So the Waal river is in a tunnel under the under the Zalige Bridge.

Or the Gooimeer (lake) is in a tunnel under the Hollandse Brug (bridge).

I think not.

A bridge does not mean the thing under it is in a tunnel.

It is a bridge. Nothing in the definition of a bridge specifies its maximum width to length ratio.

dygituljunky I’d place a note on both ways to say the runway is on a bridge, and the road way goes under a bridge - so the road way is not in a tunnel.

Take a look at what others use it for …

osm.org/diary

Errr I think I may have put those comments about phone numbers on the Ozwiki… use with caution.

‘Unofficial tags’ get used all the time … as long as there is documentation for them and they are not in conflict with any other tag you should be free to use them, just check that they have some documentation so others can understand what the tag means.

The 1800, 1300 and 1900 numbers, as you say, are for national use only. Some of these have alternative numbers for international callers, I’d think those are few and far between. Never seen the phone:*= used … don’t know if it is implemented. I would tend to keep the phone=1800 etc as it is, no country code.

The boundaries between the phone codes don’t always follow the state admin boundaries … so you cannot use that. I don’t know the copyright situation on any published phone code boundaries, go carefully there. It would be OK to use the assumed phone codes in the state capitals and surrounds. Else where knowledge will play a big part in determining the code to use.

The number of people trying to ring Australia from overseas using OSM … extremely small? Consider the usual time differences and an email contact just makes so much sense.

A local printer might like to make copies for sale? Any profits could go to a local charity…

Have a good holiday season.

Hi,

Any entry that results in a misleading map I would revert immediately. Not a matter of curtsy to the person that made the entry, but a matter of maintaining a map that is honest.

Leaving a comment on the relevant changeset can be done, but when it it a repeat offense .. what is the point?

The only road bicycle specific one is to make a bicycle route relation. The wiki says something about it having to be marked. It also says something about it being in use. I take the view that it must be helpfull to bicycle riders. The parts of the world ‘we’ are talking about don’t have the infrastructure nor funds to mark out these routes .. they would rather feed their populations. So I would ignore the requirement that the route be marked. You will probably find local cyclist use it too. I look forward to how others would mark it so as to identify it as a bicycle friendly way to go.

There are those who think a simpler map is ‘better’ - less confusing, less clutter, easier to understand. There are those who think more detail is ‘better’ - reflects ground truth, aids detailed navigation.

I have come across those those who reduced the information … make it ‘simpler’. I am in the other camp - more detail to reflect what is there.

A vector map can have lots of detail, and not show it when zoomed out - thus making the map ‘simpler’ yet retaining the detail when zoomed in. If the data is not there then when zoomed in that data is missing. So that is how I justify my preference for that data detail.

Errg correction to the above!

Traveling as an Australian you sometimes get taken as an Austrian.

Traveling as an Australian you somethings get taken as an Austrian.

One abbreviation for Australia is AUS … and some take that for Austin, Texas, USA …

Just as you have edited existing entries in OSM, so people may have edited your entries?

changeset/60090584 deleted;

some relations .. they look to be turn restrictions.

some ways

some nodes

The people who put those in .. should they take offense and cease contributing to OSM?

What I am getting at .. are any of these changes made to ‘your’ entries destructive to the map?

Note: the ‘your’. Once you have entered data it is no longer ‘yours’ but the communities. Certainly some monitoring is a good thing both to gauge others perception as to the accuracy of the changes and any updates that may occur.

Unless the changeset was reverted then I would think the changes you have noted are simply others doing the same as yourself - trying to improve the map.

At low zoom you may not need to show the boundary labels.

Unfortunately some boundaries are bound (pun) to resemble paths. Best if ther is some way to differentiate between them.

Map, free of influence? My view; A map should not make ethical judgments. A map should show what is there, not desires or wishes.

However unjustified, illegal, morally incorrect something might be, the map should show the reality.

There are quite a few places in the world that I think should be under different control. I leave their presence in OSM alone, I do see that these are my wishes not reality. I don’t think I have helped. But I note your concerns over the area.

The number of people who look at changeset comments is small .. and they would be mostly spam proof too :)

Hi, You need to be more carefull with your statements, such as;

“I relied on some sources:

• Multiple map sources: Google Maps HERE WeGo”

Possibly you compared some sources?

And then you used in OSM ?

Hi, Unfortunately agree with Wolfgang. Breaches copyright, so needs to be reverted.

After the reversion… delete the stuff that is no longer there .. probably tag the area as landuse=brownfield to signify removal.

Then look at adding the new stuff, using what is acceptable from a copyright perspective. It may take some time for that to become avalible on satellite imagery at OSM can use.

Both https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=embassy and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:diplomatic=consulate have the status ‘De Facto’. They may not have been discussed on the tagging mailing list, certainly they have not been ‘approved’ by the formal process that goes through that list.

Most people don’t know of the differences, they just want a passport/visa and go to these places for them. So they have been all lumped together as ‘embassies’.

Starting with a clean sheet of paper the tagging may have been better with;

amenity=diplomatic (rather than embassy) and then

diplomatic=embassy/consulate/etc

OSM though is very hard to deal with when ‘established tags’ are challenged with better more logical tags that actually make more sense. There is a reluctance to change that is monolithic.

I don’t see a ‘leaderboard’ as a great thing. They encourage making lots of changes/additions, but not quality of the resulting map.

Note that I am not taking of the correct tagging and/or syntax, but rather the conformity of the map to the ground truth. Does the map represent what is there well?

Sorry … I’m tired. The above should read..

Thanks 101.

Yes it is ‘tagging for the render’ and ‘we’ all do it. A selection is made that is ‘recognized’ so that the result of the entry will render - hopefully with something that matches what is on the ground. The only reason why I’d use ‘landuse=grass’ is because it renders, I alway try to tag grass as what it truly is - ‘landcover=grass’!

I’ll make some change tomorrow.

Good night.