This one had me confused for a while. I’ll update accordingly once I get a few more sources. Thanks fortera_au

Thanks AlexJevan! It's part of a much larger project that categorises roads around the country in an automated fashion. I was a little frustrated that port facilities didn't exist already, but that's the beauty of OSM. So glad others will benefit from the effort :-)

Hi mrpulley - I concur with your findings. DCS has 50km/h, Mapillary has 60km/h on the asphalt from Feb 2023. I have cross-checked other internal sources and can confirm that in August 2023 the speed limit painted on the road west of Walsh Lane is 60. 

If the user is using "NSW Speed data", then an amount of caution is required. I don't use that data source internally as there are conflicting overlaps depending on which attributes are used. It is not always clear which attribute to use at any given location.

I've just seen you are part of TfNSW Connected Journeys Data Team - of course you've seen DCS. Comment withdrawn :-)

Hi MapCam - do you have "DCS Map Imagery" available in your list of imagery when editing in NSW? Generally, it is a higher resolution than Mapbox Satellite. Cheers, AntBurnett

And I promise it's true. I want it sorted as soon as possible because it is now impacting NSW projects. As of Fri 8/09/2023 2:48 PM, "-.- changed the status to Escalated." I have a fresh ticket number for the request and Aerometrex Support is ensuring the Account Manager responds promptly.

Hi GF - Metromap have escalated the priority to have it sorted out as soon as possible. "This may take some time but I will update you when they provide me any progress."

This was the only reason for my delay in updating you and others - seeking a timeline from Metromap.

Thank you, Graeme. We are now arranging for documentation on Metromap letterhead to confirm what has already been confirmed several times in email between my organisation and Metromap.

I just got the email from Tesla announcing the Blaxland location, but you beat me to it!

I've done a partial revert with the change to Young Airport (USA). Have asked for a review of the change.

I don't know why this one was so big - my FOV was the bounds of an airport. The edits are all in Young too.

This discussion is getting quite a level of interest. It is clear that mappers appreciate the quality of the Metromap imagery and its usefulness to OSM communities around Australia.

With respect to my use: I made it very clear how my organisation was intending to use their imagery with regards to OSM before committing any changesets. We outlined the projects that were underway or scheduled, and sought written permission before using it. From Metromap yesterday - "inform {username} that you do have permission to use our imagery to create vector data that you put on OSM." The person who made the original approval is on leave and will reconfirm in light of this discussion upon their return.

Now whether other users in other states can attain similar permission is a separate question entirely, and not one that I can preempt. Hopefully this discussion can demonstrate the demand in other states.

Hi again Diacritic,

I can confirm, after consulting with Metromap today, that my organisation has specific written permission to use Metromap imagery for NSW-based projects.

I agree, it is wonderful imagery and is resulting in greatly improved geometries and outcomes for users in NSW.

We are now investigating updating the list of compatible data sources to include specific exceptions.

Happy mapping,

Ant

Hi Dian, thank you for this message. I did not see your prior message - apologies. changeset/129952488 has been completely reverted. I have ongoing discussions with Metromap about how my organisation's license allows the use of their data for my various OSM-specific projects. I will seek their comment on how to resolve this potential issue going forward.

Sorry, that's what I meant - neither ID or JOSM are picking it up as an invalid geometry. I'm not sure how often the OSM Inspector site is refreshed but I'll try to see it before you do for the next one ;-) Hopefully changeset/128756598 is valid.

There appear to be some inconsistencies between ID and JOSM. Either way, I'll take extra care with dissolving scrub areas. Updated (deleted). Thanks Warin61

Hi WoodWoseWulf and ortho_is_hot

If the routing achieves the same result (i.e. no u-turn to get to the slip lane) by another way, then I'm very OK with it.

Yes, the implicit turns allowed a U-turn when coming down the hill from Kariong. It wasn't possible to disable the U-turn without also disabling the right turn from Manns Road. I made the change so GraphHopper would route right into BWD instead of doing a U-turn to get to the slip lane when the destination is the shopping centre. If there is an alternative approach, I'm keen to hear because the problem of short segment turns at dual carriage ways is not unique!

I would only use Spatial Services data in such an area, so I assume it was accidental and still there after mapping water tanks in Victoria.

Thanks GerdP - I wasn't aware of the feature and will use it going forward. Good to know.