Thanks! I added https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q157332 as the operator:wikidata.

Does this appear on the imagery here, it doesn't line up with any of the imagery sources we have.

What's DLR stand for?

Indeed when I tried with https://brouter.de/brouter-web/ here it also tried to cross the road where there's no crossing but I customised the routing profile (increasing path_preference from 0 to 20) and then it avoided crossing at the non-crossing instead re-routing me along the mapped footpaths and through the designated crossing.

So essentially I think this issue is best addressed in your routing engine profile and it's not really an issue with how the data is mapped in my view.

Thanks for the context, and I can see the issue that most routing engines will still route along the road in addition to or instead of the dedicated mapped footpath network. I can understand why though, since not everywhere has the footpaths mapped out and many places there are no footpaths so it must route you along the road.

From a data point of view I just don't thing crossing=no is needed, does it mean you aren't allowed to cross or just that there's no dedicated infrastructure to cross.

If the crossing=no is to mean you aren't allowed to cross then that's incorrect, from a road rules point of view you're only forbidden to cross within 20m of a crossing, which around here is really only between the bus stop at node/356553525 and the intersection of Milton/Grimes. Further along to the south/west you are allowed to cross.

If the crossing=to is to mean there is no dedicated infrastructure to cross, that's already implied by the lack of a highway=crossing node around here.

I don't think the common routing engines take crossing=no along a way into account for example osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_valhalla_foot&route=-27.474418%2C152.994533%3B-27.476593%2C152.996762#map=18/-27.475192/152.995643&layers=N still seems to cross the road there (while these don't update straight away, I think they have updated their data by now).

I'm not sure what routing engine and profile you're using on your Journey Planner or how often you ingest data updates but it still crossing here https://jp.translink.com.au/plan-your-journey/journey-planner?searchDate=2025-07-01&searchTime=3%3A00pm&startLocationId=PL%3AEilNdW5ybyBTdHJlZXQsIEF1Y2hlbmZsb3dlciBRTEQsIEF1c3RyYWxpYSIuKiwKFAoSCXsKrLO4UJFrEXh1YkOolqpEEhQKEglHzWClr1CRaxEAf97zWqMCBQ&start=Munro+Street%2C+Auchenflower+QLD&endLocationId=ST%3Aplace_aucsta&end=Auchenflower+station&timeSearchMode=LeaveAfter&maximumWalkingDistance=4000&walkingSpeed=Normal&fareTypes=Free&fareTypes=Prepaid&fareTypes=Standard&serviceTypes=Express&serviceTypes=NightLink&serviceTypes=Regular&serviceTypes=School&transportModes=Bus&transportModes=Ferry&transportModes=Train&transportModes=Tram

Likely the solution likes with the routing engine in the profile rules, to weight more strongly against crossing where there is no highway=crossing so it'll still do so if you're in an area with no footpaths mapped, but it'll prefer taking you on a bit of a detour to cross at a designated crossing.

Thanks for adding HEMS 4 in way/352054938/history

I just changed it to emergence=air_rescue_service + air_rescue_service=aeromedical since this tag is documented at air_rescue_service=aeromedical and went through a formal proposal in 2023 and was approved. It provides a distinction between a typical ambulance station which operates from vehicles and aeromedical ambulance services offered by HEMS4 here.

We still include operator=Ambulance Victoria to indicate it's part of that organisation.

I've also mapped a few other the other Air Ambulance Victoria operation bases this way.

Does this work?

hi the suburb, postcode and state aren't needed since these are already derived from existing boundaries mapped. Indeed these addresses were imported from Vicmap data and we intentionally omitted this data for this reason.

No problem. My main issue is that name="Train 427: Dubbo XPT" isn't what these routes are known as on the ground, in common local knowledge or in official documentation, it's an invented name purely from PTv2. We should be using route names that closely match what the route is known as on the ground or referred to as in documentation like official websites, timetabling etc.

If people want a name in the "Train 427: Dubbo XPT" format they can easily build this as `${mode} ${ref}: ${name}` or whatever other format they like.

Yeah I made them back on the 21st. Unfortuantly that tag isn't shown on the default map here.

The "Tracestack Topo" style osm.org/#map=19/-36.907493/147.162343&layers=PN does show it as "T3".

Other maps like OSMAnd can show it under Configure map > Routes > Hiking trails difficulty grade.

could you provide any further documentation for this change?

could you provide any further documentation for this change?

hi I see you've removed the IUCN number, I don't know much about it but I've asked the person who added it at changeset/47349280

The IUCN number you added was removed in changeset/168213240 but I don't know much about IUCN numbers to understand what it should be here?

not sure what you mean by symbol? Maybe you mean tag?

I added the sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking tag to way/1408273600 which is probably the best way to tag a "steep rock" section that you need to use your hands to navigate through.

looks good, but just a minor note that instead of deleting node/12119421701 and creating a new one next to it, you could just move the existing one to improve the location and update any tags you need. This is based on good practice documented at osm.wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_history

hi why did you change https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/451869895 to not:operator:wikidata=Q5260271 I assume it's from the iD suggestion, perhaps you clicked the wrong button?

I also just did changeset/168286708 since I got sick of people changing these one at a time through iD tag suggestions.

I don't have any local knowledge I was just going by the fact that you named it as "Woolwich baths" in your changeset comment but the name was missing.

Though I checked Bing Streetside (which we can use) and it does show the name signposted https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=-33.840041~151.1689&lvl=17&dir=98.562&style=x&v=2&sV=1 so I've gone ahead and updated the name.

any reason to not set name=Woolwich Baths?

We don't usually tag where it's safe/no safe to cross since this is quite subjective, and regardless the footpaths and existing crossings are already well mapped here, so there's no reason to place crossing=no along the way like this.

I saw that thanks. I think around where Kathmandu is is the furthest the shop part goes, but that's okay.

Agree with nevw, better to use access=private. Though it's unclear to me from the imagery if this path does join up, so I've re-added the private driveway access in changeset/168116099 marking it as access=private.