<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19/05/2014 11:42 PM, Steve Bennett
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+z=q=vsUTOp0hp_1G_haL-2E6tocSsbwZ0PEwwpUYMW5bSHUQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:55 PM,
Warin <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com" target="_blank">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="">
<div>Humm .. there are places I've been before GPS...
One example:<br>
</div>
</div>
<p> I know the road is there as I've been on it. However
it is now closed for vehicles - inside a National
Park. I've mapped bits of it into OSM as it may be of
use to walkers. The bit I cannot 'see' with imagery
I've connected with very apparent straight lines. I do
have copyright maps of the area but I'm not looking at
those now (they were current when I was there ... many
years ago!). I'm not going back there, I've many other
(new to me) places to go. Nor would I request someone
to go there. Someone probably will go there .. but
I'll leave their interest and trip up to them. So I'm
adding stuff that I think is of use, an indication
rather than accurate in some places .. but those bits
are straight lines and anyone who knows the area will
know that those are not 'truth'. <br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yeah, someone (you?) added lots of tracks through the
Victorian Alps in very low detail. It was actually
incredibly helpful, and really motivated me to go through
and improve them all - rather than starting from a blank
slate. And in certain areas, I get a real kick out of
doing very high quality aerial mapping like this: <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://bit.ly/1hXv9KZ">http://bit.ly/1hXv9KZ</a></div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Glad it helps, and should have made a good trip. And ... no I don't
think that was me ... NSW, Tas, some bits along the Nullabor IIRC. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+z=q=vsUTOp0hp_1G_haL-2E6tocSsbwZ0PEwwpUYMW5bSHUQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p style="margin-bottom:0.5cm">I've been deleting the
tag "name={Unnamed]" and adding the tag
"unsigned=yes", in one case I 'know' the roads name ..
but my source I remember as a street directory . So I
cannot use it untill the memory fades a bit more. In
most cases I've been past some of the roads .. and
there is no street sign (indeed most have no power
poles nor street lighting). In this case I think it
can be changed without 'knowing' as the intent is
clear - there is no local sign to get a name from ..
at least not when the tag was added. <br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Sounds sensible.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What about this confusing one: <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://bit.ly/1hXvwVK">http://bit.ly/1hXvwVK</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The picnic ground/campsite is literally signed "No
Name", and that's how everyone refers to it. I have no
idea what the history is. (And there's a corner on the way
up Mount Buller called 'Unnamed corner').</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well if you add the tag source:name then it should be clear that it
is a real name? Rather than a description .. like "Service Road",
"No Public Access" ... in some ways I don't mind that in the name
tag as it does convey information that may not be avaliable
otherwise. <br>
<br>
The tag unsigned come from the wiki <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Noname">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Noname</a><br>
I don't like the finality of the tag noname as that implys there is
no name at all... the sign may be missing .. but it may still have a
name. Even just a local name that the locals use to idntify it. <br>
<br>
I tend to map stuff that is there .. as even if you cannot use it
for access (closed for whatever reason) you can use it for
navigation .. but there are other views. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/6728/tagging-historicunsignedunmaintained-trails">https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/6728/tagging-historicunsignedunmaintained-trails</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>