[talk-au] Contributions to Road Geometry in Perth,

[Ian Steer]

>Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2020 19:23:21 +1000
>From: "Sebastian S." <mapping at consebt.de>
>Subject: Re: [talk-au] Contributions to Road Geometry in Perth,
>	Australia
>Hi,
>I have made excessive use of the node tag for islands.
>Particularly for pedestrian crossing.
>
>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.

Could you please elaborate on this method you have been using ?

Ian


On 1 September 2020 10:05:42 pm AEST, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com> wrote:
>Heads up, looks like their team has started to map in Perth, see on 
>OSMCha
>-> https://osmcha.org/?aoi=80b50a6d-6bb5-48cb-8ac4-4b2ddd9d5d76
>
>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:
>
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/840589945/history 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.
>
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/842851495/history 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?
>
>I personally find splitting ways for a traffic island at roundabouts 
>like in https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/840189281/history 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?
>
>Unclear source of the turn restriction in
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90223764#map=18/-32.04553/115.8
>0953
>
>On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 at 21:28, OSM NextBillion. AI <osm at nextbillion.ai>
>wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> We will reach out to local mapping experts through forum and/or
>changeset
>> comments if we require further help.
>>
>> Thank you all once again for the suggestions, we look forward to
>working
>> with you all. :)
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 at 05:35, cleary <osm at 97k.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the interest in mapping in Australia and thanks for
>posting
>>> your plans on this list.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> So while I appreciate contributions to the map, I suggest that
>"armchair"
>>> mapping needs to be undertaken with a lot of caution.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2020, at 2:17 AM, OSM NextBillion. AI wrote:
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > We’re a small team based out of Hyderabad, India. We would be
>doing
>>> > minimal edits in Perth and contribute to OSM in the next couple of 
>>> > weeks, in-line with OSM and Australia specific tagging guidelines
>[Link
>>> >
><https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines>].
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Please refer our Wiki
>>> > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NextBillion.AI-OSM> and
>Github
>>> > <https://github.com/NextBillionAI-OSM/OSM/issues/3> project pages
>for
>>> > more information.
>>> >
>>> > Looking forward to suggestions, if any ☺
>>> >
>>> > Thanking you in advance,
>>> > Team NextBillion
>>> > _______________________________________________