Not for quite a few years now.

Still needs to be better aligned using NSW LPI imagery.

Yes.

Welcome back.

We now have permission to use the LPI NSW imagery and base map. They should be available under the imagery menu in JOSM.

The Bing imagery is not very good. For example at Colo Place Bing is out by 7m.

Seems to be an on-going problem:

changeset/38661878

See discussion at:

@Majormax/diary/38231

I reverted 38131822 at:

changeset/38187799

Hi, it would appear that this was broken at:

changeset/38131822

But your fix has now broken Glen Davis and Glen Alice still needs to go back into the correct location.

No this was a manual edit. I did a comparison between all of the place nodes in NSW tagged with ref:nswgnb and checked to make sure that their place:nswgnb were still correct. These are all the places that needed their place:nswgnb changed to "LOCALITY".

In the case of Crookwell the place node has a GNB reference number 82907 which is a "LOCALITY". The "TOWN" is reference number 15064, which is not in OSM yet.

There are currently just over 3000 places in the NSW GNB database that don't have their corresponding ref:nswgnb tag or aren't in OSM yet. It's going to take me a little while to finish this little project.

Ways with only names are not things. What you've done is tagged that these particular park boundaries have names which I know is not true and is the reason that they got cleaned up when I removed the other tags from the Wollemi relation.

If you want to indicate that there are things on the ground that have those names you need to give them at least one tag to indicate what they are.

For example the aboriginal area should be protected_area with protect_class of 22.

Hmm, interesting hypothetical...

Are Shiers and Keith Smith Avenues the roads at ground level or the roads on the bridges above them?

Guess it really doesn't matter.

I've updated this to be the region boundary for Sydney so please don't delete.

When you create a job with the OSM Tasking Manager (osm.wiki/OSM_Tasking_Manager) you need to specify an area that the job covers.

I was leaving it for the time being in case I needed it again. At some point in the future it could grow up to be the admin_level=7 boundary for Sydney, otherwise if it really is bothering you feel free to delete it.

How about you please stop believing everything OSM Inspector says and start doing some thinking of your own?

OSM inspector is complaining because the inner ways are tagged with with a source:geometry that is the same as the outer ways. Having the same source for the inner and outer ways is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

If we start pandering to OSM Inspector then we're going to have to tag the inner ways with:

"source:geometry"= "LPI Base Map (Hello OSM Inspector. This way is from the same source as the outer ways but this won't always be the case so we need to make this explicit, please don't flag me as an error thanks)"

Whoops. Thanks for fixing that.

I have been noticing that the boundaries of the various national parks in Sydney are what could be politely described as "approximate".

I emailed data.vic yesterday asking them to confirm or deny any permission we may have. I'll post any response I get to list-au and revert this changeset (and the other) or update the contributors page depending.

Thanks reverter plugin..the source was not ABS2011.

May I suggest that if you have a cunning plan that you should let other mappers know. Perhaps by tagging with a note to that effect or mentioning it in the changeset comment. Relying on our ability to read your mind is not going to work.

Hmm, that's an interesting point. I had used the data on the basis of this:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2013-October/010086.html

which is the closest thing I could find to formal permission to use any data.vic stuff. But I suppose you could interpret this to only cover the datasets specifically mention at the time rather than applying to any dataset and then adding it to the list.

Are you suggesting that there isn't any permission to use the things listed under:
osm.wiki/Contributors#Victorian_Government_data? Or that it only applies to the datasets listed?

If I knew how tedious it was going to be I'm not sure I would have started...

I've been moving any boundaries that are administrative to the border and those that are land use to the river bank.

"non-existent" Nudurr Drive was tagged proposed (proposed=*?uselang=en-GB).