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

[Kim Hawtin]

Darrin Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:40:49 +1030
> Kim Hawtin <kim.hawtin at adelaide.edu.au> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> It's been there for a while, my question was more directed at
> bluemm1975-osm at yahoo.com in this case, I personally think the B37
> should be there as it is (I'm probably the one who added that tag,
> can't be bothered confirming it right now ;) since you have to travel
> through it as part of travelling along the B37. 

Its something i need to do to take more notes.
Having a passenger in the car help lots here =)
Or I'll have to take the dog on much longer walks ;)

>> 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 ? =)
> 
> That's how I've generally been finding them, having a little interest
> in highway routing I've been looking around for resources and the BGS's
> are the most reliable source I can find, even the old copyrighted
> sources are a bit lacking in accuracy. Unfortunately there are still
> a number of areas where even the BGS's are lacking although I have to
> give TransportSA credit, travelling around SA this year I've found a
> number of places where brand new signs with routes have been ereceted
> in the last couple of years (since I was last there) so I have some
> hope that sometime in the future the route system will be pretty
> consistent. 

=)

>>>> * 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. =)
> ]
> 
> Oh man!
> I feel like a wally :)
> I just re-read what bluemm was saying there and he's totally saying the
> same thing as me anyway!
> Can we just pretend I didn't write my original paragraph? :)

Don't worry about it, these things happen =)

cheers,

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