Hi there, just wondering about [access=no] tag placed on Farmland Drive. This tag is preventing vehicle access. Is this correct?

Apologies - typo made: Should be "Jeffery Street Ferry Wharf" not "Bundeena Ferry Wharf".

Agree, the Level key is typically for inside use and is critical for user navigation. As a result though, in the case of e.g. a railway station, the fact a platform is not technically "inside" doesn't mean the Level key is not appropriate.

There are third-party many systems that consume the OSM API - not just Graphhopper - which require specific tagging to communicate navigation information to users. In some cases, this may result in data bloat unfortunately - in saying that, we will review tagging at train stations to minimize this bloat as much as possible...less is more.

As requested, if there is a system or standard you are using that is "breaking" by the use of the Level key on the platform or railway line, kindly respond here. Cheers.

Hi, thanks for seeing this. We will review the tag, as it may be erroneous. I suspect, as per the documentation, [building:levels= number of levels spanned] should be used. We will update the affected polygons if/as required. Cheers

Hi Warin61, in regards to the removal of level=* tag of on railway=rail, could you elaborate on how it violates the PTv2 or other systems? As this is a scenario throughout NSW and will be an issue going forward, so I need to understand the issue and what is the usage impact more specifically. Apologies as I know it can be time-consuming but would appreciate your feedback/view.

Hi Warin61, thanks so much again for looking at this.. much appreciated.

Technically yes, any feature on "ground level" implicitly is level=0 and doesn't need the Level tag per se.

However, for routing purposes and particularly Indoor routing software, it is useful and important to have the Level=* tag on connected features on the same "level" - inclusive of the railway line (just for the length of the platform, not entire length of line); platform; connecting pathways on the platform itself and; connecting stairs/ramps/evevators.

There are precedents throughout the world with this convention and we are moving towards this convention throughout NSW.

In regards to the Layer tag - yeh this can get get overlooked/messed up in long editing sessions that's for sure!!! As far as I understand it, Layer=* determines the graphic or "drawing" order, whereas Level=* is used strictly for topological congruence.

Happy for Layer=* to be fixed if you see something doesn't look right.

Hi, thanks for checking this out.

In this particular instance, as the platform has a Level value less than 0, the railway line segment adjacent to the platform must match the Level value of the platform.

Essentially, the platform level value and railway line level value should match.

This is for routing purposes to ensure the train is on the right "level" for passenger navigation.

TfNSW is updating more and more stations in OSM, please continue to keep an eye out on edits and question any anomalies as it is much appreciated.

Correction of Typo - edits done at Denistone Station, NOT Meadowbank Station.

Hi - thanks for spotting this - you are correct - [access=psv] was a typo and should not have been saved in my edits.

The tag I added [psv=yes] is the one I wanted! This is required to allow buses to reach the bus stop (and other psv vehicles enter the complex). Thanks again.

*correction for typo: Ashley Dr (not Ainsley Dr).

Hi there, I noticed from image searches that there is large signage for "Mount Riverview Anglican Church" on the corner of Rusden and Bunbinla Ave. Is this signage still there? If so and correct, please add a [alt_name] tag. If not, please ignore this comment. Thanks.

Hi, thanks for noticing. We have updated the highway tag - actually reverting back to [highway=cycleway] as it was in the past.

TfNSW Data services team - thatnkyou for bringing that to our attention and verifying that it has re-opened.

thanks aharvey, upon further review of this footway as a shared path, there is no enforced single-direction for bicycles, so the bicycle:forward and bicylce:backward tags have been removed, replaced with a more standard bicycle:designated tag to match the footway segments that adjoing this segment to the south.

ok cool thanks pza, check it out when you can and please re-instate the incorrectly removed crossing. Thanks again

Hi pza, the information we received from Westconnex was that the pedestrian/cycle crossing will be closed from 11 November, 2020. If this doesn't happen, please re-instate (and comment here) and we can get in touch with Westconnex

Thanks Warin61 for picking that up! - I've updated the erroneous sections today.

Hi thanks for that - we had received feedback from a member of the public that this walkway between Dickson Lane and Victoria Rd was closed/non-existent, that prompted the update.

However, it may be that it has been closed (e.g. temporary but long-term) and could use tag [access=no]; and/or the lane does not go all the way through to Dickson Lane?

Happy to have this put back in if it can be verified.

HI aharvey, thanks for the query - the changes to the George Street sections have been made to only allow pedestrian traffic (and light rail), so no motor vehicles or bicycles permitted at this time.