Hi herriotto,
This changeset has been reverted:
changeset/53989819

Please make sure to verify your edits, you should not be using outdated third party information to do editing. ESRI imagery is more outdated than MapBox imagery for this location. You should not be basing your edits on either of these sources for this location.

Even if you have no familiarity with the area and have never visited it before, you should verify your information, the highway=construction and construction=motorway ways should be enough to alert you that you should verify your edits.

Details confirming the current alignment can be found in the link below where the road alignment was changed from the 28th of August this year.
https://project.mainroads.wa.gov.au/northlinkwa/ProjectNews/Pages/newsarticle.aspx?NewsArticleId=34

Cheers,

Hi stampyfanclub :)

Thanks for your edit,
just a reminder to check how to classify roads in the wiki. Currently this road is not a motorway, not in practical terms, official terms, or by OSM standards. Until there is control-of-access on the road it cannot be a motorway.

Cheers,
aaronsta

Hey rund :)
Cheers for your edit.
Regarding your edit, and just in my opinion, it is not productive to reclassify roads to unclassifed. although I can understand your motive behind it. Sometimes it can take years for an area to be looked at again by another mapper, and in that time the map will be inaccurate. Roads in OSM in W.A. are classified according to their offical classification.

Sorry for the rant,
and cheers again for the edit.

Regards,
aaron

Hi Warin61,
Thanks for your edits on this relation. I was unaware that the type=site relation tag existed.

Regards,
Aaron

Hi Warin61,
Cheers for your feedback :)
Each individual area has its own individual name, and together these six areas form the Swan Estuary Marine Park.
I tried having a look earlier for a common and approved way tag, but found none. Maybe you know of one and can update the tagging accordingly.

Unfortunately I don't have the time to fix this, and would appreciate if you know how, could update the map to reflect your recommendations.

Cheers,
Aaron.

Hi shinjiman, thanks for your edit :) Just following up and letting you know that when you edit to check that you remove redundant tags if possible. This is harder on the ID (web based) editor. This is just as the tag construction=service was still on these ways and should have been deleted. Cheers :)

Thanks for your message aharvey.
The nodes have now been removed.
changeset/52009366
Uploading it to the live server remained the only efficient way to rectify the images which I am aware of. As I required a free and open wms tile service, which included relatively up-to-date map data, and which I could modify (with edits reflected in a timely manner) to include the points to rectify the images against

It may be appropriate to remove these lines, as I am yet to complete mapping the area and may need to use them again it could be useful to retain. The lines now have no tagged attributes aside from the note=*

Following up from this, originally these were created as the roundabouts themselves formed good starting points, but are way to inaccurate to align the images. It was not put in a local dataset as the images were rectified outside JOSM, where wms tiles were supported but any vector data (such as osm files) was not.

Hi Warin61 and aharvey, this changeset is in response to a message from OSM user hadry. Below is a copy of correspondence between myself and OSM user hadry: Hi Hadry, Thanks for your message, yes these were tagged for the renderer, as barrier=fence makes a clearly visible straight line on Mapnik. I captured some aerial imagery around the time when these were made, and needed to reference the imagery for imagery rectification, so added these lines. The purpose was to remap this area in greater detail, but I never got around to finishing the project, so never removed the lines. I have now removed the barrier=fence tagging. changeset/51899959 relation/7560478 I have retained the ways as it would be useful to use in the near future. Cheers, Aaron On 6/09/2017 9:47 PM, hadry wrote: > > > OpenStreetMap OpenStreetMap > > Hi aaronsta, > > hadry has sent you a message through OpenStreetMap with the subject inexistant fences: > hadry > > Hi aaronsta, > > Would you be able to clarify your use of these tags for features that do not exist on the ground? > > barrier: fence > > note: ADDED FOR AERIAL IMAGERY RECTIFICATION, PLEASE RETAIN IN MAP > > eg. way/478643208/ > > I don't understand why they need to be tagged as fence. From an outside point of view, it looks a lot like tagging for the renderer. > > Cheers! > > hadry

Correction to previous: your > you

Hi trigpoint,
Each way was tagged by hand. This is not an automated edit as described by the link your provided, although the use of an editing program (automation) increased the speed of the process. To verify the validity of the intersection, each change made in the edit including tagging was done by hand. Without a very good reason (like there was no roundabout or road there) the original geometry was left untouched. At these intersections the road has been split by some user. It seemed inappropriate to recombine it in places due to the presence of a median. As the purpose of this edit was to remove tagging errors (highway=mini_roundabout on a way) and not to change geometry, there were two potential changes which could have been made; the highway=mini_roundabout moved to a node (and geometry of the roundabout (only) changed) or the way made a highway=roundabout (mini_roundabout being a valid subset of roundabout). So again as it was not the purpose of this edit to change geometry, and errors would have been created by changing the geometry of the adjoining ways, this was changed to highway=roundabout.

Some changes have been made to this changeset (#50341042). Please note the meanings and how to use the following tags before any future edits using these keys: motorway; motorway_link; trunk; and trunk_link. highway=motorway Also ensure that relations are not negatively affected, and all redundant tags are removed (Also note that the ways you edited specifically had note=not freeway on them at the time you edited them, and oneway=yes). Cheers, aaronsta

Note: there were some significant issues with this edit, it seems the editor moved some ways

Hi russj79,
I just wanted to make a note with a few of your edits in Caversham, these edits occurred about 2 years ago! So it has taken this long for them to be picked up!

When tagging roundabouts don't use highway=turning_circle this is only for certain cul-de-sacs. Use junction=roundabout instead. No roundabouts in Australia are named (no name tag) (some rotaries are though) Also please don't forget to split roads/ways to separate roads when they have different properties!

Changeset reverted in full as it constitutes vandalism

Road previously classed as trunk as it was deemed a "dual-carriageway". While this road section is a dual carriageway this is not a classification of Main Roads (MRWA) Beyond Safety Bay Rd and Kwinana Freeway intersection the road is no longer a road with Control of Access. If the logic of “being a dual-carriageway” is used then beyond Safety Bay Road it should be classed as a trunk road. Sometimes it is not appropriate to use the statutory road classification. As a result this section of road is a motorway as it has some limited access aspects to it.

Hi there, yes I do think that is what happened Ill do a quick edit now and have a proper look at it later

Unfortunatley I cannot work out a way to remove nodes without tags as it will also bring up ways without tags and relation nodes and ways without tags. But you seem to know what you are doing SomeoneElse, please let me know if I can help.

Another person has been working hard to try and remove these changesets, if the most recent changeset does not match one of those three above then it may have been their changeset which created the untagged nodes. If the tags can be restored through a revert of smaller changesets then the nodes can be easily deleted. I do not advise reverting one of the three above as they are quite larger and probably overlap with work you have done.