Il manque tous les liens et la carte des membres, mentionnés dans le texte.

Isn’t Tasmania quite sensitive to the continental drift ? I mean, as compared to the worldwide WGS84 which does not account for local drifts, whereas official geodesic data and survey is aligned to physical positions on the ground and trinagulation, using its own local coordinate system, whose offset with GPS will constantly vary over time. This drift can be several centimeters each year on average over large areas (more than about 100km-wide), but may be larger in some local areas, especially on “fluid” soils, or because of major geological events (sometimes dramatically after landslides). To have our OSM data taking account of this, we wouldneed to qualify all coordinates with the refernece geodesic system with which it was mapped, and with a reference date. In OSM these coordinates should “normally” be converted to WGS84 coordinates at the time of mapping, because we cannot use multiple coordinate ssytems, but according to the current offset of the reference geodesic system with the GPS/WGS84 system; however the sources used for this mapping often do not indicate the reference date used, even if they indicate their reference geodesic system; this makes automatic correction impossible, and over time data imported in OSM from different sources with different geodesic systems and different dates will become disaligned in a very dispersed way. I do not see how to solve this solution easily, especially when after the fact, some people start doing their own “manual cleanup” of disalignments, by choosing arbitrarily one of the available imageries (which also have used different MNT data for their orthocorrection, computed at diferent dates, these being also not tracked correctly in existing photographic sources). That’s why we cannot easily get metric precision (over a significant period valid for several yearts), even if the orthophotographic or other imported data sources show details up to several centimeters. It’s then up to OSM mappers to find local compromizes, knowing that everything will drift over time, but at least they should make the data coherent locally, so that distances, proportions and angles are locally correct and match the reality observed on the ground and in all sources and surveys.

RGPD: privacy tatemrnt missing for this survey hosted on an unknown site.

Il semble y avoir des désaccords sur les numéros de référence (par exemple Osmose signale une “D106E”, idem le cadastre, mais les deux ont tord car sur le terrain c’est en fait “D 106E1”. Omose signale alors une erreur de “décalage” alors que ce n’est pas du tout un problème de géométrie (vérifiée très précisément sur BD Ortho et parfaitement au milieu de la route visible sans jamais sortir de la largeur de chaussée ni même de plus de quelques centimètres car on voit précisément les points centraux) mais de désaccord sur le numéro de référence.

Se peut-il que le cadastre ait tronqué les numéros de référence en admettant une seule lettre après un numéro de base, et aucun indice numérique après ?

Si Osmose ne trouve pas une ref mais trouve une route précisément bien positionnée, le message devrait être différent pour indiquer une différence de numéro de ref (et parfois, souvent même, c’est le cadastre qui a tord et n’est pas à jour avec les indications sur le terrain!)

L’absence ou la présence d’un indice ne semble pas être un facteur limitant (je ne parle pas d’un écart entre ref=”D 108” et ref=”D 106” (qui devrait être corrigé en old_ref=*) mais bien d’une différence entre ref=”D 108” et ref=”D 108E” (toujours faux à mon avis) ou ref=”D 108E1” (la lettre doit être souvent suivie d’un indice sauf quand cette lettre est A ou B, mais la lettre E désigne un “écart”, une petite branche locale de la route principale et ces écarts ont leur indice propre).

And note that massive automated tagging of highways made by Amazon is completely in contradiction with OSM policies. Those automated edits should have been blocked and reverted (not all driveways are private, notably those connecting commercial areas, hotels, campings, tourism parks, hospitals, or other services that are open with some restrictions to the general public at opening hours or for limited goals such as temporary paid residence and delivery).

But almost all barriers in OSM are between highways with different access rules; tagging the barriers themselves does not add any value, given that you cannot go further on the restricted roads already tagged with access rules.

My comment was about the statement made above that 95% of barriers (and most probably even more!) are not tagged, but in fact they don’t even need it ! And almost all barriers that have been tagged with access rules could have been left without such tagging.

So don’t spend much time to update tons of barriers where the real need is to tag the highways (or areas). I bet that such need is needed only in very rare cases (e.g. as trafic calming measures and only when there are other unrestricted accesses to these areas, so this only concerns accesses to quite large areas such as quarters, large hospitals, harbours, airports), or motorways with toll for general access (other accesses being closed by barriers with restrictions for service/emergency and only if there’s no specific restricted service highway to join them)

So the comment saying that 95% of gates are not tagged is just indicating that they DO NOT even need to be tagged at all, as the access restrictions applicable to connected highways are clearly enough in 95% of cases (the same!)

As well some large gates (and other kinds of barriers) could be draw as areas (notably those passing under a building or under a large fortified wall, or with special equipment on the ground over a large surface, including possibly an elevating bridge left under water or above ground when the gate is closed, or plots raising from the ground that will be brought down to open the access only for some authorized vehicles with remote controls, or multiple parallel barriers)

So limiting to the case of tagging nodes with access is a stupide idea !

In fact the access restriction ALWAYS apply to a larger area starting at these nodes. So it’s much better to tag access restrictions ONLY to the connected highways (or to surfaces containing them) !

The example at top of this page is clearly a case where such addition of access tags for gates is completely unnecessary ! (and this is demonstrated on the map that shows the gray-dotted lines on the highways, that were correctly tagged.

The “access”=* tags on HIGHWAYS connected to the gate are ENOUGH.

And remember that gates are not necessarily only nodes, they can be ways as well, cutting through the highways (with an intersection node which should be positioned as a valid intersection, but that does not necessarily needs to be tagged as a gate, if the way drawn for the gate passing through that intersection node is already tagged as a gate).

note that 6 months is not exceptionnaly old in imagery sources; most of them are only refreshed once in about every 3-10 years. They may be yearly updates, but only to integrate the coverage of some subareas. Some of them are refreshed more often because there are collectivities paying for them (and I’m not speakingabout satellite imagery, whose resolution is quite poor, but really about aerial imagery, made from planes, or very high resolution imagery made with drones that cannot cover a very large area and generally cover an area not larger than a typical village or small town). this requires people, time of work from them on the field, or paying the cost or plane flights and the personal driving them and maintaining them. This require time to process the images, qualify those that are usable (e.g. dismiss cases where images are blurred by clouds or sun flares on the objectives, or data losses and incorrect encodings, or cases where images are highly deformed by the elevation and there’s still no consistant data on the elevation at a sufficient resolution, or because the precise location of the images were lost with reception errors from GPS mesurements during the capture). Imagery is not free (as a beer), there’s necessarily someone paying for them (even if it’s a non-profit NGO which also has limtied resources and depends on donations and free participation of volunteers).

For a newer infrastucture that is still not on the imagery, you can still estimate its location by comparing with local snapshots you take on the field or that your find in services like Mapillary. This is generally enough to make a draft but quite good estimation with low margin of errors for the positioning. you can still draw that in OSM and place a “fixme” tag indicating that the estimation may be reviewed later for better precision if needed, you can easily measure the margin of imprecision from the existing imagery.

The only case where this is problematic is after a major castrophic event that radically changes the field (like cyclone, volcanic eruptions, large fires, and landslides) so that it will never be the same again. But for these events, there are NGOs helping and taking imagery captures rapidly, plus the participation of aerial imagery organization to provide a recent source of data in those most affected areas, because they are needed to manage the emergency and plan the recovery with lot of local participants and many volunteers from around the world.

So 6 months is not old. We are much better interested in getting higher resolution images that allow feeling the gaps generally easily, with the additional local knowledge (and in your case, a train line is a large object which has a very smooth geometry, it’s quite easy to be very precise by locating precisely only very few points. You’ll need the imagery only for details (e.g. the exact position of side tracks and crossings from one track to another, or some local equipement along the line, like the position of poles suppring the electric feed or the exact position of a bridge (but note that bridgers for trains take months to be built and consolidated: in 6 months, you may already see the work in progress or the bridges already there, even if there’s still no rail on it and the line is still not fully connnected to the rest of the network.