Hi Xuecai,

Thank you for your contributions to OSM.

May I ask how your added this data? Was this imported from another dataset or did you trace the treecover by hand?

Hi Warin,

Thanks for the pickup, not sure what happened there.

I've fixed the crossing ways and improved the trees.

Hi Mlik Point;

The 7ways navigation app uses information sourced from OpenStreetMap; it is likely that the roads you are referring to are being sourced from the contributions you introduced yourself.

Again, I'm confused as to why you believe a road name like "Value Car Park", which drives through the centre of the carpark is a useful and valid name. The destination tag is used by most (or should be used by most) routing algorithms to provide the turn information data, even if you cannot see it render on the map: osm.wiki/Routing.

Dian

It may also be worth reading osm.wiki/Lying_to_the_renderer, which explains why mistagging or misusing tags (such as the name field) to force rendering is unhelpful.

Hi Mlik Data.

In this edit, you've referred to TomTom data as a source.

TomTom data is not compatible with OSM's data license and cannot be used. You must not copy data from incompatible data sources when contributing to OSM.

Further, as discussed, these are descriptive names. They do not belong in the map. I have referenced the policy explaining why they are descriptive names. Official sources with compatible data licenses (such as Vicnames) has been provided as a source as to why these names are not "real".

This edit will be reverted for the above reasons.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126038894

I’ve explained on previous edits why this usage of the name field is not correct.

I have consulted with the community on discord, which has confirmed the view that had been expressed on the mailing list.

It is not appropriate to ignore what others are saying simply because believe your methods are better.

I have conducted a survey of the area, and these are not the names of the streets. The signs are not street signs, but destination signs.

Thanks for the reply Mlik Point.

I understand your point regarding the signage at Melbourne Airport. I was there within the last week and .

The distinction here is between destination signage and street naming. In these cases, the signage is describing the destination of the roads, rather than what the name of the road actually is. A simple example is a drive-thru at McDonalds: it may have a sign that says “drive-thru” but that is a destination/description, not the literal name of the road.

There are cases where an otherwise descriptive name will be gazetted and adopted as the formal name. In Melbourne Airport, there is a “TSB Access Road”, which has been gazetted to assist emergency services.

I’m happy to continue this discussion either on the mailing list or discord; the change set discussions aren’t great for conversation!

I’d also caution you against using Google Maps or any other commercial source that has an incompatible data license with OSM. We cannot use information based on Google, or derived from StreetView images.

A list of valid sources is available here: osm.wiki/Australian_Data_Sources

Hey Mlik Point.

I can see you've adjusted your changeset comment, but I can't work out what you are trying to explain. Do you mind replying on a changset comment?

Dian

For more information, see discussion at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-March/016052.html

Hi Mlik Point. You've explicitly reverted a change to reintroduce these descriptive names. This is not correct, as discussed. The names of these streets are not as you have entered them.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/125966015

Hi Mlik Point,

I noticed you are adding "descriptive names" to roads in the Melbourne Airport area.

The name field should not be used to describe what the road is or does. These roads do not have formal names and should be left unnamed.

osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions

If you want to indicate where a road goes, the "destination" field is most suitable.

Dian

Hi orthogonizer,

Thank you for your contribution. In this edit, you've added a new school overlapping the existing The Alpine School at that location. I've adjusted it so that there is only one school at the location again.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/125836582

Hi Melb_guy,

As discussed, we can't use the source provided to update imagery, as it is incompatible with the OSM data license.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/125502208

Hi Melb_guy,

As discussed, we can't use the source provided to update imagery, as it is incompatible with the OSM data license.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/125502208

Hey Map Analyser,

Where did you find the Link name from for this onramp? I can't find it in any official source :)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/125478471

Hey Map Analyser,

Where did you find the Link name from for this onramp? I can't find it in any official source :)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/125478471

Hey Map Analyser,

Where did you find the Link name from for this onramp? I can't find it in any official source :)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/125478471

Hey Melb_Guy.

Do we have permission to be using metromap data? I don't see it on the resources page on the wiki

This edit is incorrect. There is no physical separation at Henry Street at this intersection. Further, by introducing the superfluous way you have broken the bus route relations.

I have explained, at length, why mapping lanes with no physical separation is incorrect.

Ignoring accepted mapping practice is not acceptable.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/125429691

Hello,

This edit is incorrect.

As per official sources, this road segment is Old Princes Highway.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/125428956

Hello,

This edit is incorrect, and results in intersecting roads at the intersection. You've also reintroduced a separate way where there is no physical separation.

I have already explained, at length in different changeset comments, why this mapping practice is not correct.

Ignoring accepting mapping practice is not acceptable.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/125387104