Thanks friend!

Keep up the good work, I’ll see you around.

Hi k_au. Thanks for your contribution in the Cranbourne Area. :)

In regards to the change you've made to Avonbury Circuit, I'm not sure if splitting the ways into two one way sections is the best approach.

way/993599090 and 112641991both end up creating forks in the road whereas the street is a single carriageway for its length. I would suggest a single node of traffic_calming=chicane is a better and more accurate representation?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/112641991

Hey Warin, et al.

Came across this conversation while looking at recent conversations.

The list of acceptable sources for data includes the Vicmap datasets; the websites of which then direct to mapshare as a way to ‘explore’ this data. Perhaps this is a confusion of terminology, more than it is an ineligible data source?

Hi Stevo,

Was checking out some updates randomly and I came across this edit. Quite a lot of the turn lanes seem to split from the main carriageway well before the points where the roadway split. way/976266396 is a good example.

As a result of this, routing software would have problems providing directions correctly: the turn announcement would be too early, and it loses the ability for drivers to perform a late merge (ie, I can still enter the turn lane well before where the split is.) The geometry of the turn off will cause issues as well: instead of announcing a left turn, it is likely that the turnoff will be interpreted as a "fork" in the road, giving unnecessary and confusing turn instructions to vehicles travelling straight.

Could I suggest that a) the turn lanes we represented as a separate way only when there is physical separation (see turn=*#Motorway_with_links_and_destinations) and that the turn:lanes keys are used instead?

Separately, I also see you split Fosters Road into a dual carriageway way/992580619. Is this really necessary? There is no physical separation for almost the entire stretch of the road, and the only obstruction are two small traffic islands. Would it not be easier, simpler and more accurate to leave as a single carriageway, and add a two traffic_calming island nodes where required?

Lastly, regarding T-intersections for dual Carriageways. MY interpretation of osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway#How_to_map is that when two dual carriageways meet in a T intersection, it is better to map as a box, rather than a < shape. (while not authoritative, mapbox has a good guide https://labs.mapbox.com/mapping/mapping-for-navigation/modeling-intersections-for-map-navigation/).

I realise this is a length comment! Happy to discuss further.

Hi Supt_of_Printing,

I can see that you've adjusted your style of modelling intersections based on my previous comments, and I am thankful for that.

I'm concerned though that you have converted High Street into a dual carriageway in a stretch where there is no physical separation. As far as I can see, there is no need for way/991058192 to exist. A really small traffic island can be modelled better as a node in my opinion, but even still at the very least the dual carriageway extends too far.

Also not sure if the way you've split the intersection at De Burgh is correct. It looks like it's split too early, which has then required the superfluous ways 991058192 and 991058192.

Also, I'm still concerned about the geometry of some of the turn lanes: node/991058192 is an example of where having the turn off so smooth would be interpreted as a fork in the road, rather than a left turn into a slip lane.

Happy to discuss

Thanks for the details Velloydy. I was curious because it seems like such a big area to be private!

These kind of private developments are always a bit odd in terms of tagging, but I'd suggest that access=private isn't the best description for this case.

Even though it is private property, if the streets are publicly accessible (ie, can I walk my dog or ride my bike through the area, even if I don't live there?) then a different tag might be better suited.

If, for example, there was a gate there with a keypad for residents to gain access, that would clearly be private; as a random person I can't go looking around!

(Also noting that Google products don't have the right license for us to use to make maps with, just in case you weren't aware :) )

Hi! Thanks for contributing. :)

It looks like there are already two areas here for the construction of the New Footscray Hospital.

way/818272392 and way/820385657

Would you have any objections if I merged the two?

Hey Velloydy! Thanks for your contribution.

I wanted to check with you the access for River Dr. I can see you’ve marked it as access=private. Is that because it is private property, or is it a gated community?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111750356

Hello,

I haven't heard a response, and I can see you've been active.

I'm reverting the geometry as per the reasoned mentioned above.

Feel free to reach out if you wish to discuss.

It’s great to hear your interest; pedestrian infrastructure is often overlooked!

For foot paths that are parallel to the road, you can use the additional tag footway=sidewalk (or by using Foot Path (sidewalk) in iD) to designate what we would refer to in Australia as a footpath. It might seem like a fussy difference, but it can make a difference when it comes to legal access to bikes (certain ages can ride on the footpath, etc). You’re not wrong doing it through your current tagging, but since you are putting the effort to map them all it would be a good opportunity to add more detail. :)

Hey!

Awesome work around Shep. :)

I wanted to give you a heads up about this edit. At Wyndham and Riverview, you’ve drawn Right turn lanes in the intersection which then overlap.

Having the curves in the intersection causes routers to have a bit of a problem giving accurate turn instructions. For example, instead of telling the user to “turn right onto Riverview Drive” it might say “at the fork, stay left to merge onto Riverview”.

Check out osm.wiki/Lanes#Motorway_with_lanes_and_destinations.

I’d also recommend checking out thr dual carriageway wiki page for more info about splitting ways. We don’t generally use two lanes in each direction unless there is a physical barrier; otherwise we can use a single carriageway with “turn” and “lane” keys where needed.

Hope this helps, happy to go into it more if you need; otherwise keep up the good work. :)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110820035

Hey!

Awesome work around Shep. :)

I wanted to give you a heads up about this edit. At Wyndham and Riverview, you’ve drawn Right turn lanes in the intersection which then overlap.

Having the curves in the intersection causes routers to have a bit of a problem giving accurate turn instructions. For example, instead of telling the user to “turn right onto Riverview Drive” it might say “at the fork, stay left to merge onto Riverview”.

Check out osm.wiki/Lanes#Motorway_with_lanes_and_destinations.

I’d also recommend checking out thr dual carriageway wiki page for more info about splitting ways. We don’t generally use two lanes in each direction unless there is a physical barrier; otherwise we can use a single carriageway with “turn” and “lane” keys where needed.

Hope this helps, happy to go into it more if you need; otherwise keep up the good work. :)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110820035

Hey, this is a big effort! Good work. :)

Just wanted to check, is there any reason you are using the “Foot Path” tag, and not the “Foot Path (sidewalk)” tag? That would appear, at first glance, to be more accurate
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111408781

Thanks for your help Warin. I've just removed the multipolygon in #111277326; I think that resolves the issue? (Correct me if I'm mistaken)

Thank you for catching this Swavu. Looks perfect; apologies for the error.

Upon looking further, it appears your geometry changes have actually undone a significant amount of work I did in a recent edit, to remove duplicate ways where the carriageway is not split. The Right turn lane from Punt to Olympic, for example, has been split up the road from where it is actually separated. Routing software would interpret this as a fork in the road with a slip lane, rather than a right turn lane that ends before the main set of lights.

Traffic lights have been moved from where the vehicles would stop to different locations.

I'd like to clarify the reasons for this edits and moving the turn lanes away from where the carriageways split?

Hey Warin,

I've just adjusted the tunnel layer, but I worked out why the building is level 2: The driveways at the east side of the building near Queens Bridge Street. Not sure the best way to resolve this, without adding more detail/separating the parts of the building?

Hi Supt_of_Printing,

This change appears to have broken a couple of turn restrictions at the Olympic Boulevard U-Turn lanes. Namely, moving way node/9081524128 of the intersection node has created two additional junction nodes; nodes that don't appear to be neccessary. Having these additional junction nodes causes problems for routing services and can create unusual turn instructions that don't make sense for the real world.

I'm not exactly sure why the turn u-turn lanes have changed from link ways either; to me it makes more sense for these to be considered as links to other streets rather than routes on ther own.

Lastly, the geometry adjustments at Brunton Avenue have caused a mismatch between the lane restrictions, and the left turn lane of Brunton Avenue has been extended past where it returns to a single carriageway. The roadway also doesn't curve like the road you've drawn turning onto Punt; A car turning left onto Punt doesn't need to do a slight right before turning left onto the road; I would argue that drawing the right hand turn as such a steep curve doesn't accurately represent the nature of the junction; it's not a merge from a slip lane, it's a right hand turn.

Happy to hear your thoughts on this.

Hey Warin!

I wish it was that simple :)

Firstly, Crown doesn't sit on a flat block of land. It's got multiple "street level" entrances that are at different heights and elevations. Yarra Promenade is much lower than Whiteman Street, for example, and lead to different levels of the complex.

On the physical Ground level on the Whiteman Street side, we have Whiteman Street, the entrances to the undergound carpark, and a casino level. For whatever reason, this existing way was labelled as 'Level 2'; I didn't want to change it and mess with the order of things. From what I can tell, it is level 2, because it sits on top of the Yarra Promenade walkway and the carpark entrances on the south side of Whiteman.

Now, immediately above the casino floor is another casino floor (believe it's a double height first level, and you have the nightclubs and crown towers above it). In between the two 'third levels', there is the bridge for Kings Way which cuts through the building. (fwiw, building was built around it, but that doesn't really matter)

On top of the Kings way Bridge is the higest level of the building.

This enclosed passage, within a building, is why I used the tunnel=building_passage tag.

I intended to, in effect, "cut" the tunnel from the lower level of the crown building, but leave the higher level above it. If I have tagged this incorrectly, or have missed anything, I am more than happy to amend it.

Hey Aayudhi!

I think you might have extended the toll tag a little too far on the West Gate Freeway.

The tollway starts on the east side of Kings Way, (as Citylink), and then starts again northbound on at the Bolte Bridge turnoff. It's possible to turn left on Kings Way and continue to the WGB without paying a fee.

There is a real nest of different lanes on the freeway with off/on ramps, so I'm happy to help out fixing some parts if you'd like?