Nev, these were already added prior to this changeset, nlseven just changed the building types, which looks fine.

Thanks for fixing this one. There still exists an amenity=shelter here, just it shouldn't be conflated with the highway=bus_stop so I've mapped it out in way/1411345167

Thanks. For some of these I've used `addr:unit:designation=Shop` to try and retain that information that would otherwise be lost.

This tag hasn't been used yet, but is the best I could come up with.

I don't think it's a good idea to make changes based on transport plan maps, firstly mass mapping based on this is not okay from these copyrighted maps, secondly are you sure that these plans reflect the current reality and not future aspirations? even then why take their plans over surveyed data in OSM, if anything they could be used to check potential issues to add a note or do a ground survey to check.

I had to change way/206811740/history back to footway since there's no bicycle signage here.

hi what are you basing these changes on? In particular changing the roads from under construction to completed?

It looks like everything is changed to line up with the DCS Base Map however that will show roads which are still under construction or even not even started.

Actually I'm not sure since the other telescopes are tagged as man_made=observatory within the amenity=university.

It just doesn't seem right to tag the site as amenity=university since it's a dedicated research site run by the university but not a university where students go to classes or researchers have normal offices.

Should this be considered within/part of the Mount Kent Observatory complex?

https://www.unisq.edu.au/study/why-unisq/unisq-stories/research-stories/smartnet seems to suggest so, in which case we should extend way/516925285 to cover this site and then also tag man_made=observatory on that way.

Then this way could be tagged man_made=telescope + telescope:type=optical would that be a better fit?

What do you think?

Thanks! I added https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q157332 as the operator:wikidata.

Does this appear on the imagery here, it doesn't line up with any of the imagery sources we have.

What's DLR stand for?

Indeed when I tried with https://brouter.de/brouter-web/ here it also tried to cross the road where there's no crossing but I customised the routing profile (increasing path_preference from 0 to 20) and then it avoided crossing at the non-crossing instead re-routing me along the mapped footpaths and through the designated crossing.

So essentially I think this issue is best addressed in your routing engine profile and it's not really an issue with how the data is mapped in my view.

Thanks for the context, and I can see the issue that most routing engines will still route along the road in addition to or instead of the dedicated mapped footpath network. I can understand why though, since not everywhere has the footpaths mapped out and many places there are no footpaths so it must route you along the road.

From a data point of view I just don't thing crossing=no is needed, does it mean you aren't allowed to cross or just that there's no dedicated infrastructure to cross.

If the crossing=no is to mean you aren't allowed to cross then that's incorrect, from a road rules point of view you're only forbidden to cross within 20m of a crossing, which around here is really only between the bus stop at node/356553525 and the intersection of Milton/Grimes. Further along to the south/west you are allowed to cross.

If the crossing=to is to mean there is no dedicated infrastructure to cross, that's already implied by the lack of a highway=crossing node around here.

I don't think the common routing engines take crossing=no along a way into account for example osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_valhalla_foot&route=-27.474418%2C152.994533%3B-27.476593%2C152.996762#map=18/-27.475192/152.995643&layers=N still seems to cross the road there (while these don't update straight away, I think they have updated their data by now).

I'm not sure what routing engine and profile you're using on your Journey Planner or how often you ingest data updates but it still crossing here https://jp.translink.com.au/plan-your-journey/journey-planner?searchDate=2025-07-01&searchTime=3%3A00pm&startLocationId=PL%3AEilNdW5ybyBTdHJlZXQsIEF1Y2hlbmZsb3dlciBRTEQsIEF1c3RyYWxpYSIuKiwKFAoSCXsKrLO4UJFrEXh1YkOolqpEEhQKEglHzWClr1CRaxEAf97zWqMCBQ&start=Munro+Street%2C+Auchenflower+QLD&endLocationId=ST%3Aplace_aucsta&end=Auchenflower+station&timeSearchMode=LeaveAfter&maximumWalkingDistance=4000&walkingSpeed=Normal&fareTypes=Free&fareTypes=Prepaid&fareTypes=Standard&serviceTypes=Express&serviceTypes=NightLink&serviceTypes=Regular&serviceTypes=School&transportModes=Bus&transportModes=Ferry&transportModes=Train&transportModes=Tram

Likely the solution likes with the routing engine in the profile rules, to weight more strongly against crossing where there is no highway=crossing so it'll still do so if you're in an area with no footpaths mapped, but it'll prefer taking you on a bit of a detour to cross at a designated crossing.

Thanks for adding HEMS 4 in way/352054938/history

I just changed it to emergence=air_rescue_service + air_rescue_service=aeromedical since this tag is documented at air_rescue_service=aeromedical and went through a formal proposal in 2023 and was approved. It provides a distinction between a typical ambulance station which operates from vehicles and aeromedical ambulance services offered by HEMS4 here.

We still include operator=Ambulance Victoria to indicate it's part of that organisation.

I've also mapped a few other the other Air Ambulance Victoria operation bases this way.

Does this work?

hi the suburb, postcode and state aren't needed since these are already derived from existing boundaries mapped. Indeed these addresses were imported from Vicmap data and we intentionally omitted this data for this reason.

No problem. My main issue is that name="Train 427: Dubbo XPT" isn't what these routes are known as on the ground, in common local knowledge or in official documentation, it's an invented name purely from PTv2. We should be using route names that closely match what the route is known as on the ground or referred to as in documentation like official websites, timetabling etc.

If people want a name in the "Train 427: Dubbo XPT" format they can easily build this as `${mode} ${ref}: ${name}` or whatever other format they like.

Yeah I made them back on the 21st. Unfortuantly that tag isn't shown on the default map here.

The "Tracestack Topo" style osm.org/#map=19/-36.907493/147.162343&layers=PN does show it as "T3".

Other maps like OSMAnd can show it under Configure map > Routes > Hiking trails difficulty grade.

could you provide any further documentation for this change?

could you provide any further documentation for this change?

hi I see you've removed the IUCN number, I don't know much about it but I've asked the person who added it at changeset/47349280

The IUCN number you added was removed in changeset/168213240 but I don't know much about IUCN numbers to understand what it should be here?

not sure what you mean by symbol? Maybe you mean tag?

I added the sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking tag to way/1408273600 which is probably the best way to tag a "steep rock" section that you need to use your hands to navigate through.