Thanks for the reply NEades, much appreciated.

It's unusual that Vicmap is showing a different name for this lane; perhaps an error on their end. Do you have any mechanism to get in touch with your colleagues in state government to correct the error in their system?

Either way, I'm happy the name in OSM matches the signs.

Dian.

This change has broken routing at the Mickelham Road intersection with the offramp. way/74661894 (which was correctly tagged as a link road) now cannot travel straight onto the onramp.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131878743

These slip lanes were correctly tagged as link roads.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131877091

Hi NEades,

Thank you for your contribution.

Could you please confirm your source for the change of the name to "College Lane". Official naming sources indicate that this lane is called "Grass Tree Lane"
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131900111

Hi Derrick,

I understand what you are trying to do to get the node to "render" as you prefer, but Clayton North does not fit the definition of a quarter (indeed, the tag is not used in Australia).

Mistagging for the renderer (osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer) is considered bad practice. Please leave Clayton North correctly tagged as a neighbourhood.

Hi,

In this edit you've extended way/124693704 past the point of physical separation.

You've also deleted a lot of destination and turn restrictions which has negatively impacted routing.

I am unsure what further advice can possible be given to help you correct this mapping practice.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131793893

Hi Supt,

I stumbled across this edit when making some updates.

The boundary of the suburb Belgrave+Belgrave Heights follows the boundary as imported by the PSMA import. I have reverted your change: changeset/131754155
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113061683

No stress at all Matt.

The Vicmap Planning and Property datasets are covered by a waiver, and Bing Imagery is obviously usable.

I think the easiest resolution would be to go through your changeset and make sure that there is nothing there that is exclusively sourced from nearmap; if the fence line is visible in bing, for example, then that can be the source. :)

Hey Matt,

Thank you for your reply.

The URL used in your changeset source seems to have the nearmap url in it. What is the custom dataset/app you're using? It may have conditions of its own.

Dian

Hi icodethings,

Hi Wilburl,

Thanks for your contributions to SE Melbourne. :)

Unfortunately, the Nearmap does not have a compatible data license and cannot be used as a source for contributions into OpenStreetMap.

The Australian mapping community has compiled a list of compatible sources on the OSM wiki: osm.wiki/Australian_Data_Sources.

Happy to answer any questions you have.

Dian

Hi Ka-ma-al.

Thanks for your contribution to the St Albans area.

I can see you've tried to add houses to the area, but it appears you've used the incorrect tag.

The best way to tag houses is to use the tag building=house, or just use the "House" preset in the editor.

Happy Mapping!

Hi,

Not sure why you moved this one. It's now further away from the geographic centre and the "centre" of the suburb.

Hi Bubblyharp!

Thanks for your contributions.

Can I ask where you are sourcing the addresses from? The street address for these roads wouldn't generally include "Service Road".

Dian
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131568602

Thanks for the reply HighRouleur.

I don't quite understand what you mean by these roads aren't roads "in the traditional sense". A lot of newer, in-fill development will keep a kerb or other traffic calming measures to try to minimise traffic speed; that's not incompatible with highway=residential.

As a big fan of pipestem tagging myself, I think the definition of a pipestem is a bit broad; it could easily be applied to a traditional court or cul-de-sac. My interpretation has always been that pipestems are more like way/1123465671 : unnamed access driveways into residential blocks, with no integration with other roads.

As most, I could see these roads being tagged simply as "service": "Generally for access to a building, service station, beach, campsite, industrial estate, business park, etc." But driveway I think is too far from the nature of the road.

Hi HighRouleur. Happy New Year.

I'm afraid I disagree with your recategorisation of these roads. While they are narrower than other streets, they are still a lot more similar to a residential road than a shared driveway.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131482653

Hello,

What is your source for this hairdresser accepting bitcoin?

It is not mentioned on their website.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131290497

Hey Derrick,

In this case, there are three different post offices in Clayton. It doesn't make sense to move the label away from the centre of the suburb to just a single "town centre".

Hi Jeknyan!

Thanks for your contribution.

In this edit, it appears you accidentally prevented through traffic on Springvale Road. I've fixed it for you. :)

Happy mapping!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131125647

Hello,

In this edit you have deleted the parking aisle for no apparent reason?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131077225

Hello,

You are incorrect in this instance. Roads should not overlap without sharing a node, as it represents an intersection between the routable objects. This is correctly flagged as an error by all validation on iD