[talk-au] Edits in and around Mt Barker, SA

Kim Hawtin kim.hawtin at adelaide.edu.au
Wed Oct 22 00:10:49 BST 2008

Darrin Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
> bluemm1975-osm at yahoo.com wrote:
>> Looking at your B37 & Alexandrina & Flaxley Rd roundabout, you don't
>> need oneway=yes(it's implied), clockwise(just draw it in a clockwise
>> direction), ref(roundabout's don't inherit route numbers, it's for
>> when roundabout's have specific ref numbers [in Europe I think]). 
> Can you explain why that roundabout wouldn't have a B37, given it's
> actually part of the B37 route? If you leave out the B37 then you're
> leaving a gap in the B37 ref's, surely that is inconsistent? 

i didn't put this roundabout in, so when i see stuff like that its
hard to know what is the right thing to do unless we put it to the list.

my focus at the moment is to get gps trails into roads, connect them
up approximately how they look on the ground and get all the attributes
i know about tagged. then after that get some guidance about what stuff
we're missing... thats the beauty about peer review right? =)

and i'm yet to find a decent resource for what roads are named routes.
i suppose i need to make notes from the big green signs huh ? =)

>> They are "relations" to tie different ways together to form
>> logically-connected ways, eg. routes. They are relatively new to OSM
>> and I haven't played with them much, but others have added them in my
>> area. The only strange thing I can see is that the motorway_link for
>> the B37 & M1 are added to the relations, which I believe is wrong
>> because they are on/offramps, not the actual freeway that the route
>> follows.
> Are you sure you're talking about the right relation? Since I created
> the M1 in relation in the last few days, and just checked it I can see
> I messed up and actually added a point by mistake (now fixed) but the
> ramps are part of the Princes Highway and South-East Freeway street
> relations (since they are parts of those 'streets').
>> * Lots of the area's don't need area=yes, like
>> parking/schools/landuse etc.
> Is this yet another crazy OSM inconsistency? Surely any of those closed
> loops are implicitly areas? In fact I notice mappaint in josm tends to
> render closed versions of these as areas without any redundant area=yes
> tag, so I'm not alone in my thinking here.

I've seen areas around adelaide where they specifically have.
it looks a whole lot better to see areas like commercial and schools
marked in, its easier to see and the labels are marked up better.
i don't understand how the renderer works, but putting in the area
attribute helps for the mapper to identify what the thing is for.
well it helps me get a better idea about what im editing anyway. =)

>> * I think the highway=traffic_signals on B37 next to Cornerstone
>> College should include crossing=traffic_signals (or just
>> crossing=pelican), as it appears to be a pedestrian crossing, see
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:crossing. 

it is a set of lights for a pedestrian crossing for the school.
i'll mark it up on the weekend =)

> Perhaps a twig to the map features page with respect to this is need, I
> find the reading of it very unclear and had been assuming from how it's
> written that highway=traffic_signals is used for all traffic signals
> (since they all controll traffic)...

Thanks for you feedback =)


Operating Systems, Services and Operations
Information Technology Services, The University of Adelaide
kim.hawtin at adelaide.edu.au

More information about the Talk-au mailing list