Cheers. Can fix. I remember mapping all the lanes left to right in the direction of the way, so easy to split into :forward…

Great work! But how do we deal with W1-1 and W1-1 having the same code but being left and right turns respectively?

Pebkac. Manual tagging and I forgot it was underscore. Will fix in Josm at home

Cheers mate for your work.

ramp:pram is a cultural error on my part. The ramps are called "pram ramps" in Australian road design, and the regular tag "ramp:stroller" is an Americanism. I will of course correct to common usage. It obviously represents a vehicle access suitability. Some motorised wheel chair users might be able to take them but they tend to be steeper than modern ramp:wheelchair requirements.

ups is the common way to refer to uninterruptible power supplies: a rather useful thing for emergency and disaster mapping in relation to powered devices like traffic signals. In the NSW mapping context some traffic light systems have ups capability and others are mains electricity dependent.

There is a class of infrastructure on the ground that can be coherently specified now. It is a non-transient permanent erection to building code or by state institutions. The infrastructure fills fairly basic physical needs. I am not seeing the problem. It is specified in relation to existing key structures and tags, not with a novel schematic. I am not not seeing the problem.

I'm mapping what is apparent on the ground and of interest. Like access to toilets meeting a mobility need. Or sharps bins. Half of the essential tagging for bicycle use doesn't exist in opencyclemap and I am not going to tag for render.

Cheers for your work. I often map mobile and haven't fully customised my editor.

ambulant = yes is modelled off wheelchair = yes

In Australian toilets a new access category of "ambulant" has developed recently catering to people with walkers, crutches, canes or other upright mobility differences. These toilet stalls are larger with "swing out" doors and often grips to allow the upright with mobility issues to more easily use toilet stalls.

Does that make sense from a tagging perspective? I can photo an ambulant stall and add it to wikimedia commons for consideration by editors who work on key and value consistency?

Massive cheers. Editing to match common style.

Ingress protection, an international standard, https://www.mpl.ch/info/IPratings.html

Cheers. It's a sprinkler booster apparatus controlled from a fire hydrant booster panel. Not an individual sprinkler but the appliance control for linking sprinklers to / from mobile fire appliances (trucks) and hydrants

Thank you!!!

The rails with bicycle yes are a combined bidi rails plus way for emergency, rail service motor vehicles bicycle and foot

I did check the wiki before using ramp=both which appeared as suggested. I'm using it to code the presence of what are called "pram ramps" in Australian design. 1 m wide useable ramps from a raised footpath to the road level.

In this section of road the road and the railway are separated. A short way to the east the situation is different and they're conjoined. I'll edit that section to show that it is one way that is bidi two track rail and a bidi two lane road.

With being bold, I mean please edit my tagging of that crossing structure I mapped so I can model off your tagging!

No no, it's entirely my fault here. I'm using a mobile device while surveying and missed the tagging when reading the wiki. Fixing

Feel free to be as bold as you enjoy and should I be able to make any sense of your tagging I will model it.

Wiki>
Tagging crossings as ways

Some mappers tag a way Way segment of a highway=footway or highway=cycleway that crosses multiple roads and/or railways with crossing=traffic_signals to indicate that there is only one traffic light controlling the cyclist or pedestrian, to avoid multiple nodes Node being tagged as crossings.

Similarly, a way segment of a highway=footway is being tagged crossing=uncontrolled + crossing_ref=zebra to indicate its full length.

Disadvantage: Please note that this mapping style makes it difficult for routers and navigation systems to recognise that there is a crossing for pedestrians or cyclists along the road, since there is no special crossing node Node on the route being evaluated.

This is an existed supported tagging system. It is specified in the English language wiki

And that ontology is neither mandatory nor represents the situation on the ground that this is a single object with length

Firstly it isn't wrong tagging. The ontology specified within the wiki discourages it because some route mappers are programmed by unaware groups.

Secondly the crossing is a way. It has a length, commencement, terminus and is not a series of separate nodes. Either the road and two rail lines must be crossed as a whole by foot traffic, or the crossing must not be attempted. There is no halt point between the intersection of the first and second railway, nor between the second railway and the road.

uninterruptable power supply. The first hit after commerce spam in google.