Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking

[stevea]

I think as long as "conflates a bunch" is made "explicit" it can be a helpful 
tag.  This is why I said "generally," as a "rich" tagging as this (which mixes 
semantics and says "choose a full meal from the menu, not a la carte") can be 
an exception.  Again, it must be understood that it is a "rating," rather than 
explicit values that mean specific things unto themselves.

> On Jan 30, 2022, at 9:15 PM, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 15:27, stevea  wrote:
> But to conflate two wholly different semantics into one key, mmm, not 
> generally a good idea.
> 
> But that's exactly what the AWTGS does, it conflates a bunch of independent 
> variables together, it generally works where the harder trails are longer and 
> steeper and more remote, but breaks down for long walks which are flat, 
> easily accessible, easy to navigate and not remote. However, it's in use as 
> an official grading system, so it's fine to map it at least in the case where 
> it's officially assigned. Data consumers can decide if they want to use it or 
> use more attributes for each specific trail difficulty variable.


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 15:27, stevea  wrote:

> But to conflate two wholly different semantics into one key, mmm, not
> generally a good idea.
>

But that's exactly what the AWTGS does, it conflates a bunch of independent
variables together, it generally works where the harder trails are longer
and steeper and more remote, but breaks down for long walks which are flat,
easily accessible, easy to navigate and not remote. However, it's in use as
an official grading system, so it's fine to map it at least in the case
where it's officially assigned. Data consumers can decide if they want to
use it or use more attributes for each specific trail difficulty variable.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 14:18, tabjsina  wrote:

>
> Thanks all - let me know if you have any concerns or suggestions
>

Probably easiest, & less messy, to set several up, one for each state -
it'd be OK to include ACT in NSW, or Tas in Vic Oops! : TAS in VIC :-)

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking

[stevea]

> On Jan 30, 2022, at 8:16 PM, Phil Wyatt  wrote:
> I think Class 1 specifically mentions disability access so I would hate to 
> see that combined in any way with other classes.

+1:  I agree that "disability access explicit" and "how much experience you 
have as a bush-trail walker" are orthogonal (statistically independent).  OSM, 
as we tag (especially newer, evolving tagging schemes) DO want to keep 
orthogonal semantics separate.  This can be another value, another key, another 
sub-key...we know the drill.  But to conflate two wholly different semantics 
into one key, mmm, not generally a good idea.

Fun discussion otherwise!
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

 

I think Class 1 specifically mentions disability access so I would hate to see 
that combined in any way with other classes.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Monday, 31 January 2022 2:23 PM
To: ianst...@iinet.net.au
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking

 




 

 

 

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 11:05, mailto:ianst...@iinet.net.au> > wrote:

 

I think we should just stick with the AWTGS as it stands.  It seems to be 
gaining widespread government support, and even if it is not perfect, it seems 
like a standard that is going to stay with us.

 

So, working on this idea, looking at 
https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/21475/dse_trail_grade_brochure_tagged.pdf,
 & having a play, a first draft comes up with something like:

 


AWGTS Class 1

Criteria

OSM


Distance 

Xxx (<5k)

Distance=4.5



Gradient

Flat

incline=no


steps=no



Quality

Well formed

surface=paved / compacted


Wheelchair OK

wheelchair=yes



Markings

Sign-posted

trail_visibility=excellent



Time

(closest 15 / 30 minutes /

Duration=00:15 / 15 minutes


Hour / half-day / day)




Experience

Nil



 

All the rest slot rather well into existing tags, although "incline" may be a 
bit iffy?, but don't know what to do with the "Experience" field?

 

The Guide says:

Class 1 / 2 - "No experience required"

Class 3 - "Some bushwalking experience recommended"

Class 4 - "Experienced bushwalkers"

Class 5 - "Very experienced bushwalkers"

 

A new key perhaps: AWGTS_scale=1-5, with descriptions as above?

 

What do you all think?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[tabjsina]

As a follow-up, here it is - https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/24307

Seems like there is a limit to how many get loaded at a time, so the 
initial batch is NSW and NT only, but more should load up after the set 
is cleared


Thanks all - let me know if you have any concerns or suggestions

On 29/1/2022 8:56 pm, tabjsina wrote:

Hello,

I'm new to this mailing list (and mailing lists in general), apologies 
if I'm doing it wrong :)


I've recently made a maproulette challenge which asked users to confirm 
updating any populating addr:state value in Western Australia to "WA", 
if it was something else. Previously, about 90% were already "WA", 9% 
were a variation like "Western Australia", "wa" (lowercase), and the 
remaining were something completely wrong, like "AU" or a suburb/city name.


Now that WA is all fixed, I was looking at other states, and noticed 
that, while most states also had a similar 90% rate of using acronym, 
NSW and moreso VIC had a closer split between the acronym and the full 
name.


Before I go ahead with setting up this maproulette challenge for the 
rest of the country, I wanted to get some thoughts on whether it makes 
sense to standardize around using acronyms (WA, ACT, NSW, NT, QLD, VIC, 
SA, TAS), full name (Western Australia, Australian Capital Territory, 
etc), or whether we should not be trying to standardise this value at all.


Thanks,
Justin




___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Phil Wyatt]

Thanks Folks,

 

For me its also about correcting invalid information that is currently in OSM. 
I have found cases where the suburb has been entered as a city, the city as a 
suburb, the state as a province, AU as the state etc. I suspect there may be an 
app or two that may not place the attributes in the correct fields (I will 
check this later on)

 

I would certainly be happy NOT to have both city and suburb (where there are 
legitimate answers to both) as I suspect that can be very confusing especially 
if displayed in apps etc for tourists. 

 

Cheers - Phil

 

 

 

From: Andrew Harvey  
Sent: Monday, 31 January 2022 1:16 PM
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Cc: OSM-Au ; tabjsina 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

 

 

 

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 09:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

& to clarify, we only need to include the street address for anything, & not 
the suburb / town / city?

 

Assuming the suburb / locality boundaries have been mapped (which they should 
not be Australia wide from an import), then data consumers can infer the rest 
of the attributes. Check out Nominatim, 
https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=N 

 =6496603926=place it shows the inherited attributes like suburb, 
postcode, state.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Michael Collinson]

It is safer putting in the street name. Nominatim fills in street from 
the street physically closest to the addr tag, which is not always 
correct. Sarah is aware and looking at measures to improve that - for 
example by looking at nearby street numbers for sequentiallity - but I 
doubt it could be 100% reliable.


Personally, and I stress personally, I also favour putting in the 
suburb. Theoretically redundant, particularly in Australia where 
addressing rules are well-cut and consistent. But more democratic to the 
small app creator by giving them an alternative to having to import and 
deal with boundary relations, especially on offline mobile apps, I speak 
from experience and so perhaps also bias. Perhaps another 5-10 years of 
useful life in the db.


Even I do not systematically add state during ground surveys, it much 
more likely to be searching for a pub in or near Seaford than Victoria.


Mike

On 31/1/22 2:17 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 12:16, Andrew Harvey  
wrote:


Check out Nominatim,

https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=N=6496603926=place


it shows the inherited attributes like suburb, postcode, state.


& by the look at it, in built-up areas at least, it will even ID the 
street name!


So we only have to list the street number? :-)

Thanks

Graeme

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 13:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> Threads have crossed :-(, but as per their instructions that I mentioned
> in the other post, the track overall is tagged to the highest
> classification, so per the example they give:
>
> Example: Wineglass Bay, Tasmania
> The technical assessment of the Wineglass Bay Lookout Walk is then
> translated into plain English. NOTE: Time
> is the land manager’s best estimate of the amount of time a person of
> average fitness, walking in good
> conditions, will take to complete the walk. Time does not describe
> difficulty. Because this is a Grade 3 walk
> a high/low estimate is not required
>

In this example the technical assessment of the components distance,
quality of path, quality of markings and experience required are all Grade
1 or 2. The gradient and steps are Grade 3. Therefore, as the Wineglass Bay
Lookout Walk has one or more Grade 3 components the Tasmanian Parks and
Wildlife Service have graded the walk at Grade 3.


Grade 1:

Distance

Distance to complete walk is 2.4km.

Quality of markings

Clearly sign posted.

Experience requires

No experience required.


Grade 2:

Quality of path

Formed track.


Grade 3:

Gradient

Short steep hills.

Time

Time needed to complete track (hours/days) 1.5hrs.

Steps

Many steps.


*Wineglass Bay Lookout walk could be described to the public as:*


*Wineglass Bay Lookout Walk. Grade 3.*


Symbol

*Distance:*

2.4km

*Gradient:*

Short steep hills

*Quality of path:*

Formed track

*Quality of markings:*

Clearly sign posted

*Experience required:*

No experience required

*Time:*

1.5hrs

*Steps:*

Many steps


Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Sorry, that wasn't supposed to send! :-(

Back in a moment!

Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 13:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 13:20, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> 2. Does the AWTGS system apply more to routes than way segments? For
>> example a longer route loop might have a higher grade than a shorter loop
>> even if they overlap for parts. Would you then only apply AWTGS on a
>> route=hiking relation, or do you also tag on each way but only set the
>> higher grade to the parts of the walk which go beyond the easier shorter
>> sections (based on the example)?
>>
>
> Threads have crossed :-(, but as per their instructions that I mentioned
> in the other post, the track overall is tagged to the highest
> classification, so per the example they give:
>
> Example: Wineglass Bay, Tasmania
> The technical assessment of the Wineglass Bay Lookout Walk is then
> translated into plain English. NOTE: Time
> is the land manager’s best estimate of the amount of time a person of
> average fitness, walking in good
> conditions, will take to complete the walk. Time does not describe
> difficulty. Because this is a Grade 3 walk
> a high/low estimate is not required
>
>
> Grade 1   Grade 2  Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
> Symbol
> Distance Distance to Distance to Distance to Distance to Distance to
> complete walk
> is 2.4km.
> complete walk.
> xx km
> complete walk.
> xx km
> complete walk.
> xx km
> complete walk.
> xx km
> Gradient Flat. Gentle hills. Short steep hills. Very steep. Very steep
> and difficult.
> Quality
> of path
> Well formed
> track.
> Formed track. Formed track,
> some obstacles.
> Rough track,
> many obstacles.
> Rough unformed
> track.
> Quality of
> markings
> Clearly sign
> posted.
> Clearly sign
> posted.
> Sign posted. Limited signage. No directional
> signage.
> Experience
> Required
> No experience
> required.
> No experience
> required.
> Some
> bushwalking
> experience
> recommended.
> Experienced
> Bushwalkers.
> Very experienced
> bushwalkers.
> Time High and low
> estimate of
> time needed to
> complete track
> (eg 1.5-2hrs).
> High and low
> estimate of
> time needed to
> complete track
> (eg 1.5-2hrs).
> Time needed to
> complete track
> (hours/days)
> 1.5hrs.
> Time needed to
> complete track
> (hours/days).
> Time needed to
> complete track
> (hours/days).
> Steps No steps. Occasional steps. Many steps. N
>
>
>
>> The main reason I don't like the AWTGS is because it conflates
>> independent measures like surface, gradient, distance, navigational
>> difficulty, remoteness/preparedness. I think the ideally tagging system
>> would tag these attributes independently and then you could automatically
>> calculate an overall grade based on the highest value.
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 16:45,  wrote:
>>
>>> I think we should be considering the Australian Walking Track Grading
>>> System.  It seems to have been defined by the Victorians (Forest Fire
>>> Management -
>>> https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/recreational-activities/walking-and-camping/australian-walking-track-grading-system).
>>> The AWTGS defines 5 track grades.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It appears to have been adopted by National Parks here in WA, NT, SA,
>>> QLD and NSW, and Bush Walking Australia.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have tagged a few tracks (where there were officially signed with a
>>> “Class”) as “awtgs=” (however someone in Germany has since deleted those
>>> tags without reference to me!)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Australian Standard AS 2156.1-2001 is titled “Walking Tracks, Part 1:
>>> Classification and signage”.  However, I don’t have a subscription to read
>>> the contents of this standard to see how it compares with the AWTGS.  Other
>>> documentation I have seen refers to the AS scheme as having 6 levels
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian
>>> ___
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 13:20, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

>
> 2. Does the AWTGS system apply more to routes than way segments? For
> example a longer route loop might have a higher grade than a shorter loop
> even if they overlap for parts. Would you then only apply AWTGS on a
> route=hiking relation, or do you also tag on each way but only set the
> higher grade to the parts of the walk which go beyond the easier shorter
> sections (based on the example)?
>

Threads have crossed :-(, but as per their instructions that I mentioned in
the other post, the track overall is tagged to the highest classification,
so per the example they give:

Example: Wineglass Bay, Tasmania
The technical assessment of the Wineglass Bay Lookout Walk is then
translated into plain English. NOTE: Time
is the land manager’s best estimate of the amount of time a person of
average fitness, walking in good
conditions, will take to complete the walk. Time does not describe
difficulty. Because this is a Grade 3 walk
a high/low estimate is not required


Grade 1   Grade 2  Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
Symbol
Distance Distance to Distance to Distance to Distance to Distance to
complete walk
is 2.4km.
complete walk.
xx km
complete walk.
xx km
complete walk.
xx km
complete walk.
xx km
Gradient Flat. Gentle hills. Short steep hills. Very steep. Very steep
and difficult.
Quality
of path
Well formed
track.
Formed track. Formed track,
some obstacles.
Rough track,
many obstacles.
Rough unformed
track.
Quality of
markings
Clearly sign
posted.
Clearly sign
posted.
Sign posted. Limited signage. No directional
signage.
Experience
Required
No experience
required.
No experience
required.
Some
bushwalking
experience
recommended.
Experienced
Bushwalkers.
Very experienced
bushwalkers.
Time High and low
estimate of
time needed to
complete track
(eg 1.5-2hrs).
High and low
estimate of
time needed to
complete track
(eg 1.5-2hrs).
Time needed to
complete track
(hours/days)
1.5hrs.
Time needed to
complete track
(hours/days).
Time needed to
complete track
(hours/days).
Steps No steps. Occasional steps. Many steps. N



> The main reason I don't like the AWTGS is because it conflates
> independent measures like surface, gradient, distance, navigational
> difficulty, remoteness/preparedness. I think the ideally tagging system
> would tag these attributes independently and then you could automatically
> calculate an overall grade based on the highest value.
>
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 16:45,  wrote:
>
>> I think we should be considering the Australian Walking Track Grading
>> System.  It seems to have been defined by the Victorians (Forest Fire
>> Management -
>> https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/recreational-activities/walking-and-camping/australian-walking-track-grading-system).
>> The AWTGS defines 5 track grades.
>>
>>
>>
>> It appears to have been adopted by National Parks here in WA, NT, SA, QLD
>> and NSW, and Bush Walking Australia.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have tagged a few tracks (where there were officially signed with a
>> “Class”) as “awtgs=” (however someone in Germany has since deleted those
>> tags without reference to me!)
>>
>>
>>
>> Australian Standard AS 2156.1-2001 is titled “Walking Tracks, Part 1:
>> Classification and signage”.  However, I don’t have a subscription to read
>> the contents of this standard to see how it compares with the AWTGS.  Other
>> documentation I have seen refers to the AS scheme as having 6 levels
>>
>>
>>
>> Ian
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 11:05,  wrote:

>
>
> I think we should just stick with the AWTGS as it stands.  It seems to be
> gaining widespread government support, and even if it is not perfect, it
> seems like a standard that is going to stay with us.
>

So, working on this idea, looking at
https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/21475/dse_trail_grade_brochure_tagged.pdf,
& having a play, a first draft comes up with something like:

*AWGTS Class 1* *Criteria*


*OSM*
Distance Xxx (<5k)
Distance=4.5




Gradient Flat
incline=no



steps=no




Quality Well formed
surface=paved / compacted

Wheelchair OK
wheelchair=yes




Markings Sign-posted
trail_visibility=excellent




Time (closest 15 / 30 minutes /
Duration=00:15 / 15 minutes

Hour / half-day / day)





Experience Nil


All the rest slot rather well into existing tags, although "incline" may be
a bit iffy?, but don't know what to do with the "Experience" field?

The Guide says:
Class 1 / 2 - "No experience required"
Class 3 - "Some bushwalking experience recommended"
Class 4 - "Experienced bushwalkers"
Class 5 - "Very experienced bushwalkers"

A new key perhaps: AWGTS_scale=1-5, with descriptions as above?

What do you all think?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 12:16, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> Check out Nominatim,
> https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=N=6496603926=place
> it shows the inherited attributes like suburb, postcode, state.
>

& by the look at it, in built-up areas at least, it will even ID the street
name!

So we only have to list the street number? :-)

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

[Andrew Harvey]

The awtgs= tag looks fine on it's own, a simple wiki page with basic info
about the tag would help people know how to use it and less likely someone
will misunderstand it like your German friend.

1. Would the tag be reserved for tagging officially assigned AWTGS values?
Or when not officially assigned a value left to mappers to decide the grade
value? If the latter, how would you separate those officially assigned from
those not? Perhaps awtgs:operator= with the organisation who assigned the
grade?

2. Does the AWTGS system apply more to routes than way segments? For
example a longer route loop might have a higher grade than a shorter loop
even if they overlap for parts. Would you then only apply AWTGS on a
route=hiking relation, or do you also tag on each way but only set the
higher grade to the parts of the walk which go beyond the easier shorter
sections (based on the example)?

The main reason I don't like the AWTGS is because it conflates
independent measures like surface, gradient, distance, navigational
difficulty, remoteness/preparedness. I think the ideally tagging system
would tag these attributes independently and then you could automatically
calculate an overall grade based on the highest value.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 16:45,  wrote:

> I think we should be considering the Australian Walking Track Grading
> System.  It seems to have been defined by the Victorians (Forest Fire
> Management -
> https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/recreational-activities/walking-and-camping/australian-walking-track-grading-system).
> The AWTGS defines 5 track grades.
>
>
>
> It appears to have been adopted by National Parks here in WA, NT, SA, QLD
> and NSW, and Bush Walking Australia.
>
>
>
> I have tagged a few tracks (where there were officially signed with a
> “Class”) as “awtgs=” (however someone in Germany has since deleted those
> tags without reference to me!)
>
>
>
> Australian Standard AS 2156.1-2001 is titled “Walking Tracks, Part 1:
> Classification and signage”.  However, I don’t have a subscription to read
> the contents of this standard to see how it compares with the AWTGS.  Other
> documentation I have seen refers to the AS scheme as having 6 levels
>
>
>
> Ian
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Address corrections

[Andrew Harvey]

I would be fine with this kind of bulk edit, so long as you confirm each
value and you're sure it's really a suburb and not a city (you can just
select all with the same value, then check that). As far as I'm aware
Australia only uses suburb / locality for addressing and not the city.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 09:24, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
>
>
> I am just checking addresses in Tasmania and have found many with
> addr:city versus the correct addr:suburb. I suspect this is from early ID
> editor prior to defining AU settings on address values. Is it OK to do
> suburb by suburb bulk edits of this key? Tasmania only has a few cities and
> the details are not used in addressing.
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 09:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> & to clarify, we only need to include the street address for anything, &
> not the suburb / town / city?
>

Assuming the suburb / locality boundaries have been mapped (which they
should not be Australia wide from an import), then data consumers can infer
the rest of the attributes. Check out Nominatim,
https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=N=6496603926=place
it shows the inherited attributes like suburb, postcode, state.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking

[iansteer]

>> I think the AWTGS is a reasonable starting point for a trail/track
difficulty scale that's relevant to Australia.

>> However, I wasn't clear whether Grade 5 was supposed to cover everything
above Grade 4, or whether there were things harder than Grade 5.

>> If the former, I'd think there would need to be a better way of breaking
down Grade 5. Otherwise, it will cover too wide a range of walks from the
slightly rough to the genuinely hair-raising

>> If the latter, then there's a gap at the harder end.

>> Michael's categories below are also quite good (though I feel like the
"push-chair/stroller" should be in the "elderly mother" category?!)

>> cheers

>> Tom

 

I think we should just stick with the AWTGS as it stands.  It seems to be
gaining widespread government support, and even if it is not perfect, it
seems like a standard that is going to stay with us.

 

I also don't see any reason why it needs to be compared to the SAC scale.
It is its own, self-contained Australian standard.

 

Ian

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Strange e-mail address?

[Ben Kelley]

The unsusbscribe happens automatically after a few bounces.

On 31/1/22 11:44, Michael Collinson wrote:


Thanks Alex, Ben.  Looks specific to talk-au so talk-au admin (CC'd) 
needs to login and unsubscribe gmane. Not sure who that is.


Tom says:

Nothing to do with me - there's no global link to gmane or
any other archiving site.

As far as I know they just operate by subscribing to the list
like any other user so the list owner should be able to manage
the subscription.

Specifically I think gmane is long dead so they should likely
be unsubscribed, though if they're bouncing that will happen
automatically at some point.

On 31/1/22 11:21 am, Ben Kelley wrote:


The list processor sorts out bounces.

On 31/1/22 11:05, Alex Sims wrote:


Hi Michael,

Gname.org moved to gmane.io almost a year ago. So the subscription 
to x...@gname.org will never work again and should be deleted. A new 
link needs to be set to gmane.io so that the NNTP feed via 
news.gmane.io can work (if desired)


https://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/category/gmane/ summary of the move

Alex

*From: *Michael Collinson 
*Date: *Monday, 31 January 2022 at 10:18 am
*To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
*Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Strange e-mail address?

I just create lists so I have forwarded this to Tom Hughes in case 
he can help or elucidate.  /Mike


On 31/1/22 10:24 am, Alex Sims wrote:

HI Graeme,

When you send an email to the list, it then sends a copy to
subscribers which includes a mirror at gmane.org. For some
reason the copy at gname.org is bouncing back and you get the
bounce.

So the link between the mailing list and gmane needs fixing, a
job for the administrator of all the openstreetmap.org lists

I’ll have a poke and raise the issue with someone.

Alex

*From: *Graeme Fitzpatrick 

*Date: *Monday, 31 January 2022 at 9:20 am
*To: *OSM-Au 

*Subject: *[talk-au] Strange e-mail address?

Just replied to the "Consistent addr:state format" thread as a
reply all, but got an undelivered message bounce back to me.

Says that message was sent to

OSM-Au  & OSM-Au
, but
public.gmane.org  couldn't be found.

The response was:

DNS Error: 4023212 DNS type 'mx' lookup of public.gmane.org
 responded with code NXDOMAIN Domain
name not found: public.gmane.org 

Does this mean anything at all to anybody?

Thanks

Graeme



___

Talk-au mailing list

Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

--
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
Sent from my Psion

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

--
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
Sent from my Psion___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Strange e-mail address?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks!

At least it doesn't mean something wrong at my end :-)

Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 10:24, Ben Kelley  wrote:

> The list processor sorts out bounces.
> On 31/1/22 11:05, Alex Sims wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
>
>
> Gname.org moved to gmane.io almost a year ago. So the subscription to
> x...@gname.org will never work again and should be deleted. A new link needs
> to be set to gmane.io so that the NNTP feed via news.gmane.io can work
> (if desired)
>
>
>
> https://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/category/gmane/  summary of the move
>
>
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> *From: *Michael Collinson  
> *Date: *Monday, 31 January 2022 at 10:18 am
> *To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
> 
> *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Strange e-mail address?
>
> I just create lists so I have forwarded this to Tom Hughes in case he can
> help or elucidate.  /Mike
>
> On 31/1/22 10:24 am, Alex Sims wrote:
>
> HI Graeme,
>
>
>
> When you send an email to the list, it then sends a copy to subscribers
> which includes a mirror at gmane.org. For some reason the copy at
> gname.org is bouncing back and you get the bounce.
>
>
>
> So the link between the mailing list and gmane needs fixing, a job for the
> administrator of all the openstreetmap.org lists
>
>
>
> I’ll have a poke and raise the issue with someone.
>
>
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> *From: *Graeme Fitzpatrick  
> *Date: *Monday, 31 January 2022 at 9:20 am
> *To: *OSM-Au  
> *Subject: *[talk-au] Strange e-mail address?
>
> Just replied to the "Consistent addr:state format" thread as a reply all,
> but got an undelivered message bounce back to me.
>
>
>
> Says that message was sent to
>
> OSM-Au  & OSM-Au
> , but
> public.gmane.org couldn't be found.
>
>
>
> The response was:
>
> DNS Error: 4023212 DNS type 'mx' lookup of public.gmane.org responded
> with code NXDOMAIN Domain name not found: public.gmane.org
>
> Does this mean anything at all to anybody?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
> ___
>
> Talk-au mailing list
>
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing 
> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
> --
> Ben Kelley
> ben.kel...@gmail.com
> Sent from my Psion
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Strange e-mail address?

[Michael Collinson]

Thanks Alex, Ben.  Looks specific to talk-au so talk-au admin (CC'd) 
needs to login and unsubscribe gmane. Not sure who that is.


Tom says:

Nothing to do with me - there's no global link to gmane or
any other archiving site.

As far as I know they just operate by subscribing to the list
like any other user so the list owner should be able to manage
the subscription.

Specifically I think gmane is long dead so they should likely
be unsubscribed, though if they're bouncing that will happen
automatically at some point.

On 31/1/22 11:21 am, Ben Kelley wrote:


The list processor sorts out bounces.

On 31/1/22 11:05, Alex Sims wrote:


Hi Michael,

Gname.org moved to gmane.io almost a year ago. So the subscription to 
x...@gname.org will never work again and should be deleted. A new link 
needs to be set to gmane.io so that the NNTP feed via news.gmane.io 
can work (if desired)


https://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/category/gmane/ summary of the move

Alex

*From: *Michael Collinson 
*Date: *Monday, 31 January 2022 at 10:18 am
*To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
*Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Strange e-mail address?

I just create lists so I have forwarded this to Tom Hughes in case he 
can help or elucidate.  /Mike


On 31/1/22 10:24 am, Alex Sims wrote:

HI Graeme,

When you send an email to the list, it then sends a copy to
subscribers which includes a mirror at gmane.org. For some reason
the copy at gname.org is bouncing back and you get the bounce.

So the link between the mailing list and gmane needs fixing, a
job for the administrator of all the openstreetmap.org lists

I’ll have a poke and raise the issue with someone.

Alex

*From: *Graeme Fitzpatrick 

*Date: *Monday, 31 January 2022 at 9:20 am
*To: *OSM-Au 

*Subject: *[talk-au] Strange e-mail address?

Just replied to the "Consistent addr:state format" thread as a
reply all, but got an undelivered message bounce back to me.

Says that message was sent to

OSM-Au  & OSM-Au
, but
public.gmane.org  couldn't be found.

The response was:

DNS Error: 4023212 DNS type 'mx' lookup of public.gmane.org
 responded with code NXDOMAIN Domain
name not found: public.gmane.org 

Does this mean anything at all to anybody?

Thanks

Graeme



___

Talk-au mailing list

Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

--
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
Sent from my Psion

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Strange e-mail address?

[Ben Kelley]

The list processor sorts out bounces.

On 31/1/22 11:05, Alex Sims wrote:


Hi Michael,

Gname.org moved to gmane.io almost a year ago. So the subscription to 
x...@gname.org will never work again and should be deleted. A new link 
needs to be set to gmane.io so that the NNTP feed via news.gmane.io 
can work (if desired)


https://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/category/gmane/ summary of the move

Alex

*From: *Michael Collinson 
*Date: *Monday, 31 January 2022 at 10:18 am
*To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
*Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Strange e-mail address?

I just create lists so I have forwarded this to Tom Hughes in case he 
can help or elucidate.  /Mike


On 31/1/22 10:24 am, Alex Sims wrote:

HI Graeme,

When you send an email to the list, it then sends a copy to
subscribers which includes a mirror at gmane.org. For some reason
the copy at gname.org is bouncing back and you get the bounce.

So the link between the mailing list and gmane needs fixing, a job
for the administrator of all the openstreetmap.org lists

I’ll have a poke and raise the issue with someone.

Alex

*From: *Graeme Fitzpatrick 

*Date: *Monday, 31 January 2022 at 9:20 am
*To: *OSM-Au 

*Subject: *[talk-au] Strange e-mail address?

Just replied to the "Consistent addr:state format" thread as a
reply all, but got an undelivered message bounce back to me.

Says that message was sent to

OSM-Au  & OSM-Au
, but
public.gmane.org  couldn't be found.

The response was:

DNS Error: 4023212 DNS type 'mx' lookup of public.gmane.org
 responded with code NXDOMAIN Domain name
not found: public.gmane.org 

Does this mean anything at all to anybody?

Thanks

Graeme



___

Talk-au mailing list

Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

--
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
Sent from my Psion___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Strange e-mail address?

[Alex Sims]

Hi Michael,

Gname.org moved to gmane.io almost a year ago. So the subscription to 
x...@gname.org will never work again and should be 
deleted. A new link needs to be set to gmane.io so that the NNTP feed via 
news.gmane.io can work (if desired)

https://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/category/gmane/  summary of the move

Alex

From: Michael Collinson 
Date: Monday, 31 January 2022 at 10:18 am
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Strange e-mail address?

I just create lists so I have forwarded this to Tom Hughes in case he can help 
or elucidate.  /Mike
On 31/1/22 10:24 am, Alex Sims wrote:
HI Graeme,

When you send an email to the list, it then sends a copy to subscribers which 
includes a mirror at gmane.org. For some reason the copy at gname.org is 
bouncing back and you get the bounce.

So the link between the mailing list and gmane needs fixing, a job for the 
administrator of all the openstreetmap.org lists

I’ll have a poke and raise the issue with someone.

Alex

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Date: Monday, 31 January 2022 at 9:20 am
To: OSM-Au 
Subject: [talk-au] Strange e-mail address?
Just replied to the "Consistent addr:state format" thread as a reply all, but 
got an undelivered message bounce back to me.

Says that message was sent to
OSM-Au mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> & OSM-Au 
mailto:jbr...@public.gmane.org>>,
 but public.gmane.org couldn't be found.

The response was:

DNS Error: 4023212 DNS type 'mx' lookup of 
public.gmane.org responded with code NXDOMAIN Domain 
name not found: public.gmane.org
Does this mean anything at all to anybody?

Thanks

Graeme



___

Talk-au mailing list

Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Strange e-mail address?

[Michael Collinson]

I just create lists so I have forwarded this to Tom Hughes in case he 
can help or elucidate.  /Mike


On 31/1/22 10:24 am, Alex Sims wrote:


HI Graeme,

When you send an email to the list, it then sends a copy to 
subscribers which includes a mirror at gmane.org. For some reason the 
copy at gname.org is bouncing back and you get the bounce.


So the link between the mailing list and gmane needs fixing, a job for 
the administrator of all the openstreetmap.org lists


I’ll have a poke and raise the issue with someone.

Alex

*From: *Graeme Fitzpatrick 
*Date: *Monday, 31 January 2022 at 9:20 am
*To: *OSM-Au 
*Subject: *[talk-au] Strange e-mail address?

Just replied to the "Consistent addr:state format" thread as a reply 
all, but got an undelivered message bounce back to me.


Says that message was sent to

OSM-Au  & OSM-Au 
, but 
public.gmane.org  couldn't be found.


The response was:

DNS Error: 4023212 DNS type 'mx' lookup of public.gmane.org 
 responded with code NXDOMAIN Domain name not 
found: public.gmane.org 


Does this mean anything at all to anybody?

Thanks

Graeme


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Strange e-mail address?

[Alex Sims]

HI Graeme,

When you send an email to the list, it then sends a copy to subscribers which 
includes a mirror at gmane.org. For some reason the copy at gname.org is 
bouncing back and you get the bounce.

So the link between the mailing list and gmane needs fixing, a job for the 
administrator of all the openstreetmap.org lists

I’ll have a poke and raise the issue with someone.

Alex

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Date: Monday, 31 January 2022 at 9:20 am
To: OSM-Au 
Subject: [talk-au] Strange e-mail address?
Just replied to the "Consistent addr:state format" thread as a reply all, but 
got an undelivered message bounce back to me.

Says that message was sent to
OSM-Au mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> & OSM-Au 
mailto:jbr...@public.gmane.org>>,
 but public.gmane.org couldn't be found.

The response was:

DNS Error: 4023212 DNS type 'mx' lookup of 
public.gmane.org responded with code NXDOMAIN Domain 
name not found: public.gmane.org
Does this mean anything at all to anybody?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Strange e-mail address?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Just replied to the "Consistent addr:state format" thread as a reply all,
but got an undelivered message bounce back to me.

Says that message was sent to
OSM-Au  & OSM-Au
, but
public.gmane.org couldn't be found.

The response was:

DNS Error: 4023212 DNS type 'mx' lookup of public.gmane.org responded with
code NXDOMAIN Domain name not found: public.gmane.org
Does this mean anything at all to anybody?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 23:17, tabjsina  wrote:

> It looks like Qld makes up ~3700 address states and QLD is at 15000
> ("Queensland" is ~1000 as a comparison).
>
> I'm thinking I'll make an adjustment in the Queensland code to skip
> cases that are "Qld", but otherwise (For complete errors, and
> "Queensland" cases), I'll recommend the more popular format "QLD". Since
> you live there Graeme, how does this plan sound?
>

That's fine - I might have to change the way I do things! :-)

& to clarify, we only need to include the street address for anything, &
not the suburb / town / city?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Address corrections

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

 

I am just checking addresses in Tasmania and have found many with addr:city
versus the correct addr:suburb. I suspect this is from early ID editor prior
to defining AU settings on address values. Is it OK to do suburb by suburb
bulk edits of this key? Tasmania only has a few cities and the details are
not used in addressing.

 

Cheers - Phil

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

[Tom Brennan]

I think the AWTGS is a reasonable starting point for a trail/track 
difficulty scale that's relevant to Australia.


However, I wasn't clear whether Grade 5 was supposed to cover everything 
above Grade 4, or whether there were things harder than Grade 5.


If the former, I'd think there would need to be a better way of breaking 
down Grade 5. Otherwise, it will cover too wide a range of walks from 
the slightly rough to the genuinely hair-raising


If the latter, then there's a gap at the harder end.

Michael's categories below are also quite good (though I feel like the 
"push-chair/stroller" should be in the "elderly mother" category?!)


cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 28/01/2022 5:18 pm, Michael Collinson wrote:

Ian,

+1.  The AWTGS looks excellent as it works from an international 
perspective. I've also struggled with the SAC scale in the UK and 
Sweden, also both countries where the bulk of rural footpaths are barely 
"alpine" and also came to the conclusion that what matters is the type 
of people wanting to use the path rather than specific physical 
attributes of the path. And particularly at the less hardcore end.  If 
one substitutes "hiking" for "bushwalking", it works in those countries 
as well, IMHO.


The categories I've played with conceptually are:

- I could take my very elderly mother

- Suitable for inexperienced walkers in everyday footwear (which could 
include high heels). Less charitably: City folks stroll.


- Could I get a push-chair/stroller down here? (and by extension 
assisted wheel-chair)


- I'm fine with walking but don't want to be using my arms, (balance, 
holding-on, hauling myself up).


- I'm fine with scrambling but don't take me anywhere where I'll be 
nervous about falling off.


- Bring it on


I think the system satisfies the above in a nice linear fashion without 
too many categories. I'd be interested to know what the mysterious AS 
2156.1-2001 6th one is. Copied from the URL provided:


  * Grade One is suitable for people with a disability with assistance
  * Grade Two is suitable for families with young children
  * Grade Three is recommended for people with some bushwalking experience
  * Grade Four is recommended for experienced bushwalkers, and
  * Grade Five is recommended for very experienced bushwalkers

Mike

On 2022-01-28 16:41, ianst...@iinet.net.au wrote:


I think we should be considering the Australian Walking Track Grading 
System.  It seems to have been defined by the Victorians (Forest Fire 
Management - 
https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/recreational-activities/walking-and-camping/australian-walking-track-grading-system). 
The AWTGS defines 5 track grades.


It appears to have been adopted by National Parks here in WA, NT, SA, 
QLD and NSW, and Bush Walking Australia.


I have tagged a few tracks (where there were officially signed with a 
“Class”) as “awtgs=” (however someone in Germany has since deleted 
those tags without reference to me!)


Australian Standard AS 2156.1-2001 is titled “Walking Tracks, Part 1: 
Classification and signage”.  However, I don’t have a subscription to 
read the contents of this standard to see how it compares with the 
AWTGS.  Other documentation I have seen refers to the AS scheme as 
having 6 levels


Ian


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[tabjsina]

It looks like Qld makes up ~3700 address states and QLD is at 15000 
("Queensland" is ~1000 as a comparison).


I'm thinking I'll make an adjustment in the Queensland code to skip 
cases that are "Qld", but otherwise (For complete errors, and 
"Queensland" cases), I'll recommend the more popular format "QLD". Since 
you live there Graeme, how does this plan sound?


Tasmania is already consistently TAS throughout (with the exception of 
exactly 3 errors where someone put the street name in that field)


Victoria similarly has <500 cases of Vic versus 45k VIC and 35k 
Victoria, so I will also just move those few Vic's towards the more 
standard VIC.


-Justin

On 30/1/2022 7:30 am, Phil Wyatt wrote:

Hi Folks,

The main reason I have used capitals in the state is because of Address 
Presentation Standards with Australia Post


https://auspost.com.au/content/dam/auspost_corp/media/documents/australia-post-addressing-standards-1999.pdf 



Having said that, I don’t use capitals for suburbs!

Cheers - Phil

*From:*Graeme Fitzpatrick 


*Sent:* Sunday, 30 January 2022 10:10 AM
*To:* tabjsina 
*Cc:* OSM-Au 
*Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

G'day Justin & welcome!

Asking any question that you've got is quite definitely the best way of 
doing things - thanks!


I agree fully about the acronyms rather than spelling the name in full, 
with the exception that I personally use Qld rather than QLD.


If I was down there, I'd probably also use Tas, but all capitals for the 
others.


I don't think there's any hard & fast rules for capitalisation though?

Thanks

Graeme

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 00:32, tabjsina 
> wrote:


Hello,

I'm new to this mailing list (and mailing lists in general), apologies
if I'm doing it wrong :)

I've recently made a maproulette challenge which asked users to confirm
updating any populating addr:state value in Western Australia to "WA",
if it was something else. Previously, about 90% were already "WA", 9%
were a variation like "Western Australia", "wa" (lowercase), and the
remaining were something completely wrong, like "AU" or a
suburb/city name.

Now that WA is all fixed, I was looking at other states, and noticed
that, while most states also had a similar 90% rate of using acronym,
NSW and moreso VIC had a closer split between the acronym and the
full name.

Before I go ahead with setting up this maproulette challenge for the
rest of the country, I wanted to get some thoughts on whether it makes
sense to standardize around using acronyms (WA, ACT, NSW, NT, QLD, VIC,
SA, TAS), full name (Western Australia, Australian Capital Territory,
etc), or whether we should not be trying to standardise this value
at all.

Thanks,
Justin


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au




___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 16:53, tabjsina  wrote:

> In this case I intend to specifically only update tags that already have
> a state field defined, rather than populating the empty ones. Andrew, do
> you think that adjusting the existing tag values to match the VIC
> majority would go against the coming data import plans you mentioned?
>

That's fine, anyone can still add them manually for new addresses or you
can tidy up existing ones, the discussion only meant that I won't be doing
a bulk addition or upgrade of addr:state as part of the import. Any
existing addr:state tags are ignored as far as the import code goes so no
issue there.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au