OpenStreetMap logo OpenStreetMap

Changeset When Comment
139465260 over 1 year ago

Hi Surveyor.

You have changed the layout of these roads to match old imagery.

The roads have been adjusted. Please review the newest imagery possible before making changes.

146845737 over 1 year ago

Hi Pots.

You are wrong.

Please look at the latest aerial imagery (NOT Bing).

This parking aisle has long been removed.

137633455 over 2 years ago

Hi Oliver,

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've reverted this, and other changes, as it has introduced several errors into the map. I'd recommend checking out the beginners guide osm.wiki/Beginners%27_guide for tips and tricks for contributing.

Dian.

137561972 over 2 years ago

Hi Tania,

This change has removed several sections which had details about lane changed. For example, the right hand turn lanes turning right into Springvale Road where the road goes from two to three lanes.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/137561972

137584810 over 2 years ago

Hey Tannia,

I've noticed your edits with somne interest. May I ask to what end you are making these changes? I can't work out why you are adding these splits.

Dian.

137197091 over 2 years ago

Hey Fluid,

My understanding is that this section of Bulban Road was renamed last year. Official sources suggest that Windmill Road is now the correct name?

137088005 over 2 years ago

Oh no... When did you start changing the way you mapped roads?

Roads should only be mapped as separate ways when there is physical separation. Mapping turn lanes like this (way/1010905965/history) is incorrect.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/137088005

137036634 over 2 years ago

You were doing so well, it's a shame you've reverted to bad habits here.
way/1180125441/history

No physical separation. No separate way.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/137036634

136919446 over 2 years ago

Hello,

OpenStreetMap is for mapping things that exist in the real world. These edits have been reverted.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136919446

136887254 over 2 years ago

Hello.

This edit appears to have introduced numerous errors into the map.

I have reverted this change. For more information about contributing to OpenStreetMap, see osm.wiki/Beginners%27_guide.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136887254

136611019 over 2 years ago

Hi HighRoleur,

I think you've updated this to match outdated imagery.

If you look at the ESRI imagery, it appears to have the old alignment.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136611019

136119432 over 2 years ago

Hi MapMeister,

Where has this name come from? I can't find any reference to "Janine's Lookout" in any official source (or, indeed, any source at all)

135727030 over 2 years ago

Hi MapMeister,

Where has this name come from? I can't find any referenc to "Melly D Walk" in any official reference.

135556656 over 2 years ago

Hey Skipperoo!

Thanks for the reply.

Firstly, I 100% agree with you that the map should show both names. Unfortunately, one of the limitations of the default OSM renderer is that only the value in the "name=" field is rendered. Ideally, the 'name' and 'alt_name' field should be rendered.

The signage along this section is inconsistent, yes, but most of the signs I've seen look like this https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=272912654578868

where both names are shown. This is the same as how other dual names roads are signposted.

Lastly, with regards to addressing; the source I am using for addressing is the Vicmap data, which is the official, "authoritative" source for addresses. These stores might choose to use an address other than the official property address (c.f., shops that advertise their address as "the corner of x and y"), but the underlying property is still assigned Dandenong Road.

Happy to explain further if you like.

135556656 over 2 years ago

Hi,

As per the other comments, this is not correct. Properties are addressed as Dandenong Road, and the signs have both names.

Reverting as per osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads#Dual_Road_Naming.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/135556656

135556690 over 2 years ago

Hello Skipperoo.

As per the Australian Tagging guidelines, thje local name should be used in these dual naming situations.

osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads#Dual_Road_Naming

Further, your contention that "all street signs show the Princes Highway name" is incorrect. There are many street signs which use the Lonsdale Street name. I have reverted your changes.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/135556690

135556856 over 2 years ago

Hi Skipperoo.

The Whitehorse Road name is used for street addressing and is equally the name of the road. As per the Australian Tagging Gui8delines, in this case , the local name should be used.

osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads#Dual_Road_Naming

I have reverted your change.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/135556856

135557019 over 2 years ago

Hi Skipperoo.

This section of Princes Highway is actually known as Old Princes Highway. (https://mapshare.vic.gov.au/mapsharevic/)

I have reverted your change.

135488565 over 2 years ago

Hi Map Analyster,

I see you've changed three suburb labels into towns.

That is incorrect. These are still suburbs according to the definition in the wiki, and they should be mapped as such.

Dian
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/135488565

134382408 over 2 years ago

This edit has moved the Noble Park node far from the center of the suburb (and the main activity area) to an inconspicuous street in a corner of the suburb. Reverted.