Re: [talk-au] Adding river crossings to Guidelines "road quality / 4wd-only"?

[stevea]

On Aug 10, 2022, at 10:05 PM, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> The hazard tag https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hazard seems like a 
> good fit to warn of crocs.

Agreed:  I shared some input with the author on this tag.  It is deliberately 
"open-ended" with rough/loose categories right now of area hazards, traffic 
hazards, water (-related) hazards...with the latter being both likely a good 
sub-category for crocs (I could be wrong, though I think they are aquatic), as 
it already has hazard:leeches (and I quote from its Description column):  
"Leeches are present."

See the wiki, stroke your chin, talk to a fellow mapper (or three) about how 
they might like to map crocs, perhaps add a row of hazard:crocodiles to the 
wiki and tag accordingly (Bob's your uncle).

Imagine how Australian you'll feel being the one to add the row to that wiki 
with "Crocodiles are present."
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Adding river crossings to Guidelines "road quality / 4wd-only"?

[Andrew Harvey]

The hazard tag https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hazard seems like a
good fit to warn of crocs.

On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 at 01:57, Bob Cameron  wrote:

> The Gregory River Doomadgee Road crossing near Tirranna Springs Qld has
> a "not on foot" warning sign as the water over the causeway runs very
> fast. Hard to know if it's a legal direction though.
>

I think official signage telling you not to is sufficient for the access
tags, even if technically you may not be breaking any laws. This would line
up with the general guideline of mapping what's on the ground and not
mapping per legislation.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Gazetted Road Routes (National, State, Regional...)

[Andrew Davidson]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 11:48 AM Andrew Hughes  wrote:
> Some worldwide/geographic tagging guidelines exist, that are based on a 
> combination with the "network" tag: see 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Road_routes
>

Have you read 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads#Routes
?

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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging silos?

[stevea]

I'm not saying it should, but it could:  somebody sees both usefulness to 
specify and usefulness to tag (heavily implying serious usefulness to "seeing 
the bigger picture of data" after they are entered and become geospatial) and 
makes a proposal that craftily "gathers" silos together into one of many 
flavors (what are we at, 19 different types?) of OSM's relations.  (A 
relation's type=* key).  I might imagine type=collection could be a good start, 
then those sort themselves into various agricultural "divisions" or so...and 
then somebody starts a thread on the tagging mail-list about "silo groups" (I'm 
simply making that up in a fantasy) and people begin to back-channel a 
proposal, which gets traffic on its Talk (Discussion) page and might get voted 
on and Approved... and used in the real world / real map as "sane, well 
specified, harmonious, agreed upon with a certain amount of consensus..." and 
so on.

How very OSM that would be.

At this point in time, I'll say "rather nice as entered" (as a little cluster 
of silos) and whoever wants to dream of mapping silos in some fancy fashion 
certainly could.  And might someday.  Bean Growers Australia, I wave from 
California!

Such a wonderful plastic map...uh, I mean database, we have here.

> On Aug 10, 2022, at 6:51 PM, Phil Wyatt  wrote:
> 
> They look fine – I have also done one set as ways which is the other 
> alternative
>  
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=20/-26.55069/151.83033
>  
> Cheers - Phil
>  
> From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
> Sent: Thursday, 11 August 2022 11:08 AM
> To: Ewen Hill 
> Cc: OSM-Au 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Tagging silos?
>  
> Tried the first group of them: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-26.55053/151.83027
>  
> Still not convinced that individual is the way to go?
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Graeme
>  

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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging silos?

[Phil Wyatt]

They look fine – I have also done one set as ways which is the other alternative

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=20/-26.55069/151.83033

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Thursday, 11 August 2022 11:08 AM
To: Ewen Hill 
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Tagging silos?

 

Tried the first group of them: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-26.55053/151.83027

 

Still not convinced that individual is the way to go?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

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

[talk-au] Tagging Gazetted Road Routes (National, State, Regional...)

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi All,

I've been looking into how National, State and possibly Regional road
routes are tagged in Australia.

Our goal is to be able to determine if any given way is a member of a road
route, and if that road route is National, State, Regional, tourist route
such as...

   - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Highway_(Australia)
   - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_road_routes_in_Queensland
   - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_road_routes_in_South_Australia
   - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_road_routes_in_New_South_Wales
   - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_road_routes_in_Victoria
   - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_road_routes_in_Tasmania
   - ...and so on


Some worldwide/geographic tagging guidelines exist, that are based on a
combination with the "network" tag: see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Road_routes

However, I can't see any clear pattern/convention of such tagging in
Australia (that would align with anything in the above wiki page). Do we
have such a guideline already that I am not aware of?

Kind regards,
A Hughes
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging silos?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Tried the first group of them:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-26.55053/151.83027

Still not convinced that individual is the way to go?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Industrial area or not?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 at 16:00, Michael Collinson  wrote:

> I crafted the original wording for Map Features landuse tags and was
> careful to use the word "predominantly", so for me just 'industrial'. I
> think the answer is in your description wording 'produce stockfeed', i.e.
> there is a manufacturing process beyond just storing an agricultural product
>

Thanks Mike

In that case, I'll stick with industrial for the area, together with nodes
for the different facilities inside it.

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Adding river crossings to Guidelines "road quality / 4wd-only"?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 at 02:13, Bob Cameron  wrote:

>
> eg a section of road (as a ford way - often concrete) has to be joined
> to the crossing stream.


That's why I changed the section of road crossing teh river to a track,
with extra details added to that section.


And not just accept the ID editor suggestion of a node ford
>

& on that topic, iD says add "ford" as road structure & gives ford type as
"radier"?

Does anybody have any idea what a radier ford is, as the only translation I
can find suggests "raft"?

I asked this on the Ford wiki page yesterday but no response yet:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:ford#Ford_type_=_radier?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Adding river crossings to Guidelines "road quality / 4wd-only"?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 at 01:57, Bob Cameron  wrote:

> The Gregory River Doomadgee Road crossing near Tirranna Springs Qld has
> a "not on foot" warning sign as the water over the causeway runs very
> fast. Hard to know if it's a legal direction though.
>

& how about if you then have one of these posted?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crocodile_warning_sign,_Slade_Point,_2016.jpg

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Adding river crossings to Guidelines "road quality / 4wd-only"?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

 Thanks, everybody, for your comments!

It's always good to open another can of worms! :-)

Yes, I understand that access=no is a legal thing, but how do we
distinguish between "yes you are able to but no you shouldn't"?

On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 at 20:58, Adam Steer  wrote:

> A little note to the discussion - the foot/ animal traffic modes = no are
> crocodile related, right?
>
> Yes, possible. Recommended? Definitely not according to every google-able
> bit of information about the place.
>

Yep, that's exactly what I was thinking - yes, you could easily swim across
the river, but is that a good idea? :-(

https://environment.des.qld.gov.au/wildlife/animals/living-with/crocodiles/croc-wise


> For vehicles I think it's generally worth indicating something about
> whether a ford / river needs a proper 4wd. Here I'm thinking of one I know
> well, where some ways to the river are easily SUV ok - but you need great
> clearance, a lot of grip and a high air intake to make the river crossing.
>

Yep!

I've also driven across river crossings & I don't think the water has
actually reached the wheel hubs, but at other times, those crossings can be
2m deep, very fast flowing & totally impassable.

I hope I haven't misinterpreted the conversation...
>

Not as far as I'm concerned!

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Adding river crossings to Guidelines "road quality / 4wd-only"?

[Bob Cameron]

I'd like to see some ford node vs way and culvert detail Dian. Took me a 
while to understand it all, so may help a newbie.


eg a section of road (as a ford way - often concrete) has to be joined 
to the crossing stream. If there is a "low water level" pipe/culvert 
that is an additional tunnel.


And not just accept the ID editor suggestion of a node ford

Bob

On 10/8/22 12:25, Dian Ågesson wrote:


Hey Graeme,

The 4WD_only tags and track types are already documented on the roads 
subpage of the Tagging Guidelines. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads



Do you think we should be adding detail for fords specifically?




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

Re: [talk-au] Adding river crossings to Guidelines "road quality / 4wd-only"?

[Bob Cameron]

The Gregory River Doomadgee Road crossing near Tirranna Springs Qld has 
a "not on foot" warning sign as the water over the causeway runs very 
fast. Hard to know if it's a legal direction though.


On 10/8/22 20:58, Adam Steer wrote:
A little note to the discussion - the foot/ animal traffic modes = no 
are crocodile related, right?





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

Re: [talk-au] Adding river crossings to Guidelines "road quality / 4wd-only"?

[Adam Steer]

A little note to the discussion - the foot/ animal traffic modes = no are
crocodile related, right?

Yes, possible. Recommended? Definitely not according to every google-able
bit of information about the place.

For vehicles I think it's generally worth indicating something about
whether a ford / river needs a proper 4wd. Here I'm thinking of one I know
well, where some ways to the river are easily SUV ok - but you need great
clearance, a lot of grip and a high air intake to make the river crossing.

I hope I haven't misinterpreted the conversation...

Cheers

Adam



On Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 04:09 Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Cleared a note to add a ford / river-crossing to a road in Cape York:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1025490234, & added both a "ford" node,
> & also changed the actual river crossing to a track with 4wd only & similar
> tags.
>
> Wondering if we should include those sort of details in the Guidelines? eg
>
> 4wd_only=extreme
>
> bicycle=no
>
> foot=no
>
> highway=track
>
> horse=no
>
> motor_vehicle=yes
>
> smoothness=horrible
>
> tracktype=grade8
>
> & possibly even hazard=wild_animals + animals=crocodile!
>
> 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] Adding river crossings to Guidelines "road quality / 4wd-only"?

[Andy Townsend]

On 8/10/22 03:06, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Cleared a note to add a ford / river-crossing to a road in Cape York: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1025490234, & added both a "ford" 
node, & also changed the actual river crossing to a track with 4wd 
only & similar tags.


Wondering if we should include those sort of details in the Guidelines? eg

4wd_only=extreme

bicycle=no

foot=no

highway=track

horse=no

motor_vehicle=yes

smoothness=horrible

tracktype=grade8

& possibly even hazard=wild_animals + animals=crocodile!




(not from AU or Queensland but)

To add to what Ian has said already, the foot, horse, bicycle etc. are 
legal access tags - if that mode of transport isn't legally permitted to 
cross there then e.g. horse=no would be correct, but otherwise not.


A tag such as horse_scale can be used to suggest how appropriate 
something is for that mode of transport, much like the example already 
uses "4wd_only=extreme" alongside "motor_vehicle=yes".


Personally I'd be very reticent about tagging "smoothness" remotely as well.

Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging silos?

[Ewen Hill]

Wow, that's a lot of small silos in several clumps. Surely you could call
it silo (albeit with multiple skins) when they are so closely
packed together?

Ewen

On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 at 20:11, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 10/8/22 09:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Just been adding some details around here:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-26.55047/151.82936.
>
> They should all be tagged as silos, but I'm not sure about mapping every
> one of them individually, as it'll be *very* crowded?
>
> Would it work just putting one silo tag in the middle of each group?
>
> Is there such a thing as a "quantity" tag to say there's 10 silos here?
>
>
> Individually ...
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/689552470#map=19/-36.37656/142.99683
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/684276590
>
>
> The map handles the crowd.
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging silos?

[Warin]

On 10/8/22 09:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
Just been adding some details around here: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-26.55047/151.82936 
.


They should all be tagged as silos, but I'm not sure about mapping 
every one of them individually, as it'll be /very/ crowded?


Would it work just putting one silo tag in the middle of each group?

Is there such a thing as a "quantity" tag to say there's 10 silos here?



Individually ...


https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/689552470#map=19/-36.37656/142.99683

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/684276590


The map handles the crowd.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Adding river crossings to Guidelines "road quality

[Ian Steer]

I would not like to see anyone presume that a hiker, mountain-biker or horse
rider could not forward a river.  Anyone tackling that kind of country is
probably prepared to do just that, and it might upset their map routing
planning by assuming they can't.  Adding to the chances of them fording
these creeks/rivers is that they are intermittent and might even be dry at
the time of year they are planning their trip.  Ditto for "non-extreme"
4WDs.

Please don't restrict the map unnecessarily.

Regards

Ian


> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2022 12:06:05 +1000
> From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> To: OSM-Au 
> Subject: [talk-au] Adding river crossings to Guidelines "road quality
>   / 4wd-only"?
> Message-ID:
>08qho...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Cleared a note to add a ford / river-crossing to a road in Cape York:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1025490234, & added both a "ford"
> node, & also changed the actual river crossing to a track with 4wd only &
> similar tags.
> 
> Wondering if we should include those sort of details in the Guidelines? eg
> 
> 4wd_only=extreme
> 
> bicycle=no
> 
> foot=no
> 
> highway=track
> 
> horse=no
> 
> motor_vehicle=yes
> 
> smoothness=horrible
> 
> tracktype=grade8
> 
> & possibly even hazard=wild_animals + animals=crocodile!
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Graeme


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

Re: [talk-au] Industrial area or not?

[Michael Collinson]

I crafted the original wording for Map Features landuse tags and was 
careful to use the word "predominantly", so for me just 'industrial'. I 
think the answer is in your description wording 'produce stockfeed', 
i.e. there is a manufacturing process beyond just storing an 
agricultural product - I often find mentally or physically writing down 
a one-line description very helpful when trying decide on 
marginal/multiple-activity cases like this.


Mike

On 2022-08-10 01:25, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
Then across the road, there's this place: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=18/-26.54862/151.82848 



One complex run by the same group: https://kewpiestockfeeds.com.au/ 



They produce stockfeed, have a public shop for all things farm / 
animal related, commercial stock supply agency, steelworks over the 
back where they make loading ramps & all sorts of other farm 
metal-work, public weighbridge around the side. I've marked it as 
industrial + agriculture but not real happy with that - thoughts?


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