<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
Greetings all. I usually confine my mapping to bush tracks and cycle paths as this is what I am most interested in and is often not available from other sources. With the recent devastation of the base map I am remapping some of my local area, and rapidly realising how little I really understand, so forgive this basic question. I also find the wiki very hard to practically understand as it assumes a level of knowledge that is beyond me.<br><br>I am interested in mapping/remapping the walking route the great north walk, which is an established relation. My specific question is, when the route passes down only part of a way, say just a few blocks of a longer street, how do you assign the relation to just a few internodes. Is it necessary to split the ways at the nodes and then just assign the relation to the segments between, or is it necessary to create a new way over the top which is just the walking route, or is there some method that is simpler that I have failed to appreciate.<br><br>I am only able to use the potlach editor. <br><br>Thanks, and regards, adrian.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><div><div id="SkyDrivePlaceholder"></div>> From: talk-au-request@openstreetmap.org<br>> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 61, Issue 32<br>> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<br>> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 06:05:00 +0100<br>> <br>> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to<br>> talk-au@openstreetmap.org<br>> <br>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au<br>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>> talk-au-request@openstreetmap.org<br>> <br>> You can reach the person managing the list at<br>> talk-au-owner@openstreetmap.org<br>> <br>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."<br>> <br>> <br>> Today's Topics:<br>> <br>> 1. Re: LTUAE (Ian Sergeant)<br>> 2. Re: LTUAE (Michael Hampson)<br>> 3. Re: Establishing Priorities on the Central Coast (Michael Hampson)<br>> 4. Re: LTUAE (Ian Sergeant)<br>> <br>> <br>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> <br>> Message: 1<br>> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:18:12 +1000<br>> From: Ian Sergeant <inas66+osm@gmail.com><br>> To: jinkson@bigpond.net.au<br>> Cc: talk-au <talk-au@openstreetmap.org><br>> Subject: Re: [talk-au] LTUAE<br>> Message-ID:<br>> <CALDa4YKrysq4M3ueWjmTY6p8wLQzNBVKjSunttMvEA-DdfpMGA@mail.gmail.com><br>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>> <br>> > But for metroad 10 for<br>> > example, there were 2 x relations for metroad ten. I expected they were<br>> 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<br>> 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.<br>> <br>> For the Sydney metroads I have added directional route relations, that use<br>> two directional relations for each metroad. This allows the connectivity<br>> of the route to be checked quickly during the reconstruction phase, and<br>> otherwise does no harm. When we have reached the next stage of maturity we<br>> can decide if we want to merge them back into a single route relation with<br>> directional elements. So, yes, what you have done is correct.<br>> <br>> > 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<br>> could<br>> > enlighten me would be good thanks<br>> ><br>> <br>> That is correct. See the Australian tagging guidelines in the wiki.<br>> <br>> > 3. state highway 29 continues from boundary street along pacific highway<br>> and<br>> > then along delhi road, which makes that small section of the pacific<br>> highway<br>> > sh29 *and* mr1. what should I use to reflect that?<br>> <br>> It can be part of both route relations.<br>> <br>> > 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<br>> of<br>> > information, just for practice and learning. I thought it a bit harsh<br>> 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.<br>> <br>> Your change sets are still available. You should be able to at least refer<br>> to the info you have added. And yes, the loss of data in this way is the<br>> hardest. One person just traces from an aerial and then does not agree.<br>> Others survey, add cycle facilities, names etc that are lost to OSM. I<br>> don't know if it still possible to better use some of this "unattached"<br>> data in the database down the track.<br>> <br>> Ian<br>> -------------- next part --------------<br>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20120725/4a4432d9/attachment-0001.html><br>> <br>> ------------------------------<br>> <br>> Message: 2<br>> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:55:24 +1000<br>> From: Michael Hampson <mhampson@fastmail.com.au><br>> To: Ian Sergeant <inas66+osm@gmail.com><br>> Cc: talk-au <talk-au@openstreetmap.org><br>> Subject: Re: [talk-au] LTUAE<br>> Message-ID: <500F27DC.2050009@fastmail.com.au><br>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"<br>> <br>> Ian,<br>> <br>> I did see some relations on the M4 that were broken, I'll go back and <br>> check them. Must learn more about relations too.<br>> <br>> Glad to hear you a sticking around John. :)<br>> <br>> Regards,<br>> <br>> Michael<br>> On 25/07/2012 8:18 AM, Ian Sergeant wrote:<br>> ><br>> > > But for metroad 10 for<br>> > > example, there were 2 x relations for metroad ten. I expected they <br>> > were for<br>> > > north and south bound routes as that is the way they appeared to be <br>> > listed<br>> > > in some other areas I checked so that is what I have done. Put one <br>> > relation<br>> > > for north and the other for south. If that's not right let me know <br>> > and I<br>> > > will fix. Not sure how a routing relation works anyway.<br>> ><br>> > For the Sydney metroads I have added directional route relations, that <br>> > use two directional relations for each metroad. This allows the <br>> > connectivity of the route to be checked quickly during the <br>> > reconstruction phase, and otherwise does no harm. When we have reached <br>> > the next stage of maturity we can decide if we want to merge them back <br>> > into a single route relation with directional elements. So, yes, what <br>> > you have done is correct.<br>> ><br>> > > 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 <br>> > someone could<br>> > > enlighten me would be good thanks<br>> > ><br>> ><br>> > That is correct. See the Australian tagging guidelines in the wiki.<br>> ><br>> > > 3. state highway 29 continues from boundary street along pacific <br>> > highway and<br>> > > then along delhi road, which makes that small section of the pacific <br>> > highway<br>> > > sh29 *and* mr1. what should I use to reflect that?<br>> ><br>> > It can be part of both route relations.<br>> ><br>> > > 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 <br>> > see one<br>> > > of the very first things I used for practice vanish in a puff of <br>> > smoke. It<br>> > > was just a building outline, a coles supermarket. I named it, put <br>> > 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 <br>> > pieces of<br>> > > information, just for practice and learning. I thought it a bit <br>> > 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.<br>> ><br>> > Your change sets are still available. You should be able to at least <br>> > refer to the info you have added. And yes, the loss of data in this <br>> > way is the hardest. One person just traces from an aerial and then <br>> > does not agree. Others survey, add cycle facilities, names etc that <br>> > are lost to OSM. I don't know if it still possible to better use some <br>> > of this "unattached" data in the database down the track.<br>> ><br>> > Ian<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > Talk-au mailing list<br>> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org<br>> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au<br>> <br>> -------------- next part --------------<br>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20120725/5d8e2198/attachment-0001.html><br>> <br>> ------------------------------<br>> <br>> Message: 3<br>> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:58:42 +1000<br>> From: Michael Hampson <mhampson@fastmail.com.au><br>> To: Paul HAYDON <CADManager@live.com.au><br>> Cc: Talk-AU OSM <talk-au@openstreetmap.org><br>> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Establishing Priorities on the Central Coast<br>> Message-ID: <500F28A2.3090305@fastmail.com.au><br>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"<br>> <br>> Paul,<br>> <br>> I'll do a little bit around Woy Woy when I visit in a few weeks. Let me <br>> know if there is anything specific you need looked at.<br>> <br>> Regards,<br>> <br>> Michael<br>> On 25/07/2012 3:49 AM, Paul HAYDON wrote:<br>> > SO, any takers interested in getting organised on the N.S.W. Central Coast? (For arguement's sake, let's call it Woy Woy to Swansea - unless someone has a preferred recommendation).<br>> <br>> -------------- next part --------------<br>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20120725/ff00d903/attachment-0001.html><br>> <br>> ------------------------------<br>> <br>> Message: 4<br>> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:04:31 +1000<br>> From: Ian Sergeant <inas66+osm@gmail.com><br>> To: Michael Hampson <mhampson@fastmail.com.au><br>> Cc: talk-au <talk-au@openstreetmap.org><br>> Subject: Re: [talk-au] LTUAE<br>> Message-ID:<br>> <CALDa4Y+su6J97XWbeYnVTr0uQ1FTnYXRn6mgiqT7PB-naq37mw@mail.gmail.com><br>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>> <br>> Hi,<br>> <br>> If someone is going through the Lane Cove tunnel / Gore Hill junctions, or<br>> the Eastern Distributor / Harbour Tunnel junctions. There is a bit of<br>> complex topology here that is pretty essentially for getting our through<br>> routing right again.<br>> <br>> Ian.<br>> <br>> On 25 July 2012 08:55, Michael Hampson <mhampson@fastmail.com.au> wrote:<br>> <br>> > Ian,<br>> ><br>> > I did see some relations on the M4 that were broken, I'll go back and<br>> > check them. Must learn more about relations too.<br>> ><br>> > Glad to hear you a sticking around John. :)<br>> ><br>> > Regards,<br>> ><br>> > Michael<br>> > On 25/07/2012 8:18 AM, Ian Sergeant wrote:<br>> ><br>> > > But for metroad 10 for<br>> > > example, there were 2 x relations for metroad ten. I expected they were<br>> > for<br>> > > north and south bound routes as that is the way they appeared to be<br>> > listed<br>> > > in some other areas I checked so that is what I have done. Put one<br>> > 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.<br>> ><br>> > For the Sydney metroads I have added directional route relations, that use<br>> > two directional relations for each metroad. This allows the connectivity<br>> > of the route to be checked quickly during the reconstruction phase, and<br>> > otherwise does no harm. When we have reached the next stage of maturity we<br>> > can decide if we want to merge them back into a single route relation with<br>> > directional elements. So, yes, what you have done is correct.<br>> ><br>> > > 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<br>> > could<br>> > > enlighten me would be good thanks<br>> > ><br>> ><br>> > That is correct. See the Australian tagging guidelines in the wiki.<br>> ><br>> > > 3. state highway 29 continues from boundary street along pacific highway<br>> > and<br>> > > then along delhi road, which makes that small section of the pacific<br>> > highway<br>> > > sh29 *and* mr1. what should I use to reflect that?<br>> ><br>> > It can be part of both route relations.<br>> ><br>> > > 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<br>> > one<br>> > > of the very first things I used for practice vanish in a puff of smoke.<br>> > 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<br>> > pieces of<br>> > > information, just for practice and learning. I thought it a bit harsh<br>> > 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.<br>> ><br>> > Your change sets are still available. You should be able to at least refer<br>> > to the info you have added. And yes, the loss of data in this way is the<br>> > hardest. One person just traces from an aerial and then does not agree.<br>> > Others survey, add cycle facilities, names etc that are lost to OSM. I<br>> > don't know if it still possible to better use some of this "unattached"<br>> > data in the database down the track.<br>> ><br>> > Ian<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > Talk-au mailing listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> -------------- next part --------------<br>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20120725/fd3d3ea8/attachment.html><br>> <br>> ------------------------------<br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Talk-au mailing list<br>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org<br>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au<br>> <br>> <br>> End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 61, Issue 32<br>> ***************************************<br></div> </div></body>
</html>