Hi,
Here is another reported problem.
The end of Whitefield St is within 5 m of the cycleway .. it is not obvious from imagery that there is a separate cycleway here.
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=143.87484&lat=-37.55507&zoom=16&opacity=0.75&overlays=unconnected_major1,unconnected_major2,unconnected_major5,duplicate_ways

Solutions?

Remove the cycle way if it does not exist, make the road part of the route for the bicycle route.

A short 'cycleway' section to join the road to the cycleway to indicate that you can ride/walk from one to the other.

? Something else?

Thank you for your comment. Even more thanks for the mapillary! (PS how do you mount the phone to the bike? I am afraid mine will fall off! Arr not a phone.)
My attention was attracted to this by one of the OSM Quality Assurance tools that said there was a routing error here. I have made changes - Old Gembrook Rd now 'joins' the cycleway where the road ends .. so the QA tool will be happy and that matches the mapillery.

Again .. check it! I have made some changes to the surface tag - concrete at the western end - then asphalt then paved.

I have made a start on the southern section of the park. Lots of Slartibartfast going on. One problem is deciding when a tree area stops due to lack of tree density. If zoomed out it all looks dark green, zoom in and there is rock and heath.

I'll up load this bit when I have added a few more holes in it. Probably tomorrow.

hI.

Adding a road over the top of another road does not replace it.
A router already on the road will not divert off it to your new section. You have to remove that section of road that your new section replaces.

Ref way/30679254 (old) and way/667113475 (new - left turn lane).

Duplicate segment in relation/9226967

Duplicate segment in relation/9170174

Duplicate segment in relation/9175901

The mapping of the national park has exclusions inside that looked to be exclusions of non tree areas. I had not got back to that. Thanks for the reminder. I have now just rough checked it and it looks good, so I am now happy with that park boundary entry.

So .. do you want to add a rough tree area (not on the park boundary) .. or will you wait for me to do it?

Just done the Syd. Royal NP as a separate tree area. But I think some of that tree area will go to scrub.

It is not easy.
The problem with a team all working with similar goals in the one area can lead to this duplication.

How to over come it? I'd try separating the area and/or the goals of each mapper. But I don't know the team and its goals so cannot say definatly one way of the other. Good Luck.

Hi,
There are a few repairs to do ...

ps://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=147.21387&lat=-31.88315&zoom=6

Hi,

The entry of Merlin Street .. does not join to itself - there are 2 nodes that should be one node so that the street joins .. not overlay these nodes.
Node: 1864778964
Node: 6236207892

These kind of problems can be found by looking at
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=147.21387&lat=-31.88315&zoom=6

Hi,
Your entry for Clugstons Road is a duplicate of one made ~ 10 minutes earlier by miroslavuzice87

... I'll leave you to delete it and work out how to aviod similar difficulties?

It take a while :(
It is a little better, but needs more. Too hot to do Coats Track now.

Tower Hotel is the name. Fine Wines is an advertising description.

Relation outer ways should not touch.

Fixes -
Buildings as separate ways- one as a roof the other as retail.
shop as a simple node.

There are a number of them on dead end side roads .. no thoroughfare. An occasional resident.

I'll change this one. toll both. When I get to it. There are quite a few in National Parks with similar policies.

Sorry but this does generate error messages. So I have crudely fixed it.
The buildings are now correct.

The outer way for Huonville High School has the address data from your, now deleted, relation. This outer way could be divided into the High School and Primary School to distinguish between the two if you want. Or you could just rename it to incorporate both.

Hi,
A relation is not needed for this scrub. I have made it into 2 separate simple ways.

Hi,
I have;

Deleted tag natural=wood from the National Park relation.

Added new relation for the tree area - so it does not follow the NP boundary, has holes for non tree areas. It is fairly coarse, but better than using the NP boundary.

The national park is not all trees. I have;

Deleted tag natural=wood from the National Park relation.

Added new relation for the tree area - so it does not follow the NP boundary, has holes for non tree areas. It is fairly coarse, but better than using the NP boundary.

Hi,

It is much much better to have a separate relation for the tree area!

So I have;

Deleted tag natural=wood from the National Park relation.

Added new relation for the tree area - so it does not follow the NP boundary, has holes for non tree areas. It is fairly coarse, but better than using the NP boundary.