Hi Loopylupus3,

Welcome to OSM!

You might have noticed the errors you would have gotten when you published this changeset.

The park you added is a little strange - it's full of pedestrian crossings and self-intersecting lines. You also seem to have given the park a building:levels tag?

You might want to take a look at what you've done here and give it a bit of a cleanup. Please feel free to reach out if you need help.

Hi AleCuata,

Thanks for your contributions to the map.

I just wanted to check your thought process on Heartland Park - you seem to have added it as several separate areas. Is there a reason you mapped it this way?

Typically we map areas like this as one feature, either as a single closed way (line) or series of ways (lines) as a single relation.

Deletion reverted in changeset #116088603 after no response to changeset comment. Please feel free to reach out if you feel this was in error.

Hi Bill,
If it's not a recognised name, then it's probably best just to leave the name tag off for now.

Hi Bill,
If the path is unnamed, it's perfectly fine to just leave it without a name at all.
I haven't been out that way for a good few months, I'll have to check the new path out soon.

Hi Bill,
Just wondering where the name Narara Airfield Loop comes from? I've never heard it called that before.
Is there new signage up there?

Hi, you have way/1015938282 marked as a building... looks like some kind of road?

Hi Hamish,
This was marked as a driveway, which appears to be the case on imagery. Has the driveway been removed?

Hi!
The paths you added in the North side of Copp Park seem a little strange (especially the long zig-zag bit near Gold Star Highway) is it possible that you accidentally dragged something into the wrong place?

The building and surrounding road were removed in changeset #114985367 if this was in error and the building needs to be undeleted, please feel free to reach out with proof of the building's existence and I will assist in restoring the features if required.

Hi dwh1985,

If I don't hear from you in the next 24 hours, I will remove this building and the other features added in this changeset. The imagery from March this year shows this location covered in woods with no clearing. It seems very unlikely a building of this size and design could have been constructed in such little time.

Hi!
You have this: way/1009206345 marked as a house. It looks like it might be water?

Hi!
You have this: way/1009244668/ marked as a canal. Is that correct? Looks like it might be farmland like the surrounding areas?

Hi!
You have this: way/1009391750/
as a building - maybe it should be farmland or similar?

Hi cholmes1,

OSM is a public map, and your changes are visible to everyone. I will remove your personal information from this house.

Hi Volynia1919,

I'm afraid your changeset comment doesn't make much sense. I can't find any evidence of a temple complex having been on the map at this location before, nor can I find any evidence of a temple complex existing at this location.

Your previous changeset 2 years ago added an impossibly large cafe to this location.

The photo image you've added on this new building links to something that doesn't appear to really exist.

Are you able to provide more information to add context to this addition?

Hi dwh1985.

Just curious if you have any info about this star-shaped building: way/1008923823

It looks really interesting! What was your source on it? Does it have a name?

Hi Clara,

Welcome to OSM!

On OSM, with a few exceptions, we typically work off the idea of "one feature, one OSM element" which typically means you don't need to duplicate features such as parks and schools as both nodes and areas.

osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

For example, the park node you created for "Greenbiar local park" represents the same feature as the existing park area. The node doesn't need to exist as the area was already on the map.

Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions!

Please do not add fictional features to OpenStreetMap.

Hiya Andrew,

Thank you so much for taking the time to write such a detailed reply to my questions.

> “I haven't found any reference material on which approach to apply when. Is it just a case of 'scale'? What are the ‘cons’ of closed ways?”

I suggest checking out this wiki page: osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon towards the bottom, there’s a really great breakdown under the header “Mapping Style, Best Practice”. As with almost everything on OSM, there’s a debate there, but for me it comes down to the last point regarding sparing a consideration for future mappers and being wary that making things needlessly complex is just asking for something to go awry at a later point in time.

On the Coast, we’ve generally been moving away from having smaller parks and similar areas formed out of complex collections of dozens of ways as it makes things really, really hard to maintain as all the new development occurs here (especially around the north end of things where new places are being built all the time).

> “I’ve redone the park (and swimming area) as closed ways, and merged some of the split ways. Is this now correct?”

This looks better, but you’ve got the park as a one-member relation – the relation that was the park can be removed and the tags can be moved back to the way that forms the area.

>”use the DCS base map to define residential areas strictly, with those that go to the lake edge separate to the areas that don't; splitting the lake edge line at the points where the residential meets the lake and create a relation there. This does look clumsy as I didn’t apply the correct road/residential area interpretation everywhere.”

I wouldn’t be linking separate residential areas under a single relation, but aside from that, I personally think the areas you’ve created are generally okay, and your work is neat and tidy from what I can see. Just bear in mind that the landuse “ground truth” may occasionally differ from the DCS map, so you may need to think about some areas rather than just defaulting to what DCS thinks is there. Our job here is to map locations as they are, not just copy DCS – though that’s an easy trap to fall into.

There’s a few mapping styles of landuse in different parts of the Coast, I personally prefer the really detailed version that allows for roads, retail, and other non-residential features to be excluded. Though, so long as things are neat and tidy, I think we can all get along, haha.

If I’m mapping residential block-by-block, I typically won’t use a relation unless there’s something inside of an area like a large council-owned water basin or other non-residential feature.

> “similarly for land cover, I have created a way for the landside edge of lakeside woodland, even if it overlaps residential, and joined it to the Lake edge with a relation. (I thought I had done a similar thing along Dora Creek, but this renders differently, so probably not).”

For small areas of park/natural features, it may be easier both now and for others editing in the future to just create a single closed way area as opposed to making some kind of really complex series of relations between the water and adjacent landuse.

If the woods are part of a much larger area though, you may want to consider a relation still.

As things are in reality, landuse and landcover/natural features can intersect. I used to live in a house that was unquestionably residential, but I had rainforest woodland out the back that grew into my yard, The line was fuzzy and it’s generally ok to represent that in OSM by intersecting areas of that kind.

Best,

Wood