Hi S/Rider, pleased to meet you. A query... you removed an unpaved surface tag from a long section of the Tanami Road N of Billiluna late last year. Do you know if this is now paved? It's one of the only primary roads in Aus without a surface tag atm. Thanks for your help, Ian

Thank for your quick reply. I thought the 'paved' tag was probably a hangover from an earlier edit rather than yours. I'll fix it up now. Best wishes.

To clarify my message above, the W end of Buckie Road is asphalt, as you added. It's the eastern end only that I cant confirm using available imagery.Thanks again.

Hi Bob, I'm updating road surfaces again. Could you check Buckie Road for me please? I'm not sure if its your edit or an earlier one. On all the imagery I've got, its only paved for a short section at Croppa Creek. Its not on Mapillary yet but you may have extra vision I dont. Cheers Ian

Hi again, thanks for your quick reply. I'll fix it up his morning. Best wishes.

Hi n8nmap, thanks for all our edits. A question: can you tell me why you added the tags bicycle=no and foot=no on Dooroombah Road, near Tooraweenah. I've never seen this on a rural road in NSW before. Are there signposts on the road that forbid cyclists and pedestrians? Thanks for you help.

Hi Cleary, I wonder if you could check the paved surface tag on this way , and the adjoining ways to the north, from Fords Bridge to Ella Vale. It's tagged as paved but all the imagery I have available indicates its unpaved from the outskirts of Fords Bridge north. I think you added the surface tag but it may have been carried over from someone else's earlier edits perhaps. Thanks for your help. Best wishes Ian

Hiya, thanks, will do. Cheers.

Hi Swavu, any objections if I add leisure=nature_reserve to this big relation, so the "Proposed Murray River Park" reserves render on OSM Carto? Without a nature_reserve tag or a protect_class tag they are not displayed. They exist on the ground, are managed by Parks Vic, and are included in the "River Red Gum Parks Management Plan" (2018). This plan includes all parks and reserves along the Murray River. But, anomalously, they were never legislated as conservation reserves (hence the strange name) and Appendix 1 in the management plan shows they do not have an IUCN status (i.e. no protect_class). Cheers Ian

Merci, Monsieur Micromap ;)

Hi Ewen, many thanks for all your work in NW Vic. Do you have any objections to upgrading the long Old Mail Road from a track to unclassified? The Vic Gov database calls it a minor road rather than a track, and its the main access route for all properties and parks in the area. Cheers Ian

Thanks again, I've re-instated the original name using the official_name tag, as suggested. Cheers.

Hiya, well that does floor me! Can I ask where you found that info? I walked to the northern end of it yesterday and all the sign posts at Hotham only refer to the trail name. The entire trail is definitely longer than this section and could also be placed in a relation, but unless there is a signpost called Poo Farm road at the southern end (which I doubt given the uniformity of trail signposting by the alpine resorts, and all the signs that emphasise the indigenous heritage name) perhaps Poo Farm would be better placed as an alt name?

Hello Leon, I noticed that this edit changed the town name from “Mortlake” to “Mortlake Post Office”. I haven’t edited POs before but I wonder if the PO and locality tags should be entered separately? Many thanks for all your work on OSM. Cheers TreeTracks.

Hiya, thanks for your super quick reply. That's great. Thanks for your work there. BTW, I've just changed added access=private tags to a group of tracks that you added nearby on farmland at Balliang East. Could you consider adding this tag if you need to add tracks or roads on private property, especially if they provide through routes from one public road to another? This reduces the chance that routers will direct traffic across private land. Its not a big deal for most vehicle traffic but it helps a lot on cycling and off-road apps where users can create routes that avoid paved roads and prioritise unpaved roads and tracks. Thanks again for your help and all your work on OSM. Best wishes.

Hi NathanielIR, good to meet you. Could you give me some feedback on this edit please. Bing, Esri and Maxar imagery all show no roundabout at this intersection. Neither does Mapillary imagery collected in May 2020. Do you have any objections if I change this back to a standard intersection as shown on all the imagery? Thanks very much for your help. Cheers.

Hi David, lovely mapping around Armidale! I've added the amenity=toilets tag to a suite of buildings that you tagged as building=toilets in Armidale (and one in Dunedoo) as, without the amenity=toilets tag they do not display the toilets icon in OpenStreetMap. All other toilets in NSW have the amenity tag too. However, I haven't added one to this toilet at Harris Park as I wasn't sure if you meant to indicate that the toilet was now disused. It has the tags: building=toilets and disused:amenity=toilets. If it's still open it would be good to remove the disused:amenity tag. Thanks for your fantastic mapping, it's a pleasure to see Armidale in such detail in OSM.

Hi Bob, I just used the available Bing/Maxar images for this stretch which from memory was all asphalt. I’m pretty sure I didn’t look at the stretch further south which was already tagged as unpaved (apart from the immediate southern end of the ways I tagged), I just filled the gaps near Mt Isa that had no surface tags. Any new Mapillary images you have will be wonderful to work from. Cheers Ian

Hi again, sorry, my mistake, I misread the tags. I see you changed landuse:meadow to natural:wood, not meadow:pasture to natural:wood, as I said earlier. However, my broader comment stands. Landuse:pasture seems the most appropriate tag to tag the administrative boundaries of the TSR and natural:wood is the best way to tag tree cover, which is a different thing. I shall add both features as separate areas to describe both features.

Hi again, a comment rather than question. Each mapped feature can only represent one thing on the ground, so an area cannot be tagged as both natural:wood and landuse:meadow, as you've changed it here. It has to be one or the other. TSRs are a problem to tag. The formal boundaries of the landuse can be best tagged with natural:meadow. The tree cover, which is a natural feature, not a landuse, and which may not follow the administrative boundaries perfectly, would be best mapped separately. I'll have a go at adding both layers on this TSR now. I'm happy to remove meadow:pasture, as you suggest.