<html><head></head><body>Hi,<br>I have made excessive use of the node tag for islands.<br>Particularly for pedestrian crossing.<br><br>Splitting the road into two separate ways for only a few metres seems excessive to me. Even when there is a several Meter long raised kerb separating the lanes I would not split the road.<br><br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 1 September 2020 10:05:42 pm AEST, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4@gmail.com> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr">Heads up, looks like their team has started to map in Perth, see on OSMCha -> <a href="https://osmcha.org/?aoi=80b50a6d-6bb5-48cb-8ac4-4b2ddd9d5d76">https://osmcha.org/?aoi=80b50a6d-6bb5-48cb-8ac4-4b2ddd9d5d76</a><br><div><br></div><div>Mostly looks okay to me, and mostly minor tweaks, though I raised a few questions and issues on changeset comments but also listed most of them here:</div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/840589945/history">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/840589945/history</a> was added but the existing road name and other applicable attributes were not applied. This same issue happens in quite a few other places too so appears to be systemic. I've raised some changeset comments but worth including this as part of the standard practice by your editing team.</div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/842851495/history">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/842851495/history</a> is that a roundabout? I can't tell from the Maxar imagery, yet that is the claimed source, how could you tell from the imagery what this is?<br></div><div><br></div><div>I personally find splitting ways for a traffic island at roundabouts like in <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/840189281/history">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/840189281/history</a> a tad to excessive (would prefer to just tag the node as traffic island and use one way, gives a much cleaner dataset as the transition between dual and single carriageways is always messy) but I guess it's not wrong and both styles are popular in OSM currently. Does the community have a view on this?</div><div><br></div><div>Unclear source of the turn restriction in <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90223764#map=18/-32.04553/115.80953">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90223764#map=18/-32.04553/115.80953</a></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 at 21:28, OSM NextBillion. AI <<a href="mailto:osm@nextbillion.ai">osm@nextbillion.ai</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Thank you cleary for valuable insights, we would be more cautious while mapping in such areas. While Satellite Imagery is our prime resource, we’d consider mapillary photos as well wherever available. We do have some expert assistance in our team for interpreting satellite imagery and map something only if we’re double sure of it’s existence. We will refer to mappers history before editing existing data to understand if it was created using local expertise and would change only if there is conclusive evidence from satellite and mapillary imageries.</font><div><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font><br>We will reach out to local mapping experts through forum and/or changeset comments if we require further help. </font><br></font><div><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Thank you all once again for the suggestions, we look forward to working with you all. :)</span></font><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br></font></div></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br></span></font></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 at 05:35, cleary <<a href="mailto:osm@97k.com" target="_blank">osm@97k.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
Thanks for the interest in mapping in Australia and thanks for posting your plans on this list.<br>
<br>
I would add to the caution expressed by others. I live in an urban location in Australia but I have travelled in other areas within Australia. It has taken me quite some time to learn to interpret satellite imagery and I still have a lot to learn about this country. After personally visiting areas and noting what I see, and sometimes taking photographs, I then return home and compare my notes with what I see in the imagery and I am still surprised. I think it can be quite precarious to map features using just satellite imagery unless you have expert assistance in interpreting the imagery. For example, a common error by others has been to map lines of cleared vegetation as roads when they are actually fences. Even where an unmapped road exists, it is probably still unmapped because it is a private road and not accessible by the public - many of the roads on rural properties in Australia are private and, if added to the map, need to marked as such. Farmers get annoyed about intruders on their farms especially as biosecurity is a significant concern in parts of Australia. <br>
<br>
So while I appreciate contributions to the map, I suggest that "armchair" mapping needs to be undertaken with a lot of caution.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sat, 15 Aug 2020, at 2:17 AM, OSM NextBillion. AI wrote:<br>
> Hi all,<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> We’re a small team based out of Hyderabad, India. We would be doing <br>
> minimal edits in Perth and contribute to OSM in the next couple of <br>
> weeks, in-line with OSM and Australia specific tagging guidelines [Link <br>
> <<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines</a>>].<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Please refer our Wiki <br>
> <<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NextBillion.AI-OSM" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NextBillion.AI-OSM</a>> and Github <br>
> <<a href="https://github.com/NextBillionAI-OSM/OSM/issues/3" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/NextBillionAI-OSM/OSM/issues/3</a>> project pages for <br>
> more information.<br>
> <br>
> Looking forward to suggestions, if any ☺<br>
> <br>
> Thanking you in advance,<br>
> Team NextBillion<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Talk-au mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-au mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-au mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div></body></html>