Warin61's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 16859609 | Hi, I believe the following does not follow present practice?
I think it is a toll both, motor vehicles are charged - unless they have a permit. Bicycles and pedestrians are not charged, but allowed through. |
|
| 64562306 | Hi, This cycle way does not appear in Bing - at least in some sections. I think some sections are using roads/track that are in use by motor vehicles. I have broken it and joined it to 'Old Gembrook Road using Bing. Check to see if it OK with what you know. |
|
| 65499586 | Hi, Relations ...
You should fix the others in this area. Please see and use https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=150.46617&lat=-34.44165&zoom=14 You can pan and zoom in/out to find your errors .. that is what I use it for. |
|
| 49763650 | More reading/comments here
|
|
| 49763650 | Hi,
Trig points are placed where they can be seen and used, that usually means some prominence. Because there is a higher place near by does not mean that the lower place has no name and the higher one does have a name. There is only ~100 meters height difference between the two. The names North Ramshead and South Ramshead may set the extent of the range of the Ramshead. Possibly contacting the Geographical Names Board may lead to a story behind these names. What research have you done? The Geographical Names Board presently state South Ramshead is at the lower height location. There are trig points shown on the topo map that have no name .. and are certainly high. So I discount the trig station theory. |
|
| 49763650 | Hi,
Refer to NSW topo map. I have removed the name and left this peak where you placed it. The real South Rams Head has another entry now. |
|
| 65539632 | No response. Deleted name, office and level. |
|
| 66498600 | Hay, no need to be sorry. It is easy to do, just keep an eye out for them -they are not 'nice'. |
|
| 66457933 | Hi
Way: 664651646 has no tag .. what is it? |
|
| 66498600 | Hi
I'll leave it to you to repair. |
|
| 66508644 | Hi, This has broken the admin boundary relations 6827851 and 3337651. I'll leave it to you to repair. |
|
| 66487557 | Hi, This tree area cross itself
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=145.05144&lat=-37.95899&zoom=11 |
|
| 66302464 | Certainly. However to addition should not destroy what is already there.. unless that has been changed 'on the ground'. In JOSM you can make a blank layer - top left click on 'File' then click on 'New Layer'. Make your parking lots etc in there and you will not be using any old nodes, ways or relations. So it will be impossible to destroy any old stuff there. And the new stuff will be completely separate from the old stuff.
|
|
| 34644528 | Hi,
|
|
| 66452442 | Hi,
Can you fix it? And you might check other suburban boundaries while your there. |
|
| 66411756 | That looks about right.
|
|
| 66411756 | Hi,
|
|
| 66417826 | Hi, Hi,
|
|
| 45213262 | Hi,
|
|
| 51434634 | Hi,
|