, but I can remember getting stuck in traffic there during summer school holidays!

Hi Supt,

Yes, I can see that there are new traffic islands at the intersection on the Maxar Imagery. However, the left hand turn from Warren onto the northside of Redman is not physically separated: way/1030856092.

There is also no physical separation that requires way/1030856098 or way/1030856097; both of those right hand turn lanes create an extra set of intersections that don't exist.

Hello Supt,

This got flagged on OSMCha as "Crossing Ways".
The way way/1030856092 doesn't seem necessary as there is no physical separation there. Similarly, you're modelling of Warren/Homan street has unneeded turn lanes that break routing.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117344410

Hello;

I was in the area and swung by (there really isn't a substitute for going in person sometimes :) )

As mapillary seems to be having issues with iOS uploads, see this pictures fresh off the presses:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seaford_Foreshore_Trail_at_Station_St.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seaford_Foreshore_Trail_at_Riveria.jpg

The signs looked new-ish, but not having been before I can't tell how long they have been there. I also didn't walk the entire track, so it's possible that there were sections signed differently.

Then again, the ground really was quite sandy....

Dian

No problem

I hope you are able to sort out what the error was :).

Hey Zulu;

Came across this node (9488792036) while updating the school next door, and I can see this changeset has a lot of "knooppunten generator" in unusual locations. What are they?

Hi Cheena,

Thanks for your edits. What is the source of increasing the speed back up to 110 km/h? Another user only recently reduced it as it is a new limt: way/199164004/history
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117099145

Hey Chonker,

Similar to the comment on the other edit, in this changeset you've moved the point where 103401900 splits from the main road north quitte a bit beyond where the physical separation ends, and "curled" the turn slightly as it arrives at the left turn.

Moving the point where the carriageway splits will cause routing software to give mistimed turn instructions to drivers; effectively asking them to turn before the "actual" turn. In this case, there isn't another maneouvre possible to confuse them, but it can cause issues with driveways etc.

Similarly, the "curl" onto the main carriageway isn;t really ideal. It makes the anngle of the slip road look tighter than it is, and the turn onto the main road tighter. This can affect calculations/routing for long or articulated vehicles, or with restricted turning radii. I'm happy to be incorrect, but I do not believe there is any utility to modelling turns like this beyond aesthetics.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117046200