Hi SimplifiedCactus,

Thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap.

The bus stop shelter (way/1548029826) does not need to be added to the bus route relation (relation/20411858), so I've removed it from that (changeset/187262774). You may also want to press "Q" on buildings you add to orthagonalise them (i.e. give them right angles).

Also, oneway=no is assumed to be the default for most ways and only really needs to be added when it is ambiguous as to if it is oneway or not. It's not necessarily wrong to add that tag though.

Everything else appears fine to me.

Happy mapping!

Sorry, I didn't notice you were using Vespucci, I imagine it's hard to edit long routes on mobile. iD editor is always a pain to work with relations too. In my experience JOSM is the easiest to use to fix route relations, but I've seen some contributors use this osm.wiki/Relatify which is just a website that is apparently easy to use (although it says it doesn't do train routes, I'm not sure if that's right as it should be very similar to bus and tram routes which it says it does).

Anyways, I tend to keep an eye on route relations using OSMI (https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=pubtrans_routes&lon=144.96258&lat=-37.31964&zoom=9&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&opacity=0.50&overlays=ptv2_routes_invalid%2Cptv2_error_ways%2Cptv2_error_nodes), so if any are broken and easily fixable I usually fix them within a week or so :)

Hi, thanks for your additions.

please remember to add the new ways to the route relations in the correct order

route=train

I've fixed this in changeset/186789763 and again in changeset/187158995

Hi, thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap.

You don't need the "(now open)'' part of the name, the other tags are indicative of it being open already. The note can also be removed since it's open.

reverted: changeset/186683509

reverted: changeset/186683480

reverted: changeset/186683431

please stop adding bogus tourism=theme_park to osm

Hi Lockstar,

When editing ptv2 route relations, please ensure that the bus stops (platforms) are ordered at the beginning of the relation and have the role "platform". They shouldn't be placed after the route ways.

I fixed the order of bus stops and added the platform role to them in changeset/186561028

Hi, please don't add business nodes to the tram routes! Removed in changeset/185933676

Hi, thanks for contributing to OSM.

Looking at way/1539777283 and the surrounding ways, it appears to be one building rather than 10 buildings. This should be mapped as one way.

Happy mapping!
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185851694

Hi thanks for your contributions here. Just a heads up, Bing imagery is quite out of date while Esri is much less so. With Esri you can see there are new buildings and the parking layout is substantially different than what is mapped.

I'm not entirely sure. It seems like a drain or canal. A lot of similarly looking water features are mapped as waterway=drain in Bendigo, but checking the wiki some of those might be waterway=canal. I guess it depends on if it's "superfluous water" or "useful water" as per the wiki -- which I'm not sure about in this case. Maybe leave a note?

I've already reviewed those changsets, they both seem good. The only other thing I did was split the crossing way and changed the tags from path -> footway on the crossing and footpath segments. https://osmcha.org/changesets/184935946

However, upon further inspection I see that the drain has a typo in the name tag way/1534271414 (`namr` instead of `name`)

Thank you for closing my notes! I removed name=x from way/1534268363. Let me know if that wasn't an error

Hi quentinwj,

I'm just wondering where you are getting the imagery offset from? It appears you are not using either the default bing or esri world imagery offset and are moving existing mapped things (which mostly follow the default bing offset) to this new one. By all means do this if it's more accurate, just checking to make sure it isn't arbitrary!

Also esri world imagery tends to be taken at a slight angle (bing is more head on), it's most noticeable with tall buildings (check the cbd), which means you should draw the buildings as seen at the top and drag it to the base of the building if using it. Zooming out also gives you a newer imagery that has a different offset and is at a different angle. I figured I'd impart this knowledge to you considering you are a new mapper using esri here :)

Thanks for your contributions.

Hi, thanks for your contributions to OpenStreetMap.

Please keep in mind that the order of the platforms matters in ptv2 route relations. The platform nodes should be in order at the top of the route relation (i.e. ordered as the first members).

osm.wiki/Buses#Adding_bus_stops_to_the_relation

I've fixed the order of the platforms in changeset/184771359

Happy mapping!

Hi,

In this changeset you've created two overlapping ways:
way/1530495023
way/1530495022

both have conflicting values (name and maxspeed)

one of the ways should be deleted

Hi, thanks for your contributions here :)

regarding way/1151077588 please check esri, it is a paved footpath now as surveyed by a streetcomplete user recently (way/1151077588/history/3). The old alignment for it was correct, I've restored it and the surface value in changeset/184245716

please conflate newer imagery while mapping to ensure you don't remove features not present on bing

While the crossings should be mapped as footway=crossing, footway=sidewalk is "osm-speak" for footpath

Per the wiki:

> Use footway=sidewalk along with highway=footway to tag sidewalks (also known as pavement/footway in the UK or a footpath in Australia) as distinct ways from the carriageway.

I believe those were there for routing. Currently there is no way onto the platform from the footpath