Interesting . . . as far as I know, I haven't touched the admin boundaries.

Sorry, didn't realise I had. Hope it's fixed noe.

Hi aharvey,
you're probably right, but out of frustration. I ask myself what the purpose is and keep coming back to one of the purposes being that of giving an indication of where and when to diverge. Whilst in the past I may have been a little too generous with the lead-in to a divergence, only showing a split where the physical barrier starts is also unhelpful as a divergent move needs to be a reasonable distance before the physical barrier. You yourself demonstrate the indecisive nature of this rule when you state "a better middle ground in my opinion . . .", so you yourself are being a bit arbitrary and not being strict with the letter of the rule. I would argue a better middle ground would be where the white line splits into a painted island or median. I treat painted hatched bars between outer painted lines as having the same purpose as the physical curb as I see this as the true spirit of the rule.

I also like to show smooth transitions where possible as this looks better and is more indicative of what is on the ground.

I hope this helps.

Supt.

Hi Diacritic, I'm afraid we're just going to disagree on some things.
Supt.

Fair enough, so how would you show it to allow for the various traffic moves?

My changes are based on the Maxar Premium Imagery and there are physical separations.

And one further point, I didn't create this, it was already there, rather, I just edited it to be more accurate.

BTW, the original turntable is still there.

Hi, I have made the changes based on an aerial photo of when these sidings were still in place that popped up on a historical railway Facebook page, so I don't know the original source.

As for the value in mapping them, although they don't show up on OpenStreetMaps as being former rail infrastructure, they do show up as an overlay on OpenRailwayMaps as being abandoned railway infrastructure, which is helpful for people interested in identifying former railway routes.
Regards,
Supt.

Hi Diacritic,

The other editor had reverted most of the work that I had previously done on that roundabout. I notice that the link you referred to re roundabout "flares" was really only talking about small roundabouts. This one is a medium to larger one of a similar size (but different shape) to the adjacent one just across the bridge. I also noticed how the link shows to do roundabouts with the split for the approach and departing islands starting/ending at the white lining rather than at the physical island itself, which is the way I have always done islands and medians.

Why do I get the feeling you are stalking me?

Regards,
Supt.

Hi Diacritic, I did reply to your last message but I realise I did it by just clicking "reply" on the email rather than in this reply box. Here is what I wrote:
Hi Diacritic,

Yes, I did make that a dual carriageway as I feel it effectively is and have followed what many others (but not all) have done.

Part of what I like to do is to edit roads and intersection to show smooth bends and not sudden, clunky, direction changes which are not realistic. In reality, drivers are not going to suddenly change direction or turn into a turning lane or slip lane exactly where the concrete island starts but will start their turn as indicated by the line markings. This is what I have always sought to achieve. It becomes very disheartening when I see the work I have put in edited and reduced to unsightly clunky turns.

Regards,
Supt.

Fair point about was 995500551. As for way 112825020, I couldn't identify which one that was.
As for slip lanes, turning lanes, roads going from undivided to divided, etc., there are plenty of current examples where the road markings are effectively the same as physical islands, medians, etc. as they are effectively an extension of the island. And, as I said before, I hate the look of very clunky, sudden bends and diversions which don't reflect reality.

Regards, Supt.

Aerial imagery and local knowledge.

Hi Surveyor, I did the original trackage in the depot and I noticed that names had been added to the various roads and some of the curves and turnouts had been made a bit clunky, so I smoothed out some of the curves and turnouts, particularly the loop road. I also added the drain that goes through the depot from north to south.

Hi Surveyor2503, yes, my wife is a teacher at Rivercrest Christian College and what was their entry drive has been compulsorily acquired to become an extension of Ferninand Drive, which will, in time, be further extended to Soldiers Road.
Regards,
Supt_of_Printing.

Yes, there are still traces at various points along the way.

I don't see what the error is.

Hi Tara, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have only recently been learning about such things as destinations, etc., but still a bit of a novice with these finer points. I like to get ways smooth and accurate, removing the chunky style of so many. I will be more careful in future.
Cheers,
Supt.

Fixed! I think.

Yes, I see your point. On closer examination, I think that BOTH are two way depending on whether cars are entering or leaving the Spirit of Tasmania.

Oops, certainly unintentional, but I can't work out where it;s broken. Happy to fix if I know where and how.

I just used the Bing aerial imagary as a background.