Reverted in changeset/176967473

Hi again,
Just following up from changeset/176609741#c1535702.
These name tags don't follow the tagging guidelines as agreed upon by rest of the OSM community. I'd kindly ask you to revert the changes made in this changeset. This would help avoid any back-and-forth editing between yourself and other mappers who might not be aware of the PTV journey planner. The best place to discuss this would be the OSM forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/oceania or the mailing list talk-au@openstreetmap.org.

A suggestion for handling this in the journey planner while keeping to tagging best practices would be to add the (documented and widely accepted) tag `noname=yes` (noname=yes) to these footways and then configure the journey planner to ignore any nearby road names when routing along paths with the `noname=yes` tag.
In addition, the tags on the subway_entrance nodes (such as `name=Domain Road` and `ref=4`) should provide the necessary information to display the entrances/exits in the journey planner. The journey planner could parse these tags to display the station exist on the map. These changes would eliminate the need to incorrectly apply names to the surrounding footpaths. I hope this helps.

These tags do not belong in OSM as there is no way to verify them on the ground, and this practice appears to be a form of tagging for the renderer. (osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer and osm.wiki/Verifiability). If you would like to discuss how OSM data could best integrate with the transport.vic.gov.au website, I'd suggest making a post on the OSM forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/oceania/73 or sending an email to the Australian mailing list at talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Unfortunately the requirements of a PT journey planner app can't change how things are mapped within OSM.

Hi there,
Please see osm.wiki/Names for information about how names should be tagged. In this case there is no marked name for the path leading to the entrance. The only name is of the station entrance, which has already been tagged on the subway entrance node.
The name tag should only be used if there is a verifiable real-world name (i.e. what is actually shown on signage or officially used). name=Entrance/Exit 4 - Domain Road and name=indoor path are descriptive tags rather than verifiable names. All information in these tags is already captured by other tags such as the name and ref tags on the station entrance node and the indoor=yes tags on the underpass.

Please see osm.wiki/Names . The building level that the cafe is on should not be included in the name tag. This information can be captured in the `level` tag

Hey mate,
Careful with the names of buildings here. The building name tags should include the words only and should not include the building number even if that is displayed on the building itself. The building number can be added as a `ref` tag or alt_name tag as you have done

No worries. Feel free to jump in the discord or forum and get a few more people’s thoughts if you feel strongly the other way. I don’t think there were many responses when I first asked

I spoke with the other Aussie mappers in the Oceania discord channel and the consensus was that since the tunnel and tracks have actually finished being built, and have testing trains running through them, the construction status should be removed. The existence of passenger services is captured by public transport route relations and not by the construction status of the tracks themselves.
The individual stations have their own construction statuses which also help reflect the non-existence of passenger services at the moment

Reverted due to nearmap use.
See changeset/154585691

Reverted due to use of nearmap.

See changeset/154585545.

Hi there, I know it's been a while but just letting you know that the 'service' tag is often unsuitable for service roads like the ones tagged in this changeset. It's a bit confusing given the name, but what we commonly call service roads are better known as "access roads" since they provide access to properties off the main carriageway. The access road should be tagged according to its function, which in this case is still 'primary' since the access road still carries high volumes of through traffic and doesn't carry significantly less traffic than the inner carriageways.

Reverted. Nearmap license is incompatible with OSM.
Revert changeset is 154541601

My bad! Thanks for the heads up

Which roads in particular were you looking at? I believe that all standard footpaths I've tagged with bicycle=yes and designation=shared_path are directly connected to a shared path without being interrupted by a road. The bicycle=yes tags all end once they reach a road (which is when the shared path ends under the Vic road rules).
This issue was discussed briefly in the Oceania Discord and I made sure that all footpaths I tagged like this have both the footway=sidewalk and designation=shared_path tags so they could be found and updated if we decided bicycle=yes wasn't the best way to tag them. Perhaps we should bring it up again, and in the mailing list too. Melbourne seems to be littered with improper signage on its shared paths

Hi there,
Please refrain from adding descriptions of objects to its 'name' tag, as is done on the elevators and ventilation shafts.
These objects do not require a name, and the description is best suited to the 'description' tag.
See osm.wiki/Names

Thanks

G'day,
What was the source for this edit? I've been past this path recently and there was no shared path here. I do know that a few years ago there were shared path markings but they were removed a while ago.

Cheers

Hey mate, nice work being so quick to add the new sharrows here. I just wanted to let you know that the correct tag for bike sharrows like this is `cycleway=shared_lane`. I've just updated it so don't worry about changing anything. There's a good list of the tags that have been used for bike lanes around Melbourne on the wiki here: osm.wiki/Melbourne_Bike_Lane_Project
Cheers

see changeset/148232690

See changeset/148233317

The changes made to the St Kilda Junction intersection appear to be based off old imagery. The intersection has been updated with protected bike lanes since the last Bing imagery release. I will revert the changes affecting the new parts of the intersection.
Cheers