[talk-au] LTUAE

[Ian Sergeant]

>   But for metroad 10 for
> example, there were 2 x relations for metroad ten.  I expected they were
for
> north and south bound routes as that is the way they appeared to be listed
> in some other areas I checked so that is what I have done.  Put one
relation
> for north and the other for south.  If that's not right let me know and I
> will fix.  Not sure how a routing relation works anyway.

For the Sydney metroads I have added directional route relations, that use
two directional relations for each metroad.  This allows the connectivity
of the route to be checked quickly during the reconstruction phase, and
otherwise does no harm.  When we have reached the next stage of maturity we
can decide if we want to merge them back into a single route relation with
directional elements.  So, yes, what you have done is correct.

> 2. for the road naming where the ref tag for metroad 10 was MR10 I have
> changed those to network=MR and ref=10.  Same for the other roads I have
> worked on.  Not *certain* that is correct though either so if someone
could
> enlighten me would be good thanks
>

That is correct.  See the Australian tagging guidelines in the wiki.

> 3. state highway 29 continues from boundary street along pacific highway
and
> then along delhi road, which makes that small section of the pacific
highway
> sh29 *and* mr1.  what should I use to reflect that?

It can be part of both route relations.

> Just my own view on the redaction process.  No issue with people who
> declined the licence agreement.  However it was annoying for me to see one
> of the very first things I used for practice vanish in a puff of smoke. It
> was just a building outline, a coles supermarket.  I named it, put in the
> opening hours, telephone number, full address details eg addr: city: etc
> etc.  I turned it into a thing of beauty by entering approx 10 odd pieces
of
> information, just for practice and learning.  I thought it a bit harsh
just
> because someone traced a building roof everything I added went as well.
> Tracing the building would have taken less than a minute.  I spent 40
> minutes researching and entering that extra detail on that single item.

Your change sets are still available. You should be able to at least refer
to the info you have added.  And yes, the loss of data in this way is the
hardest.  One person just traces from an aerial and then does not agree.
Others survey, add cycle facilities, names etc that are lost to OSM.  I
don't know if it still possible to better use some of this "unattached"
data in the database down the track.

Ian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20120725/4a4432d9/attachment.html>