<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Ian,<br>
<br>
I did see some relations on the M4 that were broken, I'll go back
and check them. Must learn more about relations too.<br>
<br>
Glad to hear you a sticking around John. :)<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">
<style type="text/css">
body {font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; font-family: verdana;}
p {font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; font-family: verdana;}
</style>Regards,<br>
<br>
Michael<br>
</div>
On 25/07/2012 8:18 AM, Ian Sergeant wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALDa4YKrysq4M3ueWjmTY6p8wLQzNBVKjSunttMvEA-DdfpMGA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p>> But for metroad 10 for<br>
> example, there were 2 x relations for metroad ten. I
expected they were for<br>
> north and south bound routes as that is the way they
appeared to be listed<br>
> in some other areas I checked so that is what I have done.
Put one relation<br>
> for north and the other for south. If that's not right let
me know and I<br>
> will fix. Not sure how a routing relation works anyway.</p>
<p>For the Sydney metroads I have added directional route
relations, that use two directional relations for each metroad.
This allows the connectivity of the route to be checked quickly
during the reconstruction phase, and otherwise does no harm.
When we have reached the next stage of maturity we can decide if
we want to merge them back into a single route relation with
directional elements. So, yes, what you have done is correct.</p>
<p>> 2. for the road naming where the ref tag for metroad 10
was MR10 I have<br>
> changed those to network=MR and ref=10. Same for the other
roads I have<br>
> worked on. Not *certain* that is correct though either so
if someone could<br>
> enlighten me would be good thanks<br>
></p>
<p>That is correct. See the Australian tagging guidelines in the
wiki.</p>
<p>> 3. state highway 29 continues from boundary street along
pacific highway and<br>
> then along delhi road, which makes that small section of
the pacific highway<br>
> sh29 *and* mr1. what should I use to reflect that?</p>
<p>It can be part of both route relations.<br>
</p>
<p>> Just my own view on the redaction process. No issue with
people who<br>
> declined the licence agreement. However it was annoying
for me to see one<br>
> of the very first things I used for practice vanish in a
puff of smoke. It<br>
> was just a building outline, a coles supermarket. I named
it, put in the<br>
> opening hours, telephone number, full address details eg
addr: city: etc<br>
> etc. I turned it into a thing of beauty by entering approx
10 odd pieces of<br>
> information, just for practice and learning. I thought it
a bit harsh just<br>
> because someone traced a building roof everything I added
went as well.<br>
> Tracing the building would have taken less than a minute.
I spent 40<br>
> minutes researching and entering that extra detail on that
single item.</p>
<p>Your change sets are still available. You should be able to at
least refer to the info you have added. And yes, the loss of
data in this way is the hardest. One person just traces from an
aerial and then does not agree. Others survey, add cycle
facilities, names etc that are lost to OSM. I don't know if it
still possible to better use some of this "unattached" data in
the database down the track.</p>
<p>Ian<br>
</p>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>