aharvey's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 76128662 | about 6 years ago | With respect to https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/629142495 last time I was here there was a bicycle dismount sign -> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/UnMwUempYTkOa1uAti79vg Is that sign no longer there? As you changed this from bicycle=dismount to bicycle=designated. |
| 76127246 | about 6 years ago | Oh yeah I missed that. Yes that implies that it's some kind of bicycle infrastructure and bicycles are allow. Thanks for confirming that. |
| 76128370 | about 6 years ago | In your change you've made Arthur Street continue further along past the intersection but according to the signage on the ground https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Sd8o0YzS4Az6az1JTMaE5Q the road name changes at the intersection, so I've reverted this change. Also on the footbridge I couldn't see any signage that says it's a cycleway. |
| 76127213 | about 6 years ago | Yeah I can see this was only you're second edit. I certainly don't want to discourage you from more editing, please keep it up. |
| 76127246 | about 6 years ago | It's best practice to map what's on the ground osm.wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground so generally what other maps say doesn't matter much compared to what information can be determined from on the ground. |
| 76127937 | about 6 years ago | According to https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/c0t-T4YQyaBPZt5Hugnj6g the pedestrian and bicycle lanes are segregated, but not physically separated, segregated=*. Has that changed recently or is the on the ground the same as that older Mapillary image? If it hasn't change recently we'll need to revert this back to a single way with segregated=yes. |
| 76127730 | about 6 years ago | This looks good, according to https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/eH7jFyeMbYDtnxlBUu6fgw it is physically separated so it's good that you've mapped it with a separate way. You could also update the road https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/34282299 to remove the bicycle tags which aren't really correct as it's not a counter flow cyclelane, it's a separate path. |
| 76127382 | about 6 years ago | Keep in mind that highway=cycleway is for a physically separated path, if just separated from the road by paint, it's a cycleway=lane tag on the road way, not a seperate way as highway=cycleway. I know it can be hard to model this one though since it's quite a complex junction and changes between physical separation, but from the imagery, way/738071033 shouldn't be a separate way as there is no physical separation. Did you want to fix this? |
| 76127278 | about 6 years ago | PS. The placement tag placement=* is used to say where the geometry is, so that when rendered with lanes they align eg. from JOSM with the Lane Attributes style https://imgur.com/ilAgBQx |
| 76127246 | about 6 years ago | Hi, could you point out where this path is signposted for bicycles? I couldn't see a sign from my Mapillary photos and bicycle=designated should only be used where signposted. It's a stronger indication of you're allowed to use this way over just bicycle=yes. It certainly looks on the ground like a footpath or generic path that you can cycle on rather than a cycleway or shared path. I'm not saying I'm right here, just looking for more information about your change. |
| 76127213 | about 6 years ago | Hi thanks for trying to improve the data here, unfortuantly the correct changes were mingled with some not so correct changes, so I've reverted the changeset and then subsequently re-instated the good changes. My reasoning is:
|
| 76047788 | about 6 years ago | I've used operator:abn in the past, but maybe that should be operator:ref:abn |
| 76026455 | about 6 years ago | I moved the remaining tags across from the node to the way now in changeset/76033258 per osm.wiki/Good_practice#One_feature.2C_one_OSM_element |
| 75976516 | about 6 years ago | No worries. As I said I'm not too fused either way. Just adding the religion tag is good, that wasn't the issue, it's about where the amenity=place_of_worship tag should be, should it be on the church building only or on the whole grounds. Either way I think is fine, it's just that the wiki kind of implies it shouldn't be on the grounds. It looks like the amenity=place_of_worship tag is now lacking entirely, so I've added that back in now. When I walked past here today I didn't see a comma in between "...Church Roseville" on the sign, but I'm just nit picking here. |
| 75744794 | about 6 years ago | Please where possible retain the history, I don't see why relation/10162010/history needed to be deleted? You could have just updated the existing relation. |
| 75976516 | about 6 years ago | According to landuse=religious the way I had it before was considered more accepted, but I'm not too fussed either way... |
| 75968088 | about 6 years ago | Are you sure this is not more like a stream than a river, downstream is marked as a stream. (the edit in AU) |
| 75698995 | about 6 years ago | Overall this is okay, but you should separate out the address number from the street, add the +61 prefix to the phone number. |
| 75744794 | about 6 years ago | I've fixed this now in changeset/75746596 |
| 75744794 | about 6 years ago | I don't think this is right, https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/m4NHRN4FjJz-fPJ4zA8EFw. This sign is for cars turning into way/24248082 but your from/to is just Henry Lawson Drive to itself. |