Hello,

Thank you for your contributions in the Footscray/Yarraville area.

It appears as though you're part of a group that's making quite a few changes to the area. Is there someone in charge of your class/club/project that I could get in touch with?

There are a couple of issues with the mapping data being contributed (particularly address tagging) that I'd like to discuss.

Dian Agesson

Hello,

Thank you for your contributions in the Footscray/Yarraville area.

It appears as though you're part of a group that's making quite a few changes to the area. Is there someone in charge of your class/club/project that I could get in touch with?

There are a couple of issues with the mapping data being contributed (particularly address tagging) that I'd like to discuss.

Dian Agesson

Hello,

Thank you for your contributions in the Footscray/Yarraville area.

It appears as though you're part of a group that's making quite a few changes to the area. Is there someone in charge of your class/club/project that I could get in touch with?

There are a couple of issues with the mapping data being contributed (particularly address tagging) that I'd like to discuss.

Dian Agesson

Hello,

Thank you for your contributions in the Footscray/Yarraville area.

It appears as though you're part of a group that's making quite a few changes to the area. Is there someone in charge of your class/club/project that I could get in touch with?

There are a couple of issues with the mapping data being contributed (particularly address tagging) that I'd like to discuss.

Dian Agesson

Hi JRavesi,

Thanks for your contributions to the Yarraville, and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I can see you're using the "name" field to store the full address of each house, which isn't quite the best way of doing capturing this information.

It's more widely accepted to record addresses using specific address fields, such as addr:housenumber and addr:street. This house (way/900636416) nearby is a good example to follow.

If you have any questions or would like a hand, feel free to reach out!

Dian

Hi Philt3r,

Thanks for your contributions to Mt Waverley, and welcome to OSM!

You've mapped the houses accurately, I wanted to give you a heads up about the naming of each house.

The name tag shouldn't be used as a description in the way you've tagged these houses. If you are interested, there is a range of different documentation and resources available on the OpenStreetMap wiki: osm.wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions

I've removed the names from these houses, but if you have any questions I'm more than happy to help.

Dian.

Hi Dean.

Thanks for your contributions around Rowville.

In this edit you've added several turn lanes as separate ways at the corner of Lakeview and Fulham roads, which is incorrect. Roads should only be drawn as separate ways if there is physical separation, such as a barrier. osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway

Instead, you can use the turn keys: turn=*

I've reverted the change at the intersection, but there is plenty of further reading if you are interested. :) https://labs.mapbox.com/mapping/mapping-for-navigation/modeling-intersections-for-map-navigation/

Dian
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123338853

Thanks Supt,

Modelling the roads in the way you have done does seem to have been happening, at some scale, for a long time; I've looked at tonnes of different intersections and some are indeed quite old.

I've reached out to multiple avenues and groups of editors to establish what the best practice is: mailing lists, discord communities, etc. The response has been universally that intersections should look like https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/428214296695144458/990919048546119710/unknown.png rather than https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/428214296695144458/990919048902639656/unknown.png or https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/428214296695144458/990919049305272330/unknown.png, for much of the same reasoning as I've already provided.

I did quite a bit of research to establish why the alternative method persists despite this response: it seems that there are two possible, frequent errors that other editors have been making.

The first issue stems from confusion about u-turn lanes and slip/link raods. Many editors (and, myself included when I started out) may hve been misinterpreting a section of the guidelines which mention how a u-turn link road between a dual-carriageway should be trunk_link (or whatever is appropriate), and then applying that logic to intersections where u-turns are permitted. For example, if u-turns were permitted at, say way/573681578 here, then the road should be a _link road rather than the classification of the road travelling through it.

My guess is that other editors have noticed these link roads in unusual places, and simply removed the "link" part of the highway classification.

I've updated the line I believe was causing the most confusion on the wiki, but the Link (highway) page already had a pretty good explanation: "Similarly, a minor road that intersects a dual-carraigeway road with a higher classification is not a link between the two major road halves, and should be tagged as normal."

Hope this helps, Dian.

Adjusted back to trunk in 122907741 following Andrew's comments above.

partially changed back in 1523045184
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/121526890

Hello,

You've changed the names and classification of roads inside intersections, again.

I've explained in a previous changeset discussion why this is incorrect.

Please review these comments and adjust your editing accordingly.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/122887392

Hello,

You've changed the names and classification of roads inside intersections, again.

I've explained in a previous changeset discussion why this is incorrect.

Please review these comments and adjust your editing accordingly.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/122887392

Incidentally, the page also mentions that "Sometimes the split is only because of a roundabout flare, a small island not used by pedestrians or bicyclists for crossing. In this case there is no split needed, it is sufficient to set a separate node (not the node where the way is merging into the roundabout) tagged traffic_calming=island."

You can map this just as accurately without having to go to the trouble of splitting ways. :)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/122799872

Hi Scott,

Just a heads up on this edit.

The roundabout you modified at Fortress Road:

- The flares should have have names, at the moment they are not named.

-The connecting ways of a roundabout should not touch, regardless of how close they are.

junction=roundabout#Roundabout_Flares
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/122799872

It is definitely an odd one; not sure if there are any other examples in Melbourne!

Obviously significant weight should be given to the official name, and if it was simply a single operator or organisation using the alternate spelling, erring on the official name would be appropriate.

In this case, multiple Victorian Government departments, public transport operators (train + bus), local councils, and private businesses exclusively use the "Wattle Glen" spelling.

The Vicmap Transport dataset uses the Wattle Glen spelling, as does the Vicmap Overlay. Even visiting Vicnames will display the "Wattle Glen" spelling on the map.

Within the Victorian Government Gazette, the station has been repeatedly referred to as Wattle Glen when other legislation is being applied.

http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/gazette/Gazettes2018/GG2018G008.pdf#page=347

http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/gazette/Gazettes2011/GG2011G048.pdf#page=154

http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/gazette/Gazettes2018/GG2018S392.pdf#page=3

At some point in time, the "Wattle Glen" name looks to have been universally adopted.

Hi Ethan.

Thanks for your contributions. Would you mind sharing your sources for this change? I cannot find any official reference to this track name, or some of the other names you've added recently.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/122719610

Hey Supt,

Me again.

It appears this station has been repeatedly renamed in OSM for a long time.

I understand that Wattleglen is the gazetted name of the station, and it should definitely be included as the "official_name" of the station.

But the name tag in this case should use the ground truth name, as used by locals. In this case, Wattle Glen is on the signage, the timetables, the train departure screens, bus stations, etc. It is the best tag for the "name" field.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/122739041

It definitely is an unusual case!

I see where you are coming from regarding bike access. There is a "Begin Tollway" sign south of Olympic Park Oval (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=543018103351921&focus=photo) which seems to imply that bikes can travel on Batman Avenue up until that point - but there is nothing that cyclists would be going to. Would cyclists be permitted to dismount and walk to the adjacent cycleway maybe? Cyclists could feasibly use the section to access the driveway to the service carpark behind The Glasshouse?

We could feasibly add a bicycle=no tag (or even better, bicycle=use_sidepath) to the road section as any type of highway classification to capture the lack of utility for bikes and discourage routers from using the section.

Routing issues resolved in 122640590.

Routing issues resolved in 122640533.