Hi עומר מדלן,

הדרישות פשוטות למדי וכל ארגון OpenStreetMap צריך להיות מסוגל לעקוב אחריהם. הרגישו חופשיים לבחון ארגונים אחרים ב-Wiki כגון Uber, Microsoft וטוםטום כדי לראות מה נדרש.

המונחים:,
Andrew Welch, OSMF Data Working Group
(translated with libretranslate.org)

Hi OmerMadlan,

The requirements are fairly simple and any organisation editing OpenStreetMap should be able to follow them. Feel free to look at other organisations on the wiki such as Uber, Microsoft and TomTom to see what's required.

Kind regards,
Andrew Welch, OSMF Data Working Group

Hi there, these don't line up that well compared to the buildings in ESRI, and the Bing imagery is better quality, would you be able to review these and possibly redraw them? For example, way/1382765627 appears to actually cross over the fence into the neighbouring property.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165675601

Those look like they're copyrighted sources, which means they wouldn't be suitable to use for mapping in OSM. If you've been to them and confirmed in person (in some way that means anyone could confirm it) then they're fine, but any that are just coming from those websites will have to be removed.

Hey JohnaDee, for a section like this, you'd usually tag it as a _link road matching the higher of the two roads it links, or have it match Louisa Road.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165615984

Hi Jack, just wondering what the source for this is, considering these roads aren't on aerial imagery yet.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165619651

Hi Captain_Meows,

Andrew from the Data Working Group here.

KevinOs is correct, these aren't cinemas and shouldn't be tagged as such. Please fix these before making any further edits, otherwise they may be removed.

Can you also please let us know your source for these changes, are they something you've been and seen in person, or did you get them online (if so, what website)?

Kind regards,
Andrew Welch, OSMF Data Working Group

It is a little weird, but that's just how our phone numbers are written for international use, and that's what OSM uses.

The linked section for the Australian tagging guidelines has how landlines and mobiles should be, the Burnside Cosmetic one is correct already.

Basically, mobiles get grouped into 3 lots of 3 numbers, so +61 4## ### ###, and landlines are area code, then 2 sets of 4, so +61 # #### ####. How I remembered it to begin with was to just take the full number with the leading 0, but replace the 0 with "+61 ", so 0466 770 558 becomes +61 466 770 558 and 08 7221 2577 becomes +61 8 7221 2577.

Hi, for mobile phone numbers, the 4 from the area code should be grouped with the next two numbers (+61 466 770 588 in this case) to match the formatting used by the phone key.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165574677

Hi there, the AIP-ERSA documents are copyrighted, we can't use them as a data source.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165535044

Thanks for catching that one!

Hi,

Andrew from the Data Working Group here.

Can you please let me know the reason for these mass removals, considering that these buildings do exist in the imagery your edit lists you as using?

Kind regards,
Andrew Welch, OSMF Data Working Group

(translated using libretranslate.com)

Привет.

Эндрю из Рабочей группы по данным.

Можете ли вы сообщить мне причину этих массовых перемещений, учитывая, что эти здания существуют в изображениях, которые вы используете?

Привет,
Andrew Welch, OSMF Data Working Group

There's also a set of overlapping buildings, looks like it might have been an attempt at using one of the building plugins that didn't quite work as intended.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165494943

Hi OmerMadlan,

You'll need to read through the guidelines linked previously for information on this, if you don't understand those guidelines you'll need to refrain from editing on behalf of your organisation.

Apologies for the lack of translation as I'm currently out and about.

I'm just about to update it to shop=printing, seems the most appropriate to me.

Hi OmerMadlan,

Thanks for your response, can you please reply here with a link once the Wiki page has been created?

Kind regards,
Andrew Welch, OSMF Data Working Group

(translated with libretranslate.com)

Hi OmerMadlan,

תודה על התגובה שלך, תוכל בבקשה לענות כאן עם קישור ברגע שנוצר דף ויקי?

המונחים:,
Andrew Welch, OSMF Data Working Group

Hi OmerMadlan,

Andrew from the Data Working Group here.

Can you please confirm if you are editing on behalf of an organisation, as you will need to ensure you are following the Organised Editing Guidelines [1] if that is the case.

Kind regards,
Andrew Welch, OSMF Data Working Group

(translated with libretranslate.com)

Hi OmerMadlan,

אנדרו מקבוצת העבודה של הנתונים כאן.

אתה יכול בבקשה לאשר אם אתה עורך מטעם הארגון, כפי שאתה צריך כדי להבטיח שאתה עוקב אחר הוראות עריכה מאורגנת [1] אם זה המקרה.

המונחים:
Andrew Welch, OSMF Data Working Group

[1] osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Guidelines

If you were to go with the argument of it being a crossover because it's neither Jones or Gladstone Road, then trunk_link would be what you'd want for a crossover between the two sides of a trunk.

It's not suddenly a significantly more capable road for that small crossover, it's not part of the Princes Highway, and shoudn't be tagged based off of it.

For naming it, you can just go with noname=yes to indicate that section doesn't actually have a name.

If one were different, I'd say dealer's choice, but personally would go with the higher of the two. Putting it as the same as the road it's crossing just doesn't make sense to me.