Hi Supt,

In regards to not splitting ways where there is no physical separation, you can refer to both osm.wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways and osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway.

Both articles make it clear that physical separation (ie, a barrier) is necessary for determining if a carriageway should be split.

Specific guidance on dual carriageway intersections is documented osm.wiki/Junctions#Dual_carriageway_intersections.

Before notifying you in your edits, I have also reached out several times to the mailing lists and confirmed my understanding, beginning with:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-September/014968.html

There is documentation about the preferred method of indicating turn lanes, where it is legal to change lanes, etc on the following wiki pages:
turn=*
change=*.

I'd encourage you to jump on either the mailing list or the #oceania discord server. There are many people who are extremely passionate mappers, and it lends itself to discussion much better than changeset discussions. :)

way/1106500183 extends well past the point of physical separation, and even extends past where the carriageways split.

I have adjusted the geometry to meet best practice. I have also adjusted the highway type to be a link road, as it is a slip lane and not a main carriageway.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127979775

As discussed many times previously, these turn lanes have been modelled extending far beyond the point of physical separation.

I have changed the geometry to match best practice.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127979346

Hi Supt,

I'm aware the busway on the other side had been mapped incorrectly as well, which is why I didn't point it out as part of your edit. :)

The busway is separate as there is physical separation under the bridge with bridge supports.

I've previously mentioned how (https://osmcha.org) OSMCha allows users to easily verify changes within a specified area; it doesn't take very long at all to review all changes in Victoria over the last day or so.

Hi Supt.

way/1105994200 is not physically separated from the main carriageway. and should not be mapped separately.

Dian
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127913794

Hi Ant!

Thank you for your contributions.

Unfortunately, the license for MetroMap is incompatible with OpenStreetMap's license, and it cannot be used when contributing to OSM.

Specifically, Terms of Use (https://metromap.com.au/documents/Aerometrex_Data_Licence_Agreement.pdf) states "You may incorporate data extracted from the Products in documents
(e.g. project deliverables, reports, maps, brochures and other
printed or Digital material) for any purpose as long as these
documents are not offered for resale to third parties or otherwise
distributed to third parties for monetary value. To avoid doubt, you
may use such data extracted from the Products in perpetuity after
the expiry of any licence to the Products, provided that such use
remains in accordance with the terms and conditions contained
herein.

We try and keep the list of valid sources up to date here: osm.wiki/Australian_Data_Sources

Dian.

No problem at all. Your edits, from what I have seen, have been generally quite good so keep editing! :)

If you're a social person, I'd encourage you to check out the mailing list (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au) or the discord (https://discord.gg/openstreetmap).

Both are great places to ask questions and meet people, and they helped me out a lot. :)

Hey Supt,

Based on the conversation on Discord, it’s best we keep these roads as service/in the hierarchy. Also, apparently the Spirit of Tasmania is moving to Geelong during the month?

You’re always welcome to join the conversation: https://discord.gg/openstreetmap

Hey Supt!

I genuinely appreciate the reply. Makes me know that you are still a human. :)

You raise some good points; I don’t believe the National Highway declaration changes the fact these are service roads, but I’ll reach out to others for a second opinion to make sure I’m not off base.

Take care,
Dian

Hi Volga Shibe,

Thanks for your edits to the local area!

I've made a couple of minor adjustments to this intersection. I've shortened the length of the slip lanes to diverge closer to the actual point of physical separation. It's best practice to use the turn=* and change=* tags to indicate where there is an extra turning lane in those instances.

I've also added oneway tags to the segments inside the dual carriageway intersection, and changed the segments to match the roads around it. It's generally best to keep the road as the same classification as it passes through a major road, and data consumers can use the abstract representation of the intersection to adjust routing accordingly.

I hope this makes sense! Happy to help out further if required. :)

Dian
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126914792

Hello,

The roads at the Spirit of Tasmania carpark do not meet the definition of a primary road.

osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads

Please consult the tagging guidelines before making a similar change again.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126912494

Hi Melb_Guy.

Why did you add a curve to the end of way/6682975699? The road doesn't have a curve when it meets Main Road.

Also, you've extended way/6682975699 well beyond where there is physical separation for the way. It was correctly mapped before your edit?

Dian

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