Thanks Vadmium. Makes complete sense. I must have been a bit tired and missedthat the chemist didn't have a street number, but you explained it perfectly. :)

Sometimes I find the individual numbering of addresses tedious as well... have to be in the right mood for it!

Keep up the good work - Dian

Hey Vadmium,

What are you using the interpolation for in these sitatuions in which each address is already mapped? My understanding of the interpolation tag is that it's only really used when there isn't any addresses in between.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/121742239

Hey melb_guy,

I don't believe the changes you have made to the former General Motors station are correct.

osm.wiki/Railway_stations#Stations_and_sites_which_are_not_currently_in_operation

It's not a building, and since its not in operation the railway=station tags are not appropriate.

Dian
---

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

No problem at all.

The name Poo Farm Track comes from the Vicmap datasets (osm.wiki/Australian_Data_Sources#Victoria).

Funnily enough, the Brabralung Trail doesn't seem to be gazetted particilarly well either; it apparently "ends" at Whisky Flat. Given the signage you've seen, I think Brabalung Trail may be applied to a number of differently named roads (and indeed, you can see the relation relation/12714312 also includes Ash Drive and Davenport Drive.

Given you were there, you're probably best placed to decide which one is the "real" name on the ground, but I'd suggest at the very least Poo Farm Track be kept in the official_name field. :)

Dian.

Hey TreeTracks,

Funnily enough, Poo Farm Track is actually the gazetted name of this road. (No doubt from the clarifiers at the end of the road).

Where was the signposted trail name from? It may be better mapped as a route than a road name?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/121499223

Hello;

Did you intend to remove the military base tag from HMAS Cerberus? Those tags appear to have been accurate

Hi Scott.

There are quite a few issues that I'd like to bring to your attention; I can see from your edit history that you are clearly a committed and passionate contributor. Unfortunately, this edit, along with a considerable amount of your previous edits, doesn't align with good mapping practice and makes routing data less accurate.

1 - Roads and Highways should not be split if there is no physical separation. Instead, the lanes:, change: and turn: tags should be used to describe roads of different width and legal description.

In this edit, the correctly mapped intersection from Matthew has been lost.

2 - Preserve the history.
A lot of your edits involve deleting roads or features and then redrawing them in a different shape. Please, do not do this. (osm.wiki/Keep_the_history).

Aside from removing the history trail of these features, in many cases you have not added all the tags from the deleted object, essentially removing valid mapping data. changeset/120499047.

changeset/120285705.

changeset/120284903.

The scale of these errors makes it almost impossible to easily restore this data.

3 - Roundabout modelling - Rather than creating multiple segments of "oneway" roads, you should follow the mapping advice documented at junction=roundabout. In particular, note that nodes within a roundabout should not be shared, and that ways should not intersect.

The road flares leading to a roundabout should keep the name: tag of the street they split from, rather than being unnamed ways. The same applies for when you split a carriageway for a traffic island at an intersection.

changeset/118314136
changeset/119187682
changeset/120167949

4 - There are some features that you have deleted or removed without really explaining why. The Grassy Woodlands Conservation Habitat Link Project, which was added by a user who surveyed the area, was deleted in changeset/118301160 which simply had the changeset comment "added park". By using good changset comments (osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments), it will help engage with other editors in your area and make collaboration a lot easier.

I've spent several hours trying to resolve some of the issues that varies edits have introduced, but there is still more work that needs to be resolved. Many of the bus relations need remedial work to reorder road segments (which is a very common issue when editing with iD, but is still time consuming!). Although this is a lot of words in one comment, I really want to encourage you to keep editing. Active contributors help keep everything up to date, and your time commitment is impressive. Mapping can be a difficult activity to complete individually, so I'd encourage you to also join the community at the talk-au mailing list or on discord (if you haven't already!).

If you have any questions or concerns about what I've raised here, please don't hesitate to get in touch.

Dian

Hello,

Thanks for your contribution.

This edit changed a service road into a fence, which doesn't appear to be correct. I've resolved it now.

Thanks for the reply breno. The existing uses are pretty interesting and it does seem like there is a precedent to follow!

I agree with your assessment of protected_areas not being suitable. In lieu of a more substantive answer from others, I'm happy with the way you've mapped this. I might do some research internationally on this and revisit it in the future through the mailing list/discord, but it's good for now. :)

Take care,
Dian

Hey Breno,

I'm not 100% sure that these unincorporated areas should be mapped in this way. By keeping the admin level and boundary=administrative, these are esentially mapped the "same" as those with real LGAs. These areas are "technically" managed directly by the state, which has been delegated to individual resort management boards

I'd be inclined to use a different boundary value: maybe protected_area (or even local authority). What do you think?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120935617

Hey Miki,

Thanks for your updates to the St Kilda area. It's great to see some more changes being made to improve the area!

I've just made a few very small adjustments to what you've added: I've straightened the u turn ways at Jacka Boulevard as it's generally better not to split ways unless there is physical separation; much in the same way intersections are shaped like boxes. :)

Dian
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120775357

Hey Phil!

Hope you are well :).

I didn't rely on any official source for this changing of classification, I ultimately relied on local knowledge. I made the change to align the clasisfication of Southern Road/Murray Road and Waterdale Road. Southern Road is busier than Waterdale Road as both a through way (to get to Albert) and a destination (Northland).

I updated Chifley in turn, but looking at it again with fresh eyes I probably would say I've over-egged the importance of that road, at the very least; Tertiary is probably more appropriate for that road.

Spending quite a bit of time over the last few months cleaning the wiki guidelines pages has helped me gain a better understanding of the subtleties in highway classification. I'm much more on the fence about the grading of Southern Road than I was, and if you are strongly in favour of changing it back to secondary I wouldn't object.

Hey, thanks for the heads up.

Not sure what happened here with my edit - I think I must have cleared it while trying to remove some of the tangled ways.

I've tried to realign it with what was my original intention, putting an only right turn on that off ramp edge. Happy to adjust again if that's not a winner either.

Hey Scott;

I think you've made a slight misjudgment here. These slip lanes are certainly not motorways, and should probably be left as links until they join the motorway.

Dian
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120373827

Hi Jw1t,

Thanks for the edit!

I've slightly adjusted what you've modified: I've changed highway=residential to highway=footway, as that would appear to be the best tagging.

If you hvae any questions or would like to know more about editing, get in touch!

Dian
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120234311

Hey Mitch. :)

Just saw this edit and noticed it will cause issues for routing software. When drawing dual carriageway intersections, its best to draw the lanes as a "box" rather than crossing them as an "X". osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway#How_to_map
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119836393

Thanks for the pick up kimo.

I've reverted my changes to 687895266.

Hi MapAnalyser,

You seem to have ignored my comments on your previous chage.

I explained details as to why I do not believe this tagging is correct.

Further, you've change the name of Mercer Drive to include a descriptive "Offramp".

Please explain to me why you are determined on these roads being "motorway links".
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119409419

Hello MapAnalyser,

I have not received a response, but I was able to conduct a survey myself earlier.

Terminal Drive and Mercer Drive have "END FREEWAY" signs almost as soon as you leave the Tulla. (I've added these as points). This implies that there is no access restrictions beyond that point, and indeed these roads have driveways and other access points which make them much more like "normal" roads than link roads. Similarly, Melbourne Drive doesn't "join" the freeway for some time, and it used to access the service station.

I have added points for the road signs, and adjusted the street types accordingly.

Dian

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.