Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:37 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Should the changeset have a tag to indicate this? license=CC0 perhaps? Possibly. I have to be careful about disclaiming my copyright vs. giving assurances on the license of such data. I don't know enough of the legal side to understand this. I wish that the copyright I gain in my works automatically was not applied to my works automatically, but at the same time 2 licenses require my works to be under a certain license. stuff derived from CC-BY-SA and information derived from nearmap, those licenses that CC-BY-SA must apply to my works. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 7 September 2011 15:53, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 September 2011 15:49, Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com wrote: I write I just have something against this relation, because it is arbitrary and confusing and you write So your entire argument is that we should delete the whole route because it isn't contiguous? Most routes are arbitrary and confusing, you only have to look at rural/regional highways going through medium sized towns, this goes doubly so for tourism routes and is again a very good reason for having routes, rather than removing them. But these fall into your category of discovery and gathering knowledge, which is fine. We know the route exists, we just don't know where it is. One day we may find out, or not. Until then, we gather the knowledge we have and add it. The problem usually stems from differences at how the way is gazetted to how the way is actually built, and for what ever reason the gazetted version then isn't updated is another argument altogether. In your examples, maybe. In my example, this certainly isn't the case. The issues are clear. We are talking about a mass renaming that happened in the 1920s, followed by 90 subsequent years of development. The Princes Highway is an historical curiosity, and internal name management name assigned by the NSW roads authority, and the name of a bunch of roads between Sydney and Adelaide. It isn't a route any longer. I'm sure people say they are going to drive the Princes Highway from Sydney to Melbourne, but you can never pin it down to actual set of roads. They just mean they are driving down the coast, as opposed to the Hume. It is a useful turn of phrase, but it is a mapping anachronism. As I said, I'll leave it be, but the chance that this will be developed into something meaningful, is zip. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 7 September 2011 16:31, Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com wrote: The Princes Highway is an historical curiosity, and internal name management name assigned by the NSW roads authority, and the name of a bunch of roads between Sydney and Adelaide. It isn't a route any longer. It's still a series of non-contiguous sections that is named, these sections belong as part of a route. I'm sure people say they are going to drive the Princes Highway from Sydney to Melbourne, but you can never pin it down to actual set of roads. They just mean they are driving down the coast, as opposed to the Hume. It is a useful turn of phrase, but it is a mapping anachronism. The majority of the route, distance wise, would still exist as it has for a long time. As I said, I'll leave it be, but the chance that this will be developed into something meaningful, is zip. That's a very subjective thing to say, you claim it has no value, others have obviously disagreed, the main thing to take into account is what actual harm does it do to the map to exist as a relation, I say none, so far your suggested examples of harm are imho wrong also since the way should take precedence over any relation, this way you can give streets local names and the route sharing the same physical way can be shown where there no longer is a local route needing to be shown. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 7 September 2011 15:49, Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com wrote: I write I just have something against this relation, because it is arbitrary and confusing and you write So your entire argument is that we should delete the whole route because it isn't contiguous? Most routes are arbitrary and confusing, you only have to look at rural/regional highways going through medium sized towns, this goes doubly so for tourism routes and is again a very good reason for having routes, rather than removing them. If that was my entire argument, I'd just say that, but instead of that I said that it is arbitrary and confusing. Arbitrary because there is no touchstone of verifiability, it is just each person opinion. Confusing, The problem usually stems from differences at how the way is gazetted to how the way is actually built, and for what ever reason the gazetted version then isn't updated is another argument altogether. because it is both a road name and a route, and it is impossible for them both to align. If this gets into a satnav which recommends you continue on the Princes Highway route, while actually turning off the Princes Highway road - what a mess. Why do we seek this? Way names are supposed to have preference, and if you are talking about local routes that differ in name this shouldn't be an issue and is one of the reasons to put highway names into routes. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 7 September 2011 15:19, Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com wrote: Nah, that is all good to me. I've got nothing against relations. Nothing against routes. Nothing against multiple relations and multiple routes. In fact, I'd have nothing against a parent relation that linked the sections of the National Route 1 and the diversionary highway routes, like State Highway 60 - at least that is well defined. I just have something against this relation, because it is arbitrary and confusing. So your entire argument is that we should delete the whole route because it isn't contiguous? Most, if not all routes won't be contiguous, Ross pointed this out the other day but there is often on/off ramps, roads going from dual to single carriage way and back again, then you also have roundabouts, there is all sorts of reasons why gaps exists, but that is even more reason to have routes for them, so that the bits that are named Princess Highway can be tagged as such, and if bits are included that shouldn't be then remove the bits not the entire route. I really think verifiability is the key for routes, if we start adding stuff to the map that isn't on the ground or can't be verified... That may be a goal, but it doesn't mean it should be the only one, the process of mapping is one of going from some information to better information, and this is a continual process as things change over time, not just the fact that better sources of data can be mapped from. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Charleville, Qld survey suggestions sought
On 7 September 2011 13:09, Christopher Barham cbar...@pobox.com wrote: Hi, I'm in Charleville, Qld for a couple of days with an iPhone, a garmin oregon GPS and, from tomorrow, a vehicle. The place is pretty much unsurveyed, but the DCDB has been used to add streets so the road geometry is ok. Will do what I can (street names etc) , but I wondered if there is anything you guys could suggest would benefit from a survey around and about... maybe further out from the town itself? If memory serves correctly there is a weather museum/attraction at Charleville, at a guess it'd be near the airport. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 16:31:38 +1000 Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com wrote: The Princes Highway is an historical curiosity, and internal name management name assigned by the NSW roads authority, and the name of a bunch of roads between Sydney and Adelaide. It isn't a route any longer. I'm sure people say they are going to drive the Princes Highway from Sydney to Melbourne, but you can never pin it down to actual set of roads. They just mean they are driving down the coast, as opposed to the Hume. It is a useful turn of phrase, but it is a mapping anachronism. So you would be happier if there was a fourth dimension n the data, that of time? So that you could mark a route as 'original princes highway' and another route as 'princes highway 1990' and so on? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
I wrote: This is why route numbers were invented. So routes can be followed across multiple road names. The route numbers are on the ground, or otherwise discoverable. On Sep 6, 2011 3:02 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure if we're disagreeing or not, but: assuming that there is an uncontroversial route number of some sequence of roads, then we should have a relation describing that same sequence of roads. ref=* tags on ways are ok; relations are better. Do you agree with that? Or are you contesting the actual value of relations? Yes. If there is an uncontroversial route number that applies to a sequence of roads, lets map it. Yes, a relation is the best way. The issue I have is with using a route relation with a road name to link split parts of a named road, and including roads that don't have a name or alternate name in common with the route, and can't clearly be identified as part of that route by survey. My example of the Princes Highway route from Sydney to Adelaide currently is one such route, where choosing what roads to include is often arbitary, and even if completed it may still not be a through route that can be followed, and may be confused with the actual road with the same name. I have no problem with the A10, A1, MR1, M1 etc being used on route relations. I wouldn't even have a problem with multiple Princes Highway routes over sections where such a route is clear and verifiable. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 08/09/11 07:58, Ian Sergeant wrote: The issue I have is with using a route relation with a road name to link split parts of a named road, and including roads that don't have a name or alternate name in common with the route, and can't clearly be identified as part of that route by survey. I take a pragmatic approach, something like this: Given my local knowledge, and being on-site, how would I direct somebody who is unfamiliar with the exact route but wants to be given turn-by-turn directions from A to a distant B. I've been mapping routes like the Hume and Hovell Walking Track. This includes unnamed paths, named roads and highways, and things like roundabouts (unnamed, of course). But they all form part of the track nevertheless. Sometimes the precise route is unclear. It doesn't really matter if I can make a safe and convenient choice for a routing algorithm to follow. If someone else knows better, I'm delighted for them to refine the route. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
I wrote: I'm sure people say they are going to drive the Princes Highway from Sydney to Melbourne, but you can never pin it down to actual set of roads. They just mean they are driving down the coast, as opposed to the Hume. It is a useful turn of phrase, but it is a mapping anachronism. On 07/09/11 21:00, Liz wrote: So you would be happier if there was a fourth dimension n the data, that of time? So that you could mark a route as 'original princes highway' and another route as 'princes highway 1990' and so on? Well, we have railway=abandoned, so perhaps we need a route=abandoned? Seriously though, no. I'm still sticking to verifiability being a touchstone of OSM, and necessary given the nature of our community project. We can't each just go and make a route where we feel there should be one, without reasoning or evidence, and the try on the doesn't do any harm defence as a justification for its continued existence. Similar to HIghway 1. Probably as much in the Australian psyche as Route 66 is in the U.S, but routings and markings change, and we need to mark up the references on the ground. We can't mark a way as Highway 1 just because it had that cute sign pinned to a pole back in the 60s. I'm sure we are interested in the history of the development of the road network, but I'm not sure our database is the place for the information right now. Of course, in 100 years time, if we do our jobs properly, someone will have a nice historical reference of the same. Anyway, much to the relief of all, I really will stop pushing this now. My last word on the issue. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: An actual connected route along roads on the ground in this instance either doesn't exist or cannot be determined from any verifiable source. OSM requires verifiability, for reasons I consider apparent. A route relation requires that there be an actual, connected route. A route is by definition an abstraction. It is an idea dreamed up by a committee somewhere, connecting various pieces of physical infrastructure. It can then be communicated in various ways: with physical signage, websites, pamphlets, maybe even legislation. However it's communicated, interpretation is required to work out which roads are in and which are out. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
Quoting Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com: I'm sure we are interested in the history of the development of the road network, but I'm not sure our database is the place for the information right now. For those interested, a partial history of the development of Highway 1 is at Ozroads: http://www.ozroads.com.au/NationalSystem/highway1.htm Mark P. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
