Hi, would you mind letting us know what's your rational for deleting seemingly the whole of the Perth Bicycle Network? As far as I can tell, these all still exist as signed routes on the ground?

Hi, would you mind explaining why you are deleting a larger number of seemingly valid source tags from objects you don't otherwise touch?

Fixed: changeset/116734008

Thanks for pointing out the mistagging.

An error

Hi Guy,

there has been a lengthy discussion about this a few months ago on the talk-au mailing list, see the thread starting at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-October/015242.html

My reading of that thread is that there is a general consensus that such paths, if they exist on the ground, should remain mapped (for various reasons laid out on the thread) but should be clearly tagged to reflect their nature. (informal, visibility, smoothness, access=no IF there is no legal right to walk them, ....)

Please have a look at the linked thread.

Hi David, yes, I'm in North Lakes this weekend. I'm not opposed to meeting up, but given the COVID situation, I would prefer if that could happen outdoors (in shade), socially distanced, and with masks on. Feel free to send me a direct message.

Hi David,

I was well aware of your 15k+ edits before writing my comment. I would have taken a very different approach with a new-ish mapper. I just didn't think you need that level of hand-holding.

If you think I was a bit short with you, I'm sorry, please let me expand on that.

First, notice I didn't ask you to remove or change anything with this changeset.

I just didn't want you to keep going and end up adding a huge number of buildings via MapWithAI in this area. Especially north of Lake Eden.

A number of local mappers have reviewed the currently available Microsoft Building Footprints and came to the conclusion that it's going to take a more time and effort to verify and fix them than to simply draw the buildings by hand from scratch.

I've been holding off on continuing doing that as we have a direct statement from an ESRI employee that they are actively working right now on processing and making available the building footprints that the Moreton Bay Regional Council has contributed under the Esri Community Maps program, which after reviewing them in ArcGIS Online, are of much better quality than the Microsoft ones.

Adding a large number of the current footprints now would hugely increase the effort to use the better data in the future, for very little benefit in the meantime.

Please stop. The Microsoft building footprints in Australia are an absolute horrific mess.

ESRI is right now working on processing the infinitely better building data made available by MBRC which will be available through MapWithAI in the future.

This undiscussed, undocumented mass edit that didn't follow the osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct is introducing a huge amount of incorrect data to the database and should be reverted.

public_transport=platform doesn't automatically go onto every highway=bus_stop, only in cases where that's the only thing that's mapped.
if there is an actual waiting area of any kind, the public_transport=platform belongs on that instead.

see osm.wiki/Public_transport#Buses

Hi,

access=restricted is a known tagging error, see:

access=*#Possible_tagging_mistakes
and
access=restricted

Would you please correct that to "access=private"?

I had a quick look right now.

Using the latest Bing imagery, it seems that most of your kerbs seem fine, with the generally the right kerb type (it takes some experience to recognize the difference between a rolled and a raised kerb in imagery, but with the new bing and high quality esri imagery available, I can most of the time tell).

The geometry of could use some refinement (which is possible with the high resolution of the bing and esri imagery now) and alignment is a meter or so off in some places (I've verified the alignment of the available ESRI and Bing imagery for our area here, and I'm quite confident that it is correct within a few cm now).

The only necessary change of kerb type I noticed was with the new construction around Barnes Street, which I've done in changeset/111134096

I'll map all missing kerbs and refine the geometry of existing ones in the area in the, hopefully not too far, future.

Oh, one thing that makes kerb mapping a lot easier in JOSM is to the Colored Kerbs map style I created. I think it should be available for everyone in the map styles list in Preferences.

When the type of kerb changes for longer distances between e.g. rolled and raised, I split and tag them appropriately.

But I have to confess that I've taken often shortcuts in places where the kerb is lowered in one spot because of e.g. a footpath or driveway and in that case I've not split the way and instead just tagged barrier=kerb, kerb=lowered/flush on the node where the kerb and highway intersect.

With all the driveways I've mapped that has greatly reduced to work compared to having to split the kerb way every time.

I'm currently working my way down Discovery Drive and across Diamond Jubilee Way, and will have a more detailed look at the kerbs in Mango Hill Village after that.

Hi, just want to understand your reasoning for removing the kerbs.

What does "not specific in tagging" mean?

And I guess with the new construction in the area, the kerbs are changing a lot, or where is there any need to "maintain" mapped kerbs at all?

(This is not meant as a criticism for removing them, I just want to understand why you removed them as I've been mapping a lot of kerbs in North Lakes.)

I agree that it would be possible to just tag something (and it would actually be pretty straight forward to do so, take the definition of relation:restriction for a relation:permission with a role of u_turn_permitted), but the lack of support for this in iDs turn restriction editor makes creating them quite fiddly, and without support for it in routers, it's unfortunately pretty pointless.

Here are the "by law" rules for u-turns in queensland in the absence of signs, which (mostly) shouldn't be mapped as turn restrictions:

https://mypolice.qld.gov.au/sunshinecoast/2020/06/01/u-turns-how-well-do-you-know-the-rules/

I'm having a hard time trying to make sense of this changeset. It seems to be primarily a huge amount of unnecessary and/or faulty turn restrictions? (there are countless u-turn restrictions that fall under "Don't map turn restrictions that are the default for a given jurisdiction and are not signed. It is much better to ensure that routing engines embody the regional rule rather than mapping every occurrence as a turn restriction."

(Yes, the situation is complicated in queensland in regards to signaled intersections, because the law here is "u-turns are not permitted unless signed", but OSM doesn't seem to have a standardized way to record turn *permissions* as opposed to turn *restrictions*)

And I also noticed unnecessary restrictions in places where there are missing one-way tags, where the correct solution is adding the oneway tags instead of adding 6 turn restrictions.

Would you please elucidate your thought processes behind this changeset? Thanks!

Thanks for noticing that something was wrong with
way/589935481/

But it shouldn't have been deleted, instead the missing relation that it should be part of should have been added.

(I've undeleted the way and added the missing relation).

Ah, thanks for that information. It does indeed look slightly (a few months to half a year I would guess) newer than ESRI in some places. (Though it seems to be much lower resolution.)

Oh, also, for this local area, you may want to change your imagery to "Esri World Imagery (Clarity) Beta", which has generally newer, higher resolution, and especially important, much better aligned images than Bing.