[talk-au] LTUAE

Ian Sergeant inas66+osm at gmail.com
Wed Jul 25 06:04:31 BST 2012


If someone is going through the Lane Cove tunnel / Gore Hill junctions, or
the Eastern Distributor / Harbour Tunnel junctions.  There is a bit of
complex topology here that is pretty essentially for getting our through
routing right again.


On 25 July 2012 08:55, Michael Hampson <mhampson at fastmail.com.au> wrote:

>  Ian,
> I did see some relations on the M4 that were broken, I'll go back and
> check them. Must learn more about relations too.
> Glad to hear you a sticking around John. :)
>  Regards,
> Michael
>  On 25/07/2012 8:18 AM, Ian Sergeant wrote:
> >   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
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing listTalk-au at openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20120725/fd3d3ea8/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Talk-au mailing list