Re: [talk-au] 1. Proposing a bulk locality edit for new admin_level definitions (Dian ?gesson)

[Anthony Panozzo]

I fully support this bulk edit




From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 8:32:00 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 35

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Proposing a bulk locality edit for new admin_level
  definitions (Dian ?gesson)
   2. Re: Basic question (Warin)
   3. Re: UK's Ordnance Survey to launch mapping app in Australia
  (Warin)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 14:11:33 +1000
From: Dian ?gesson 
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: [talk-au] Proposing a bulk locality edit for new admin_level
definitions
Message-ID: <42e93b172beae60cdba7e07c63359...@diacritic.xyz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"



Hey all,

Following the mailing list discussion last month
(https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-April/016101.html),
the Australian admin_levels have been updated in the wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative#admin_level=*_Country_specific_values.
Admin_level=7 was removed, and suburbs/localities have been adjusted to
level 9, to better align with other countries and improve the prominence
in rendering.

I would like to propose performing a bulk edit to change the admin_level
of these boundaries to ease the transition. This would involve:

 * using JOSM to retrieve all relations in Australia with
boundary=administrative and admin_level=10
 * high-level confirmation that the locality is correct (ie, consistent
with the version uploaded by the PSMA import)
 * Changing admin_level to 9

Due to the size of the data being queried, this might be accomplished
with a changeset for each state/territory.

Are there any comments, feedback or objections about this proposed bulk
edit? If there aren't any objections, I'll look to make the change this
weekend.

Dian
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 


--

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 17:38:06 +1000
From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Basic question
Message-ID: <1b54e015-5189-441a-3540-fb3f3865a...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"


On 8/10/21 17:41, Andrew & Ingrid Parker wrote:
> Thank you everyone. It is clear now that?it is OK to have an area
> inside or overlapping another area. That is logical and contrary to
> what I had been told by another mapper. It may be the case that I
> misunderstood what they were saying.


Usually the last part - "misunderstood what they were saying" is the
largest part of the problem.


My take;

 ?landuse=forest does not denote trees but the human use of the land to
get timber.

natural=wood = trees exist here! Note 'natural' does not, in OSM terms'
exclude human intervention. So if it is planted, maintained, etc by
humans then it is still ok to tag 'natural=wood'.


An example is where a tree area overlaps both a state forest and farm
land. The tree area can be drawn as one area. While the farm and state
forest can be separate areas overlapped by the tree area.


What you should not do is overlap areas of land covers such as grass and
trees, or sand and trees. And similarly for land use - farm and
industrial for example.


> Cheers
> Andrew Parker
>
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 14:26, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:53, cleary  wrote:
>
>
> Good mapping practice is to keep administrative boundaries
> such as state parks, conservation areas, suburbs etc separate
> from natural features such as water, waterways, woods etc.?
> While they sometimes approximate, they rarely coincide exactly.
>
> Tagging a state park as natural=wood is usually inappropriate
> because there will, nearly always, be parts of the park that
> are unwooded.? Best to map the park with its official boundary
> and then map the natural features separately using other
> unofficial sources such as survey and satellite imagery.
>
>
> Agreed, though as a rough first pass it has been common to tag
> natural=wood on the administrative boundary if it's 90% correct,
> but eventually as the mapping becomes more detailed separate
> 

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 32

[Anthony Panozzo]

He is actively clicking buttons right now, leave me alone while I take a look 
at what he is doing



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:32 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 32

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 30 (Luke Stewart)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 14:35:55 +1000
From: Luke Stewart 
To: Anthony Panozzo 
Cc: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 30
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Point is, the restrictions that you added in the case of the motorway
on/offramp was incorrect, it was broken by you at some point. In addition
to being broken, there was also a duplicate no_u_turn that was added by you
(which was in fact valid). So there is no problem in deleting something
invalid as long as you can ascertain what it is meant to be. This can very
easily be achieved by looking at object history for many times where iD has
broken the relation. Do you seriously think that TheSwavu (and many other
people for that matter) have been blinding looking at objects without
imagery, object history, or other sources to confirm? There is no universe
where keeping that invalid relation was a good idea, and it was doing
nothing for routing whatsoever.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220503/ef2cc90a/attachment-0001.htm>

--

Subject: Digest Footer

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


--

End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 32


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

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 30

[Anthony Panozzo]

Bottom line is if someone wants to blindly and randomly click buttons then if 
the user knows the intersection and rules, then its okish maybe, but if the 
user is solely relying on a single node validator and has no knowledge of the 
intersection or rules the user should not be permitted to blindly makes edits 
to it. Especially when the user is deleting other peoples work in the process 
to simply flex is validator tool



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 10:36 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 30

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 28 (Luke Stewart)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 11:03:59 +1000
From: Luke Stewart 
To: Anthony Panozzo 
Cc: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 28
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

The diagram posted by Dian clearly shows that this type of movement is
permitted, again: https://imgur.com/a/Wn6jx8h. If you disagree I suggest
handing in your license.

On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:57, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:

> No it would not because its a one way road lmao
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 10:12 AM
> *To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 28
>
>
>
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 (Luke Stewart)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 10:40:53 +1000
> From: Luke Stewart 
> To: Anthony Panozzo 
> Cc: Dian ?gesson , "talk-au@openstreetmap.org"
> 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
> Message-ID:
>  buu-h9c3zb9bqrktmvhe...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> It would still meet the criteria of an "intersection" under rules 40 and 41
> hence making it legal
>
> On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:34, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:
>
> > That picture is about an intersection not a T-intersection lmao
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From: *Dian ?gesson 
> > *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:59 AM
> > *To: *Anthony Panozzo 
> > *Cc: *Luke Stewart ;
> > talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Anthony,
> >
> >
> >
> > Below is a picture from the South Australian Road Rules. It shows the
> > correct procedure for a u-turn there would be exactly from that point of
> > view and back, including a small section of a "one-way" road.
> >
> > https://imgur.com/a/Wn6jx8h
> >
> > As the others earlier have mentioned, I would encourage you to take a
> > moment to take a step back and consider these points, as this type of
> rapid
> > fire back-and-forth is not particularly efficient.
> >
> > Would you also be able to provide some details about how the routing is
> > being tested? It would really help identify down-stream data consumers
> that
> > may be interpreting OSM data differently than expected.
> >
> >
> >
> > Dian
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2022-05-03 10:28, Anthony Panozzo wrote:
> >
> > No it is not because the road in front of the POV car in a one way road
> > which is not allowed, it would even need you to drive for a little bit
> > going the wrong way 

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 28

[Anthony Panozzo]

No it would not because its a one way road lmao



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 10:12 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 28

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 (Luke Stewart)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 10:40:53 +1000
From: Luke Stewart 
To: Anthony Panozzo 
Cc: Dian ?gesson , "talk-au@openstreetmap.org"

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

It would still meet the criteria of an "intersection" under rules 40 and 41
hence making it legal

On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:34, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:

> That picture is about an intersection not a T-intersection lmao
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Dian ?gesson 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:59 AM
> *To: *Anthony Panozzo 
> *Cc: *Luke Stewart ;
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
>
>
>
> Hi Anthony,
>
>
>
> Below is a picture from the South Australian Road Rules. It shows the
> correct procedure for a u-turn there would be exactly from that point of
> view and back, including a small section of a "one-way" road.
>
> https://imgur.com/a/Wn6jx8h
>
> As the others earlier have mentioned, I would encourage you to take a
> moment to take a step back and consider these points, as this type of rapid
> fire back-and-forth is not particularly efficient.
>
> Would you also be able to provide some details about how the routing is
> being tested? It would really help identify down-stream data consumers that
> may be interpreting OSM data differently than expected.
>
>
>
> Dian
>
>
>
> On 2022-05-03 10:28, Anthony Panozzo wrote:
>
> No it is not because the road in front of the POV car in a one way road
> which is not allowed, it would even need you to drive for a little bit
> going the wrong way lmao.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Luke Stewart 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:52 AM
> *To: *Anthony Panozzo 
> *Cc: *Dian ?gesson ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
>
>
>
> It is also acceptable from the point of view of the camera as stated in
> the Road Rules.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:18, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:
>
> Yes at the median is fine, but not from where the point of view of that
> picture is. TheSwavu has allowed u-turns starting from exactly the point of
> view of that picture and back
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Luke Stewart 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:28 AM
> *To: *Anthony Panozzo 
> *Cc: *Dian ?gesson ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
>
>
>
> The intersection shown in mapillary without traffic lights
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=764585334231385=-34.72009104=138.66975917=17=photo
> would be one where performing a u-turn is allowed. As you go along the
> mapillary trace, you can even see two different vehicles making u-turns in
> median breaks.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 09:52, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:
>
> You are wrong, you can not do u-turns at t-intersections on a one way road
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Dian ?gesson 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:39 AM
> *To: *Anthony Panozzo 
> *Cc: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
>
>
>
> Anthony,
>
> This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to
> be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons
> without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits
>
> Speaking personally, I am not defending every single one of his edits, as
> I have not reviewed them all.
>
> However, every edit that you've referred to in this mail chain as being
> "wrong" hasn't had any issues. We've covered:
>
> - Deleting a restriction which does not contain a from/to way (valid)
>
>

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13

[Anthony Panozzo]

That picture is about an intersection not a T-intersection lmao



From: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:59 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>
Cc: Luke Stewart<mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com>; 
talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13


Hi Anthony,



Below is a picture from the South Australian Road Rules. It shows the correct 
procedure for a u-turn there would be exactly from that point of view and back, 
including a small section of a "one-way" road.

https://imgur.com/a/Wn6jx8h

As the others earlier have mentioned, I would encourage you to take a moment to 
take a step back and consider these points, as this type of rapid fire 
back-and-forth is not particularly efficient.

Would you also be able to provide some details about how the routing is being 
tested? It would really help identify down-stream data consumers that may be 
interpreting OSM data differently than expected.



Dian



On 2022-05-03 10:28, Anthony Panozzo wrote:

No it is not because the road in front of the POV car in a one way road which 
is not allowed, it would even need you to drive for a little bit going the 
wrong way lmao.







From: Luke Stewart<mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:52 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>
Cc: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz>; 
talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13



It is also acceptable from the point of view of the camera as stated in the 
Road Rules.



On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:18, Anthony Panozzo 
mailto:pan...@outlook.com>> wrote:

Yes at the median is fine, but not from where the point of view of that picture 
is. TheSwavu has allowed u-turns starting from exactly the point of view of 
that picture and back









From: Luke Stewart<mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:28 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>
Cc: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz>; 
talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13



The intersection shown in mapillary without traffic lights 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=764585334231385=-34.72009104=138.66975917=17=photo
 would be one where performing a u-turn is allowed. As you go along the 
mapillary trace, you can even see two different vehicles making u-turns in 
median breaks.



On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 09:52, Anthony Panozzo 
mailto:pan...@outlook.com>> wrote:

You are wrong, you can not do u-turns at t-intersections on a one way road







From: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:39 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13



Anthony,

This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be 
clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons 
without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits

Speaking personally, I am not defending every single one of his edits, as I 
have not reviewed them all.

However, every edit that you've referred to in this mail chain as being "wrong" 
hasn't had any issues. We've covered:

- Deleting a restriction which does not contain a from/to way (valid)

- remodelling intersections to remove crosses (valid)

- adding a u turn using a way as a "via" member (valid)

And you have now raised a different type of problem,

- Removing a u turn restriction at an intersection with no traffic lights.

On the latter point, I quote

https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/r/australian%20road%20rules/current/2014.205.auth.pdf

A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection without traffic lights if 
there is a no U-turn sign at the intersection"

Note 2—
U-turns are permitted at intersections without traffic lights unless there is a 
no U-turn sign, even though traffic lane arrows indicate that the driver must 
or may turn right—see rule 92.

this is now the fourth type of error which isn't actually wrong.

If there is a valid issue, then obviously it should be fixed. But I am unable 
to identify a problem in the edits you've raised.

Please, take a deep breath and consider some of the points raised before 
responding with another flurry of emails.

dian

On 2022-05-02 22:49, Anthony Panozzo wrote:

This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be 
clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons 
without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits







From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-a

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13

[Anthony Panozzo]

No it is not because the road in front of the POV car in a one way road which 
is not allowed, it would even need you to drive for a little bit going the 
wrong way lmao.



From: Luke Stewart<mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:52 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>
Cc: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz>; 
talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13

It is also acceptable from the point of view of the camera as stated in the 
Road Rules.

On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:18, Anthony Panozzo 
mailto:pan...@outlook.com>> wrote:
Yes at the median is fine, but not from where the point of view of that picture 
is. TheSwavu has allowed u-turns starting from exactly the point of view of 
that picture and back




From: Luke Stewart<mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:28 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>
Cc: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz>; 
talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13

The intersection shown in mapillary without traffic lights 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=764585334231385=-34.72009104=138.66975917=17=photo
 would be one where performing a u-turn is allowed. As you go along the 
mapillary trace, you can even see two different vehicles making u-turns in 
median breaks.

On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 09:52, Anthony Panozzo 
mailto:pan...@outlook.com>> wrote:
You are wrong, you can not do u-turns at t-intersections on a one way road



From: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:39 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13


Anthony,

This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be 
clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons 
without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits

Speaking personally, I am not defending every single one of his edits, as I 
have not reviewed them all.

However, every edit that you’ve referred to in this mail chain as being “wrong” 
hasn’t had any issues. We’ve covered:

- Deleting a restriction which does not contain a from/to way (valid)

- remodelling intersections to remove crosses (valid)

- adding a u turn using a way as a “via” member (valid)

And you have now raised a different type of problem,

- Removing a u turn restriction at an intersection with no traffic lights.

On the latter point, I quote

https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/r/australian%20road%20rules/current/2014.205.auth.pdf

A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection without traffic lights if 
there is a no U-turn sign at the intersection"

Note 2—
U-turns are permitted at intersections without traffic lights unless there is a 
no U-turn sign, even though traffic lane arrows indicate that the driver must 
or may turn right—see rule 92.

this is now the fourth type of error which isn’t actually wrong.

If there is a valid issue, then obviously it should be fixed. But I am unable 
to identify a problem in the edits you’ve raised.

Please, take a deep breath and consider some of the points raised before 
responding with another flurry of emails.

dian

On 2022-05-02 22:49, Anthony Panozzo wrote:

This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be 
clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons 
without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits







From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:16 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13



Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org>

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 (Anthony Panozzo)


------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:44:40 +
From: Anthony Panozzo mailto:pan...@outlook.com>>
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org<m

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 21

[Anthony Panozzo]

Yes at the median is fine, but not from where the point of view of that picture 
is. TheSwavu has allowed u-turns starting from exactly the point of view of 
that picture and back




From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:31 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 21

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 (Luke Stewart)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 09:58:28 +1000
From: Luke Stewart 
To: Anthony Panozzo 
Cc: Dian ?gesson , "talk-au@openstreetmap.org"

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

The intersection shown in mapillary without traffic lights
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=764585334231385=-34.72009104=138.66975917=17=photo
would be one where performing a u-turn is allowed. As you go along the
mapillary trace, you can even see two different vehicles making u-turns in
median breaks.

On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 09:52, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:

> You are wrong, you can not do u-turns at t-intersections on a one way road
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Dian ?gesson 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:39 AM
> *To: *Anthony Panozzo 
> *Cc: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
>
>
>
> Anthony,
>
> This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to
> be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons
> without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits
>
> Speaking personally, I am not defending every single one of his edits, as
> I have not reviewed them all.
>
> However, every edit that you?ve referred to in this mail chain as being
> ?wrong? hasn?t had any issues. We?ve covered:
>
> - Deleting a restriction which does not contain a from/to way (valid)
>
> - remodelling intersections to remove crosses (valid)
>
> - adding a u turn using a way as a ?via? member (valid)
>
> And you have now raised a different type of problem,
>
> - Removing a u turn restriction at an intersection with no traffic lights.
>
> On the latter point, I quote
>
>
> https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/r/australian%20road%20rules/current/2014.205.auth.pdf
>
> A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection without traffic lights *if
> there is a no U-turn sign at the intersection*"
>
> Note 2?
> U-turns are permitted at intersections without traffic lights unless there
> is a no U-turn sign, even though traffic lane arrows indicate that the
> driver must or may turn right?see rule 92.
>
> this is now the fourth type of error which isn?t actually wrong.
>
> If there is a valid issue, then obviously it should be fixed. But I am
> unable to identify a problem in the edits you?ve raised.
>
> Please, take a deep breath and consider some of the points raised before
> responding with another flurry of emails.
>
> dian
>
>
> On 2022-05-02 22:49, Anthony Panozzo wrote:
>
> This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to
> be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons
> without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:16 AM
> *To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
>
>
>
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 (A

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13

[Anthony Panozzo]

Yes at the median is fine, but not from where the point of view of that picture 
is. TheSwavu has allowed u-turns starting from exactly the point of view of 
that picture and back




From: Luke Stewart<mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:28 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>
Cc: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz>; 
talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13

The intersection shown in mapillary without traffic lights 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=764585334231385=-34.72009104=138.66975917=17=photo
 would be one where performing a u-turn is allowed. As you go along the 
mapillary trace, you can even see two different vehicles making u-turns in 
median breaks.

On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 09:52, Anthony Panozzo 
mailto:pan...@outlook.com>> wrote:
You are wrong, you can not do u-turns at t-intersections on a one way road



From: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:39 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13


Anthony,

This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be 
clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons 
without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits

Speaking personally, I am not defending every single one of his edits, as I 
have not reviewed them all.

However, every edit that you’ve referred to in this mail chain as being “wrong” 
hasn’t had any issues. We’ve covered:

- Deleting a restriction which does not contain a from/to way (valid)

- remodelling intersections to remove crosses (valid)

- adding a u turn using a way as a “via” member (valid)

And you have now raised a different type of problem,

- Removing a u turn restriction at an intersection with no traffic lights.

On the latter point, I quote

https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/r/australian%20road%20rules/current/2014.205.auth.pdf

A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection without traffic lights if 
there is a no U-turn sign at the intersection"

Note 2—
U-turns are permitted at intersections without traffic lights unless there is a 
no U-turn sign, even though traffic lane arrows indicate that the driver must 
or may turn right—see rule 92.

this is now the fourth type of error which isn’t actually wrong.

If there is a valid issue, then obviously it should be fixed. But I am unable 
to identify a problem in the edits you’ve raised.

Please, take a deep breath and consider some of the points raised before 
responding with another flurry of emails.

dian

On 2022-05-02 22:49, Anthony Panozzo wrote:

This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be 
clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons 
without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits







From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:16 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13



Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org>

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 (Anthony Panozzo)


------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:44:40 +
From: Anthony Panozzo mailto:pan...@outlook.com>>
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>" 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12
Message-ID:

mailto:pr3p192mb092730c19a6c808662675473cc...@pr3p192mb0927.eurp192.prod.outlook.com>>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

You said this ?I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is with 
this edit. The
road rules in South Australia allow you to do a u-turn around the end of a
median at an intersection provided that there is no sign prohibiting it or
traffic lights:? which is 100% incorrect, you can only do a u-turn if there is 
a sign permitting you to do so. You don?t have the understanding to be able to 
bl

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13

[Anthony Panozzo]

You are wrong, you can not do u-turns at t-intersections on a one way road



From: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:39 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13


Anthony,

This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be 
clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons 
without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits

Speaking personally, I am not defending every single one of his edits, as I 
have not reviewed them all.

However, every edit that you’ve referred to in this mail chain as being “wrong” 
hasn’t had any issues. We’ve covered:

- Deleting a restriction which does not contain a from/to way (valid)

- remodelling intersections to remove crosses (valid)

- adding a u turn using a way as a “via” member (valid)

And you have now raised a different type of problem,

- Removing a u turn restriction at an intersection with no traffic lights.

On the latter point, I quote

https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/r/australian%20road%20rules/current/2014.205.auth.pdf

A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection without traffic lights if 
there is a no U-turn sign at the intersection"

Note 2—
U-turns are permitted at intersections without traffic lights unless there is a 
no U-turn sign, even though traffic lane arrows indicate that the driver must 
or may turn right—see rule 92.

this is now the fourth type of error which isn’t actually wrong.

If there is a valid issue, then obviously it should be fixed. But I am unable 
to identify a problem in the edits you’ve raised.

Please, take a deep breath and consider some of the points raised before 
responding with another flurry of emails.

dian

On 2022-05-02 22:49, Anthony Panozzo wrote:

This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be 
clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons 
without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits







From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:16 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13



Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 (Anthony Panozzo)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:44:40 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

You said this ?I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is with 
this edit. The
road rules in South Australia allow you to do a u-turn around the end of a
median at an intersection provided that there is no sign prohibiting it or
traffic lights:? which is 100% incorrect, you can only do a u-turn if there is 
a sign permitting you to do so. You don?t have the understanding to be able to 
blindly click buttons from this state,ent alone, and yet people will come to 
your defence lmao



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:10 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest,
  Vol 179, Issue 6) (Andrew Davidson)
   2. TheSwavu (Anthony Panozzo)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 08:33:00 +1000
From: Andrew Davidson 
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re:
Talk-a

[talk-au] TheSwavu

[Anthony Panozzo]

Notice how TheSwavu himself has stopped replying... that’s because he has just 
learnt he really doesn’t have a clue and is waiting for one of these vocal 
people in his small group to come to rescue his arguments. If what he said 
about trying to correct me on the road rules and he didn’t even realize he does 
understand them properly, does he even have his licence?



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:21 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 14

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 (Anthony Panozzo)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:49:21 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

This user is telling me I don?t even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be 
clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons 
without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:16 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 (Anthony Panozzo)


------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:44:40 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

You said this ?I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is with 
this edit. The
road rules in South Australia allow you to do a u-turn around the end of a
median at an intersection provided that there is no sign prohibiting it or
traffic lights:? which is 100% incorrect, you can only do a u-turn if there is 
a sign permitting you to do so. You don?t have the understanding to be able to 
blindly click buttons from this state,ent alone, and yet people will come to 
your defence lmao



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:10 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest,
  Vol 179, Issue 6) (Andrew Davidson)
   2. TheSwavu (Anthony Panozzo)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 08:33:00 +1000
From: Andrew Davidson 
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re:
Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6)
Message-ID: <80784b78-0628-85f3-f104-1f10b652d...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

On 3/5/22 08:18, Anthony Panozzo wrote:
> Well this is the situation, TheSwavu is directly emailing me telling me
> it is perfectly legal to do u-turns at intersections

Gmail will send an email to both the mail list and the original sender
by default on reply. You will have not

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13

[Anthony Panozzo]

This user is telling me I don’t even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be 
clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons 
without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:16 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 (Anthony Panozzo)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:44:40 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

You said this ?I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is with 
this edit. The
road rules in South Australia allow you to do a u-turn around the end of a
median at an intersection provided that there is no sign prohibiting it or
traffic lights:? which is 100% incorrect, you can only do a u-turn if there is 
a sign permitting you to do so. You don?t have the understanding to be able to 
blindly click buttons from this state,ent alone, and yet people will come to 
your defence lmao



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:10 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest,
  Vol 179, Issue 6) (Andrew Davidson)
   2. TheSwavu (Anthony Panozzo)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 08:33:00 +1000
From: Andrew Davidson 
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re:
Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6)
Message-ID: <80784b78-0628-85f3-f104-1f10b652d...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

On 3/5/22 08:18, Anthony Panozzo wrote:
> Well this is the situation, TheSwavu is directly emailing me telling me
> it is perfectly legal to do u-turns at intersections

Gmail will send an email to both the mail list and the original sender
by default on reply. You will have noticed the list email address in the
CC:. Or maybe you didn't notice?

By the way, the link you sent me off-list:

https://samotor.raa.com.au/do-you-know-the-u-turn-road-rules/

says exactly the same thing I was trying to explain to you. Perhaps this
video might make it clearer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0SzfStP1nE



------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:38:42 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: [talk-au] TheSwavu
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

By directly emailing me he trying to mess up the way au-talk is formatting, no 
one here gets to see what he is emailing me, he has no clue about the 
laws/rules or the areas, this is a joke



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:04 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 11

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topi

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12

[Anthony Panozzo]

You said this “I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is with 
this edit. The
road rules in South Australia allow you to do a u-turn around the end of a
median at an intersection provided that there is no sign prohibiting it or
traffic lights:” which is 100% incorrect, you can only do a u-turn if there is 
a sign permitting you to do so. You don’t have the understanding to be able to 
blindly click buttons from this state,ent alone, and yet people will come to 
your defence lmao



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:10 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest,
  Vol 179, Issue 6) (Andrew Davidson)
   2. TheSwavu (Anthony Panozzo)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 08:33:00 +1000
From: Andrew Davidson 
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re:
Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6)
Message-ID: <80784b78-0628-85f3-f104-1f10b652d...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

On 3/5/22 08:18, Anthony Panozzo wrote:
> Well this is the situation, TheSwavu is directly emailing me telling me
> it is perfectly legal to do u-turns at intersections

Gmail will send an email to both the mail list and the original sender
by default on reply. You will have noticed the list email address in the
CC:. Or maybe you didn't notice?

By the way, the link you sent me off-list:

https://samotor.raa.com.au/do-you-know-the-u-turn-road-rules/

says exactly the same thing I was trying to explain to you. Perhaps this
video might make it clearer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0SzfStP1nE



--

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:38:42 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: [talk-au] TheSwavu
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

By directly emailing me he trying to mess up the way au-talk is formatting, no 
one here gets to see what he is emailing me, he has no clue about the 
laws/rules or the areas, this is a joke



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:04 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 11

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org (Andy Townsend)
   2. U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re:  Talk-au Digest, Vol
  179, Issue 6) (Andrew Davidson)
   3. Re: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest,
  Vol 179, Issue 6) (Anthony Panozzo)
   4. Re: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest,
  Vol 179, Issue 6) (Anthony Panozzo)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:50:24 +0100
From: Andy Townsend 
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

On 02/05/2022 22:36, Andrew Davidson wrote:
>
> How do we get a category we can interact with through email? I haven't
> used Discource enough to picture how it works.
>
If you enable mailing list mode in your profile, you will get emailed
all messages and can reply to them by email too.? What you can't yet do
is to create a new thread by email - to do that you'll need to go to
e.g. https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/help-and-support/7 and click
"new topic".

Best Regards,

Andy





------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 08:00:50 +1000
From: Andrew Davidson 
To: Anthony Panozzo 
Cc: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: [talk-

[talk-au] TheSwavu

[Anthony Panozzo]

By directly emailing me he trying to mess up the way au-talk is formatting, no 
one here gets to see what he is emailing me, he has no clue about the 
laws/rules or the areas, this is a joke



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:04 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 11

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org (Andy Townsend)
   2. U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re:  Talk-au Digest, Vol
  179, Issue 6) (Andrew Davidson)
   3. Re: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest,
      Vol 179, Issue 6) (Anthony Panozzo)
   4. Re: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest,
      Vol 179, Issue 6) (Anthony Panozzo)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:50:24 +0100
From: Andy Townsend 
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

On 02/05/2022 22:36, Andrew Davidson wrote:
>
> How do we get a category we can interact with through email? I haven't
> used Discource enough to picture how it works.
>
If you enable mailing list mode in your profile, you will get emailed
all messages and can reply to them by email too.? What you can't yet do
is to create a new thread by email - to do that you'll need to go to
e.g. https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/help-and-support/7 and click
"new topic".

Best Regards,

Andy





--

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 08:00:50 +1000
From: Andrew Davidson 
To: Anthony Panozzo 
Cc: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: [talk-au] U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re:  Talk-au
Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6)
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On Tue, 3 May 2022, 03:02 Anthony Panozzo,  wrote:

>  I would like to report theswavu for this edit Relation History: 13736691
> | OpenStreetMap <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13736691/history>
> he deleted a restriction I put there to prevent u-turning from the service
> road.
>

I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is with this edit. The
road rules in South Australia allow you to do a u-turn around the end of a
median at an intersection provided that there is no sign prohibiting it or
traffic lights:

https://www.approveddrivingschool.com.au/mastering-u-turns-3-point-turns/

There is no sign or traffic lights at this intersection so you are allowed
to do a u-turn, provided that you adhere to the other associated rules:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1365151817189473

>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220503/e5bb1aac/attachment-0001.htm>

------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:18:15 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: "talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org"

Cc: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re:
Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6)
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

Well this is the situation, TheSwavu is directly emailing me telling me it is 
perfectly legal to do u-turns at intersections, lmao he doesn?t know the laws, 
he doesn?t know the area, he cant be trusted to blindly click buttons but so 
many people are arguing he is perfectly fine to go about his edits I hope DWG 
see this Do you know the U-turn road rules? | samotor The RAA 
Magazine<https://samotor.raa.com.au/do-you-know-the-u-turn-road-rules/#:~:text=If%20you%E2%80%99ve%20seen%20a%20fellow%20driver%20doing%20a,you%20can%20perform%20this%20manoeuvre%20at%20this%20location.>



From: Andrew Davidson<mailto:thesw...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 7:31 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>
Cc: OpenStreetMap<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 
179, Issue 6)

On Tue, 3 May 2022, 03:02 Anthony Panozzo, 
mailto:pan...@outlook.com>> wrote:
 I would like to report theswavu for this edit Relation History: 13736691 | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1373

Re: [talk-au] U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6)

[Anthony Panozzo]

Well this is the situation, TheSwavu is directly emailing me telling me it is 
perfectly legal to do u-turns at intersections, lmao he doesn’t know the laws, 
he doesn’t know the area, he cant be trusted to blindly click buttons but so 
many people are arguing he is perfectly fine to go about his edits I hope DWG 
see this
Do you know the U-turn road rules? | samotor The RAA 
Magazine<https://samotor.raa.com.au/do-you-know-the-u-turn-road-rules/#:~:text=If%20you%E2%80%99ve%20seen%20a%20fellow%20driver%20doing%20a,you%20can%20perform%20this%20manoeuvre%20at%20this%20location.>

And he didn’t even watch the video in the link he sent me either, this is a 
complete joke, keep in mind you are arguing FOR this guy to keep going about 
his edits freely with out question this blow my mind, you would rather win an 
argument than care 1 bit about the map




From: Andrew Davidson 
Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 7:30:50 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo 
Cc: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 
179, Issue 6)

On Tue, 3 May 2022, 03:02 Anthony Panozzo, 
mailto:pan...@outlook.com>> wrote:

 I would like to report theswavu for this edit Relation History: 13736691 | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13736691/history> he 
deleted a restriction I put there to prevent u-turning from the service road.

I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is with this edit. The 
road rules in South Australia allow you to do a u-turn around the end of a 
median at an intersection provided that there is no sign prohibiting it or 
traffic lights:

https://www.approveddrivingschool.com.au/mastering-u-turns-3-point-turns/

There is no sign or traffic lights at this intersection so you are allowed to 
do a u-turn, provided that you adhere to the other associated rules:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1365151817189473
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6)

[Anthony Panozzo]

Well this is the situation, TheSwavu is directly emailing me telling me it is 
perfectly legal to do u-turns at intersections, lmao he doesn’t know the laws, 
he doesn’t know the area, he cant be trusted to blindly click buttons but so 
many people are arguing he is perfectly fine to go about his edits I hope DWG 
see this Do you know the U-turn road rules? | samotor The RAA 
Magazine<https://samotor.raa.com.au/do-you-know-the-u-turn-road-rules/#:~:text=If%20you%E2%80%99ve%20seen%20a%20fellow%20driver%20doing%20a,you%20can%20perform%20this%20manoeuvre%20at%20this%20location.>



From: Andrew Davidson<mailto:thesw...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 7:31 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>
Cc: OpenStreetMap<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 
179, Issue 6)

On Tue, 3 May 2022, 03:02 Anthony Panozzo, 
mailto:pan...@outlook.com>> wrote:
 I would like to report theswavu for this edit Relation History: 13736691 | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13736691/history> he 
deleted a restriction I put there to prevent u-turning from the service road.

I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is with this edit. The 
road rules in South Australia allow you to do a u-turn around the end of a 
median at an intersection provided that there is no sign prohibiting it or 
traffic lights:

https://www.approveddrivingschool.com.au/mastering-u-turns-3-point-turns/

There is no sign or traffic lights at this intersection so you are allowed to 
do a u-turn, provided that you adhere to the other associated rules:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1365151817189473

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

[talk-au] user TheSwavu

[Anthony Panozzo]

He really is a major problem, it’s a bit tedious but if anyone actually spent 
the time to randomly go through some of his edits you will see straight away 
how dangerous his edits really are. He 100% is randomly clicking buttons 
without even looking at what he is doing, as as everyone has seen here there is 
nothing I can do about it, he has the full support of a very vocal group here 
and he is free to go about it. If no one with a better voice than me can be 
bothered to actually look at these edits that’s it for anyone to even bother to 
try to route anything youll be wasting your time. All my edits have always been 
by hand and personal knowledge and if that isn’t as good as someone clicking 
buttons than everyone is wasting there time on this project.



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 2:37 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 8

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 7 (Anthony Panozzo)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 17:04:51 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 7
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I am going to go through every single edit in Adelaide from this guy and report 
each one individually here and his user page, the small vocal group that backs 
this guy congrats your screwing the map!



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 2:30 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 7

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6 (Anthony Panozzo)


------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 16:58:34 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

So how would you feel if someone had the full support of a small but vocal 
group on discord and given pretty much free rein to revert every single one of 
your edits because he got call out, well it's happening to me. I would like to 
report theswavu for this edit Relation History: 13736691 | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13736691/history> he 
deleted a restriction I put there to prevent u-turning from the service road. 
This community seems to be all about winning a argument than giving a shit 
about the map. I will be reporting him on his user page for this edit too.




From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 11:54:34 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 (Anthony Panozzo)
   2. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 (Anthony Panozzo)


------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 13:37:42 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: Dean Scott , "talk-au@openstreetmap.org"

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
Message-ID:



Content-Type: t

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 7

[Anthony Panozzo]

I am going to go through every single edit in Adelaide from this guy and report 
each one individually here and his user page, the small vocal group that backs 
this guy congrats your screwing the map!



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 2:30 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 7

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6 (Anthony Panozzo)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 16:58:34 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

So how would you feel if someone had the full support of a small but vocal 
group on discord and given pretty much free rein to revert every single one of 
your edits because he got call out, well it's happening to me. I would like to 
report theswavu for this edit Relation History: 13736691 | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13736691/history> he 
deleted a restriction I put there to prevent u-turning from the service road. 
This community seems to be all about winning a argument than giving a shit 
about the map. I will be reporting him on his user page for this edit too.




From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 11:54:34 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 (Anthony Panozzo)
   2. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 (Anthony Panozzo)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 13:37:42 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: Dean Scott , "talk-au@openstreetmap.org"

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

Yes martins road/waterloo corner road/bagster theswavu and randomly clicked 
buttons again and allowed u-turns from 2 nodes away, I think his little 
validator tool only works from 1 node or something, either way he has no local 
knowledge of this area



From: Dean Scott<mailto:deanscott...@outlook.com>
Sent: Monday, 2 May 2022 11:03 PM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>; 
talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3

Hi, what section of road has TheSwavu allowed u-turns? If you are referring to 
the intersection with traffic lights, the u-turn?s are correctly tagged. If 
not, please point it out to us so we can better understand

Regards,
Scottie0001


From: Anthony Panozzo 
Date: Monday, 2 May 2022 at 10:57 pm
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
Reporting user TheSwavu | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheSwavu>
2 hours ago he made this changeset Changeset: 120456255 | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120456255#map=17/-34.75536/138.63155>
 he has allowed u-turns




From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 8:30:24 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: 

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6

[Anthony Panozzo]

So how would you feel if someone had the full support of a small but vocal 
group on discord and given pretty much free rein to revert every single one of 
your edits because he got call out, well it's happening to me. I would like to 
report theswavu for this edit Relation History: 13736691 | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13736691/history> he 
deleted a restriction I put there to prevent u-turning from the service road. 
This community seems to be all about winning a argument than giving a shit 
about the map. I will be reporting him on his user page for this edit too.




From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 11:54:34 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 (Anthony Panozzo)
   2. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 (Anthony Panozzo)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 13:37:42 +0000
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: Dean Scott , "talk-au@openstreetmap.org"

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

Yes martins road/waterloo corner road/bagster theswavu and randomly clicked 
buttons again and allowed u-turns from 2 nodes away, I think his little 
validator tool only works from 1 node or something, either way he has no local 
knowledge of this area



From: Dean Scott<mailto:deanscott...@outlook.com>
Sent: Monday, 2 May 2022 11:03 PM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>; 
talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3

Hi, what section of road has TheSwavu allowed u-turns? If you are referring to 
the intersection with traffic lights, the u-turn?s are correctly tagged. If 
not, please point it out to us so we can better understand

Regards,
Scottie0001


From: Anthony Panozzo 
Date: Monday, 2 May 2022 at 10:57 pm
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
Reporting user TheSwavu | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheSwavu>
2 hours ago he made this changeset Changeset: 120456255 | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120456255#map=17/-34.75536/138.63155>
 he has allowed u-turns




From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 8:30:24 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org (Sam Wilson)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 11:01:40 +0800
From: Sam Wilson 
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org
Message-ID: <2f617c9d-0456-971b-233c-90d2e54ea...@samwilson.id.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

It's growing in use, I think (not with Australia-specific discussion).

It feels like a pretty good site, I check the headlines most days, and I
think one advantage is being able to get a feel for what's being
discussed elsewhere. Also to have location-specific discussions that
benefit either from the input of people elsewhere or to let other people
know how one place is doing things.

I don't like the notification system that much, but part of that is I
think that the ratio of meta posts to real topical ones is quite large
at the moment. It is decreasing though, as more people take part.

?Sam


On 1/5/22 06:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> So how's it going after this first month?
>
> Any marked advantages / disadvantages over the existing mailing list?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 12:52, Sam Wilson  wrote:
>
> The new c

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3

[Anthony Panozzo]

And also, if you really look hard enough into it, you will realise those 
crosses at intersections do not break any OSM rules or policys. The no physical 
divide argument is not valid because they do not represent two different roads, 
this person is reverting edits he really knows nothing about.




From: Dean Scott 
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 11:03:51 PM
To: Anthony Panozzo ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org 

Subject: Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3


Hi, what section of road has TheSwavu allowed u-turns? If you are referring to 
the intersection with traffic lights, the u-turn’s are correctly tagged. If 
not, please point it out to us so we can better understand

Regards,

Scottie0001





From: Anthony Panozzo 
Date: Monday, 2 May 2022 at 10:57 pm
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3

Reporting user TheSwavu | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheSwavu>

2 hours ago he made this changeset Changeset: 120456255 | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120456255#map=17/-34.75536/138.63155>
 he has allowed u-turns









From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 8:30:24 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3



Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org (Sam Wilson)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 11:01:40 +0800
From: Sam Wilson 
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org
Message-ID: <2f617c9d-0456-971b-233c-90d2e54ea...@samwilson.id.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

It's growing in use, I think (not with Australia-specific discussion).

It feels like a pretty good site, I check the headlines most days, and I
think one advantage is being able to get a feel for what's being
discussed elsewhere. Also to have location-specific discussions that
benefit either from the input of people elsewhere or to let other people
know how one place is doing things.

I don't like the notification system that much, but part of that is I
think that the ratio of meta posts to real topical ones is quite large
at the moment. It is decreasing though, as more people take part.

?Sam


On 1/5/22 06:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> So how's it going after this first month?
>
> Any marked advantages / disadvantages over the existing mailing list?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 12:52, Sam Wilson  wrote:
>
> The new community.openstreetmap.org
> <https://community.openstreetmap.org> site is up and running.
>
> It's going to replace the old forum, including the users:
> Australia <https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=24>
> subforum.
>
> I'm not sure if we should ask for an Australia category to be
> created on the new site. Probably not worth it until there's some
> amount of content relating to Australia.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220502/dda3550a/attachment-0001.htm>

--

Subject: Digest Footer

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


--

End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
***
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3

[Anthony Panozzo]

Yes martins road/waterloo corner road/bagster theswavu and randomly clicked 
buttons again and allowed u-turns from 2 nodes away, I think his little 
validator tool only works from 1 node or something, either way he has no local 
knowledge of this area



From: Dean Scott<mailto:deanscott...@outlook.com>
Sent: Monday, 2 May 2022 11:03 PM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>; 
talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3

Hi, what section of road has TheSwavu allowed u-turns? If you are referring to 
the intersection with traffic lights, the u-turn’s are correctly tagged. If 
not, please point it out to us so we can better understand

Regards,
Scottie0001


From: Anthony Panozzo 
Date: Monday, 2 May 2022 at 10:57 pm
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
Reporting user TheSwavu | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheSwavu>
2 hours ago he made this changeset Changeset: 120456255 | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120456255#map=17/-34.75536/138.63155>
 he has allowed u-turns




From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 8:30:24 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org (Sam Wilson)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 11:01:40 +0800
From: Sam Wilson 
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org
Message-ID: <2f617c9d-0456-971b-233c-90d2e54ea...@samwilson.id.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

It's growing in use, I think (not with Australia-specific discussion).

It feels like a pretty good site, I check the headlines most days, and I
think one advantage is being able to get a feel for what's being
discussed elsewhere. Also to have location-specific discussions that
benefit either from the input of people elsewhere or to let other people
know how one place is doing things.

I don't like the notification system that much, but part of that is I
think that the ratio of meta posts to real topical ones is quite large
at the moment. It is decreasing though, as more people take part.

?Sam


On 1/5/22 06:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> So how's it going after this first month?
>
> Any marked advantages / disadvantages over the existing mailing list?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 12:52, Sam Wilson  wrote:
>
> The new community.openstreetmap.org
> <https://community.openstreetmap.org> site is up and running.
>
> It's going to replace the old forum, including the users:
> Australia <https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=24>
> subforum.
>
> I'm not sure if we should ask for an Australia category to be
> created on the new site. Probably not worth it until there's some
> amount of content relating to Australia.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220502/dda3550a/attachment-0001.htm>

--

Subject: Digest Footer

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


--

End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
***

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

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 4

[Anthony Panozzo]

The u-turn restriction are only valid from 1 nodes at 2 nodes it allows 
u-turns, I built waterloo corner road from one end the the other, this guy just 
goes around clicking buttons lol.




From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 10:53:54 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 4

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org (Simon Poole)
   2. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 (Anthony Panozzo)
   3. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 (Luke Stewart)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 14:36:03 +0200
From: Simon Poole 
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org
Message-ID: <7e60be24-a50c-ee05-2fdb-64f0c34df...@poole.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

I wouldn't expect much traffic till the existing forum content has been
migrated, currently scheduled for the end of the month. That should then
give some slightly more definite structure to things than there is now.

Simon

Am 02.05.2022 um 05:01 schrieb Sam Wilson:
>
> It's growing in use, I think (not with Australia-specific discussion).
>
> It feels like a pretty good site, I check the headlines most days, and
> I think one advantage is being able to get a feel for what's being
> discussed elsewhere. Also to have location-specific discussions that
> benefit either from the input of people elsewhere or to let other
> people know how one place is doing things.
>
> I don't like the notification system that much, but part of that is I
> think that the ratio of meta posts to real topical ones is quite large
> at the moment. It is decreasing though, as more people take part.
>
> ?Sam
>
>
> On 1/5/22 06:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>> So how's it going after this first month?
>>
>> Any marked advantages / disadvantages over the existing mailing list?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 12:52, Sam Wilson  wrote:
>>
>> The new community.openstreetmap.org
>> <https://community.openstreetmap.org> site is up and running.
>>
>> It's going to replace the old forum, including the users:
>> Australia <https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=24>
>> subforum.
>>
>> I'm not sure if we should ask for an Australia category to be
>> created on the new site. Probably not worth it until there's some
>> amount of content relating to Australia.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220502/0b536e95/attachment-0001.htm>
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: 
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220502/0b536e95/attachment-0001.sig>

--

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 12:54:35 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Reporting user TheSwavu | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheSwavu>
2 hours ago he made this changeset Changeset: 120456255 | 
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120456255#map=17/-34.75536/138.63155>
 he has allowed u-turns




From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 8:30:24 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Wo

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3

[Anthony Panozzo]

Reporting user TheSwavu | 
OpenStreetMap
2 hours ago he made this changeset Changeset: 120456255 | 
OpenStreetMap
 he has allowed u-turns




From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 8:30:24 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org (Sam Wilson)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 11:01:40 +0800
From: Sam Wilson 
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org
Message-ID: <2f617c9d-0456-971b-233c-90d2e54ea...@samwilson.id.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

It's growing in use, I think (not with Australia-specific discussion).

It feels like a pretty good site, I check the headlines most days, and I
think one advantage is being able to get a feel for what's being
discussed elsewhere. Also to have location-specific discussions that
benefit either from the input of people elsewhere or to let other people
know how one place is doing things.

I don't like the notification system that much, but part of that is I
think that the ratio of meta posts to real topical ones is quite large
at the moment. It is decreasing though, as more people take part.

?Sam


On 1/5/22 06:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> So how's it going after this first month?
>
> Any marked advantages / disadvantages over the existing mailing list?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 12:52, Sam Wilson  wrote:
>
> The new community.openstreetmap.org
>  site is up and running.
>
> It's going to replace the old forum, including the users:
> Australia 
> subforum.
>
> I'm not sure if we should ask for an Australia category to be
> created on the new site. Probably not worth it until there's some
> amount of content relating to Australia.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 


--

Subject: Digest Footer

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


--

End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
***
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 57

[Anthony Panozzo]

What that luke person was talking about was a bus stop node upgrade which took 
place a few months ago, the kids on discord argued that there might be a 1 in 
million “edge case” which will ruin the map, so my mass edit was reverted and 
they have to be edited individually, now the same people came out of nowhere 
because they see me posting here and argue that this guy is free to go about 
clicking buttons based on the validator and there will never ever be an edge 
case scenario. With these kids it’s personal they don’t make any sense and 
that’s why that kids decided to come in here and bring up bus stops lmao.



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 10:55 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 57

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 55
  (Andy Townsend (ajt1...@gmail.com))


--

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 14:21:34 +0100
From: "Andy Townsend (ajt1...@gmail.com)" 
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 55
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I suspect that no-one is taking the piss - depending on the mail client
"reply all" will very often go to the sender cc the list.

Perhaps a bit more discussion about what problems have been created might
have helped (and "source=knowledge") isn't a great description of why
something was changed, but to an outsider it does look like a couple of
rounds of polite questions were mossing before the "wtf is going on" on
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373#map=19/-34.76638/138.58995
.

Where there are turn restrictions missing something vital like "from" or
"to" sometimes it's obvious what needs to be re-added, and sometimes
actually deleting it is just fine because other tags (such as oneway) are
doing the same job.

Where you think a turn restriction has been deleted in error, perhaps it
would help to comment why that was in error?



On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, 13:18 Anthony Panozzo,  wrote:

> Im not it?s 100% true, youre the one taking the piss by jumping in this
> conversation and just speaking on behalf of the other person involved when
> the matter was already discussed and sorted. Please do not email me directly
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> *Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:41 PM
> *To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 55
>
>
>
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 (Luke Stewart)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 22:07:00 +1000
> From: Luke Stewart 
> To: Anthony Panozzo 
> Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
> Message-ID:
>  3+dc4uvt_k62zz...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Can someone else please confirm that this guy is just taking the piss?
>
> Cheers,
> Luke
>
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 21:58, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:
>
> > I didn?t realise you emailed me directly I am going to have to block you
> > from doing so in the future, it?s against OSM au-talk policy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From: *Luke Stewart 
> > *Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:21 PM
> > *To: *Anthony Panozzo ; OSM Australian Talk List
> > 
> > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
> >
> >
> >
> > "TheSw

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 55

[Anthony Panozzo]

Im not it’s 100% true, youre the one taking the piss by jumping in this 
conversation and just speaking on behalf of the other person involved when the 
matter was already discussed and sorted. Please do not email me directly



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:41 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 55

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 (Luke Stewart)


--

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 22:07:00 +1000
From: Luke Stewart 
To: Anthony Panozzo 
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Can someone else please confirm that this guy is just taking the piss?

Cheers,
Luke

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 21:58, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:

> I didn?t realise you emailed me directly I am going to have to block you
> from doing so in the future, it?s against OSM au-talk policy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Luke Stewart 
> *Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:21 PM
> *To: *Anthony Panozzo ; OSM Australian Talk List
> 
> *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
>
>
>
> "TheSwavu has already said he deleted it because the validator told him
> to" - What's most likely is that the validator located a relation that was
> incorrect, and he determined that he should delete it. Alternatively, it
> could have been added back. Regardless, the relation was non-functional and
> that is obvious given the single member
>
> "have you figured out how to route bus stops with out the platform tag
> yet" - Stops should have a platform tag, either on the node or the area
> that is the platform, but mass adding them still remains incorrect as has
> been discussed ad nauseam
>
> "a bunch of people who all have the same opinion and wont listen to a word
> im saying" - This is not always the case, however if everybody else has a
> contrary opinion that may be an indication that you don't understand what
> we are saying or why you are incorrect
>
>
>
> So if you want to add the no-u-turn relation on the freeway off-ramp, then
> go for it, but it was non-functional to begin with. And a side-note, I am
> yet to see a validator that says "delete it, it's wrong". It most likely
> would say that there is an incorrect number of members, which then provides
> a mapper with two options on how to proceed and fix it.
>
>
>
> Please provide an example of where the routing is still incorrect, in a
> way that TheSwavu has 'broken' by using a validator. It is possible that
> deleting the relation, rather than re-adding the two missing members, was
> the wrong decision. However, it is also the case that you yourself broke
> the relation (again, perhaps inadvertently), within 24 hours of first
> adding it.
>
>
>
> P.S., make sure to use 'reply all', so that the message gets cross-posted
> to talk-au.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Luke
>
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 21:03, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:
>
> Luke,
>
>
>
> TheSwavu has already said he deleted it because the validator told him
>  to, it wasn?t based on local knowledge or intersection rules. And have you
> figured out how to route bus stops with out the platform tag yet? Do you
> now understand the whole bus stop thing was about routing in the first
> place? OMG it?s like Im speaking to a bunch of people who all have the same
> opinion and wont listen to a word im saying.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Luke Stewart 
> *Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 7:59 PM
> *To: *Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> *Cc: *Anthony Panozzo ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
>
>
>
> This is taken directly from the OpenStreetMap website. If you can not see
> the problem with it, and why TheSwavu deleted it, then I suggest you
> familiarise yourself with the documentation:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction#Examples
>
> Version #2
> fixed intersection routing
>
> Edited about 2 months ago by 

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48

[Anthony Panozzo]

I didn’t realise you emailed me directly I am going to have to block you from 
doing so in the future, it’s against OSM au-talk policy



From: Luke Stewart<mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:21 PM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>; OSM Australian Talk 
List<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48

"TheSwavu has already said he deleted it because the validator told him to" - 
What's most likely is that the validator located a relation that was incorrect, 
and he determined that he should delete it. Alternatively, it could have been 
added back. Regardless, the relation was non-functional and that is obvious 
given the single member

"have you figured out how to route bus stops with out the platform tag yet" - 
Stops should have a platform tag, either on the node or the area that is the 
platform, but mass adding them still remains incorrect as has been discussed ad 
nauseam

"a bunch of people who all have the same opinion and wont listen to a word im 
saying" - This is not always the case, however if everybody else has a contrary 
opinion that may be an indication that you don't understand what we are saying 
or why you are incorrect

So if you want to add the no-u-turn relation on the freeway off-ramp, then go 
for it, but it was non-functional to begin with. And a side-note, I am yet to 
see a validator that says "delete it, it's wrong". It most likely would say 
that there is an incorrect number of members, which then provides a mapper with 
two options on how to proceed and fix it.

Please provide an example of where the routing is still incorrect, in a way 
that TheSwavu has 'broken' by using a validator. It is possible that deleting 
the relation, rather than re-adding the two missing members, was the wrong 
decision. However, it is also the case that you yourself broke the relation 
(again, perhaps inadvertently), within 24 hours of first adding it.

P.S., make sure to use 'reply all', so that the message gets cross-posted to 
talk-au.

Cheers,
Luke
On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 21:03, Anthony Panozzo 
mailto:pan...@outlook.com>> wrote:
Luke,

TheSwavu has already said he deleted it because the validator told him  to, it 
wasn’t based on local knowledge or intersection rules. And have you figured out 
how to route bus stops with out the platform tag yet? Do you now understand the 
whole bus stop thing was about routing in the first place? OMG it’s like Im 
speaking to a bunch of people who all have the same opinion and wont listen to 
a word im saying.



From: Luke Stewart<mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 7:59 PM
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick<mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>
Cc: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>; 
talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48

This is taken directly from the OpenStreetMap website. If you can not see the 
problem with it, and why TheSwavu deleted it, then I suggest you familiarise 
yourself with the documentation: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction#Examples

Version #2
fixed intersection routing

Edited about 2 months ago by slice0 · Changeset #118293106

Tags
restriction no_u_turn
type restriction
Members
1 member
Node 6357628400 as via



On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 20:25, Luke Stewart 
mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I genuinely can't tell if you are being straightforward with the community, or 
attempting to rouse trouble because it is amusing to you. I guarantee I am not 
the only one who has this opinion. Several other mappers, including TheSwavu 
himself, have already provided in-depth explanations of their (correct) 
reasoning on this talking list.

iD has a habit of breaking relations. One of the u-turn relations that you 
commented on was broken by you within a day of you adding it (aka, it lost two 
of its members), making it unusable for routing. Fundamentally the validators 
are looking at the OSM data verbatim, without the lens of presets or a GUI, and 
it is quite simple: if a turn restriction does not have at least 3 members 
(from, via, to), then it is definitionally invalid, unusable for routers, and 
requires correction as TheSwavu did in this case.

OpenStreetMap, whilst it does favour local knowledge, also values remote edits, 
particularly when it is (generally) simple to solve, like in the case of these 
edits.

There was a long, drawn out community discussion across multiple platforms with 
the mass edit of Australian bus stops. To me, this feels like a very similar 
situation. It seems like you don't quite understand the purpose of 
OpenStreetMap, or how validators, tools, and other programs interact with it. 
OpenStreetMap is designed to work across a myriad of platforms and devices, not 
a single router or renderer.

W

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48

[Anthony Panozzo]

Diaz, i'm sorry I can't sympathise with these excuses "it's not me it the 
validator" the bottom line is that this user is breaking perfectly fine routing 
all for the sake of some crappy validator gives him a pat on the back because 
it says so, that is irresponsible and foolish editing and deserves no credit 
for simply saying the validator told me so, it's basically bot editing using 
that excuse, I will be watching all edits this guy makes from now on and will 
be reporting every single edit he makes that breaks routing to the DWG and by 
the report button itself on the user page, then he can explain himself there




From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 2:35:26 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46 (Dian ?gesson)


--

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 15:04:05 +1000
From: Dian ?gesson 
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46
Message-ID: <06b0964db149a5343954af20fe2e3...@diacritic.xyz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"



Hi Anthony,

I can sympathise with your sense of frustration. It does feel irritating
when you feel as though your work is being undermined or broken. I know
I've spent a lot of time making changes for better routing, only to find
the same errors get reintroduced.

I think your frustration is misdirected at Andrew here, though. If
validation tools are detecting issues with some data, someone will
eventually notice and try to fix it; whether it be Andrew or some other
editor. In a collaborative, decentralised community it isn't possible to
stop other editors from making changes in an area.

In this specific case, these errors are a result of problems using the
iD editor which create "orphaned" relations that would not be used in
routing anyway. Andrew has indicated that he isn't trying to undo the
changes that have been added, rather to resolve the validation errors.

I've created a few of these errors myself inadvertently, and it wasn't
until I started to use JOSM that I realised how much easier and more
powerful that tool can be. If you are spending hours trying to get these
restrictions perfect, I'd strongly recommend giving that a try.

Both Andrew and yourself are trying to improve the quality of the map,
and no one benefits when frustrations boil over in this way. It's better
to try and work together constructively so we can all spend more time
doing the fun stuff. :)

Dian

On 2022-04-30 14:20, Anthony Panozzo wrote:

Let me put it this way, it very easy for you to come along with your
validator toll and get on your high horse and point out how trash some
routing edits are... but you have no clue at all how much effort it take
to get some intersections functioning as intended as per the rule of the
intersection, the one you pointed out was pretty simple and was
functioning 100% correctly before you touched it now it allows u-turns,
you're pointing out the tiny issue that your validator points out but
what you don't realize is that the validator doe not see the big picture
either, its pretty much just pointing out conflicting restrictions which
are even sometimes left in intentionally, this is not the first time ive
ran into your edits but I have had enough of it, it takes a lot more
knowledge and effort to get them working as intended per the rules than
for you to come along with your little tool, if you personally don't
know the intended routing and can't see any errors using the routing
engine itself LEAVE IT ALONE, OSM is only meant to be edited by people
with local knowledge of the areas, I put a lot of time into what I do
including random routing on my gps to see what it will throw at me, I do
not need to be worry about you and your tool coming along to destroy it.
I am not proff reading this so sorry if there are spelling errors!

 From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 1:33 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
 talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46

[Anthony Panozzo]

Let me put it this way, it very easy for you to come along with your validator 
toll and get on your high horse and point out how trash some routing edits 
are... but you have no clue at all how much effort it take to get some 
intersections functioning as intended as per the rule of the intersection, the 
one you pointed out was pretty simple and was functioning 100% correctly before 
you touched it now it allows u-turns, you’re pointing out the tiny issue that 
your validator points out but what you don’t realize is that the validator doe 
not see the big picture either, its pretty much just pointing out conflicting 
restrictions which are even sometimes left in intentionally, this is not the 
first time ive ran into your edits but I have had enough of it, it takes a lot 
more knowledge and effort to get them working as intended per the rules than 
for you to come along with your little tool, if you personally don’t know the 
intended routing and can’t see any errors using the routing engine itself LEAVE 
IT ALONE, OSM is only meant to be edited by people with local knowledge of the 
areas, I put a lot of time into what I do including random routing on my gps to 
see what it will throw at me, I do not need to be worry about you and your tool 
coming along to destroy it. I am not proff reading this so sorry if there are 
spelling errors!


From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 1:33 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re:  Talk-au Digest, Vol 178,
  Issue 44) (Andrew Davidson)
   2. Re: iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re:  Talk-au Digest, Vol
  178, Issue 44) (Andrew Davidson)
   3. Re: iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re:  Talk-au Digest, Vol
  178, Issue 44) (Phil Wyatt)
   4. FW:  Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44 (Phil Wyatt)


--

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 11:53:53 +1000
From: Andrew Davidson 
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re:  Talk-au Digest,
Vol 178, Issue 44)
Message-ID: <9d7c85e4-257e-f7b0-bd48-bf425c9c3...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

On 30/4/22 00:45, Anthony Panozzo wrote:

> This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know
> more than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing
> correction this account comes along and ?fixes? it based on ?knowledge?

Some terminology before we start. To be valid a turn restriction
relation needs to have:

1. A way with the role "from"
2. A way with the role "to"
3. One or more "via" s that can be either a node or one or more ways
4. The members must connect in a way that you can travel

When I say "broken" I mean that one of the rules is broken and when I
say "knowledge" I mean I know what a valid turn restriction should be.

> from the notes, let me just say I looked over some of the edit this
> account does and it breaks the routing for the most part, Changeset:
> 120344373 | OpenStreetMap

This changeset deleted this turn restriction:

https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13905961

which you added in changeset 118257827 and then broke in 118293106 (it
only had a node via member). When I reviewed this one I decided to
delete it because it would only duplicate this turn restriction:

https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/14044389

which you added in changeset 119769921, if I fixed it.

> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373> and Changeset:
> 120198383 | OpenStreetMap

This intersection had 15 broken turn restriction relation in it:

https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477255
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477256
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477257
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477258
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477260
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477261
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477263
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477268
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477269
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13557714
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761157
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761161
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/1

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44

[Anthony Panozzo]

User TheSwavu
This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know more than 
they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing correction this 
account comes along and “fixes” it based on “knowledge” from the notes, let me 
just say I looked over some of the edit this account does and it breaks the 
routing for the most part, Changeset: 120344373 | 
OpenStreetMap and Changeset: 
120198383 | 
OpenStreetMap
 are two examples of this account breaking routing, ive been wasting my time 
spending hours and hours fixing routing just for this shitty bot to come along 
and fuck it all up over and over again, I would like to ask DWG to take a real 
close look at this account and see if it can be banned from any further edits 
under the bot edit policy or straight out vandalism!



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Friday, 29 April 2022 8:32 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. OSM Wiki Update - Fourth Tagging Guidelines Page ready for
  review (Dian ?gesson)


--

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 18:03:27 +1000
From: Dian ?gesson 
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: [talk-au] OSM Wiki Update - Fourth Tagging Guidelines Page
ready for review
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"



Hello,

Thank you for the feedback for the subpages that have been completed so
far.

The fourth subpage of the Australian Tagging Guidelines:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Land_and_boundaries
is ready for review.

Of particular importance in this subpage, the changes to the
administration levels that was discussed earlier has been incorporated
into this new subpage.

Please, as always, don't be shy about providing feedback or raising
concerns.

Dian
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 


--

Subject: Digest Footer

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


--

End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44


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

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 175, Issue 22

[Anthony Panozzo]

Creating new Bus Stop nodes
Is the consensus to remove the plaform tags from new nodes?





From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 10:30:11 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 175, Issue 22

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: How to properly add address tags when multiple buildings
  share a housenumber? (Peter leGras)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 01:27:57 +1100
From: Peter leGras 
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] How to properly add address tags when multiple
buildings share a housenumber?
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi Peter,
If you are tagging unit addresses in Orange NSW, I see a lot (but not all)
of strata complexes actually have the address with unit number in the NSW
spatial services addressing theme, despite not being displayed in the DCS
NSW Base Map layer.
This is a useful data source where there is restricted access, especially
in strata.
We have a waiver to use spatial services data such as this.
https://portal.spatial.nsw.gov.au/portal/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1=d3cf7c7edef14ca18248c6dc5fcaff96
Hope you find it useful.
I am mapping in the Blue Mountains and have done a bit of work in Orange. A
few nearby mappers are active in the OSM World discord server that was
mentioned recently in the talk-au list if you'd like to join us for casual
discussion.
Cheers
other Peter (2hu4u)

On Sun, 16 Jan 2022 at 23:20, Peter leGras  wrote:

> Hi Peter,
> The tag addr:housenumber does not render on non-building areas, but it is
> still useful to include on the complex lot bounds to assist geocoding. You
> can read more about this at
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1746
> Note that adding a node tagged with addr:housenumber at the centre of the
> complex will render on osm.org.
> If there are multiple dwellings on the complex with the same housenumber,
> you could add the addr:housenumber to every dwelling in the lot and
> consider adding addr:unit or addr:flats to each as necessary.
> Cheers
> 2hu4u
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 


--

Subject: Digest Footer

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


--

End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 175, Issue 22

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

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 175, Issue 15

[Anthony Panozzo]

My  User name is Slice0 and I was the one who made the mass edit to Upgrade the 
Bus Stop nodes to current standards.
I did not bring it up for discussion here because it has already been discussed 
and approved validator could consider a `public_transport=platform` way as 
routable · Issue #8760 · openstreetmap/iD · 
GitHub 
and voted on , my thought process was why do I need to discuss it here when it 
has already been discussed, the DWG user who reverted my changed never fully 
looked into this. He acted purely on the advice from Ds5rUy and should have 
this ability taken away and given to someone who is more objective, if that 
vote and discussion I linked out weighs  and talk here then he is 100% wrong 
and made 54700 wrong edits




From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 10:30:07 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 175, Issue 15

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Undiscussed, undocumented mass edit across all of
  Australia. (osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au)
   2. Re: Undiscussed, undocumented mass edit across all of
  Australia. (Andrew Harvey)
   3. Re: New blogs on unsealed roads in Victoria
  (fors...@ozonline.com.au)


--

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 18:01:18 +1000
From: 
To: "'OSM-Au'" 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed, undocumented mass edit across all
of Australia.
Message-ID: <055401d80853$c0830770$41891650$@thorsten.engler.id.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Warin,



nobody says that the tagging isn't correct for cases where the bus_stop node
is the only thing there is.



But please look at:



https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/931072496403370014
/unknown.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/931073576893825064
/unknown.png



This is a relatively normal bus stop. It clearly DOES have a distinct
platform. In which case the platform should be tagged on the area.



Even if someone decides that's too much work and decides to only to map the
bus_stop node and throw the platform tag onto that, that's fine as long as
it happens on a case by case basis.



The issue is that this is an automated mass edit, where the user loaded all
highway=bus_stop nodes in Australia into JOSM via an overpass query, then
unconditionally added the platform tag to all of them (even ones that might
have already tagged a platform on an area close by), and committed these
changes.



Furthermore, the user in question was specifically pointed to the Automated
Edit Code of Conduct before making that change and wilfully ignored the
process:



https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/931094389407768607
/unknown.png



Cheers,

Thorsten



From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, 13 January 2022 17:38
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed, undocumented mass edit across all of
Australia.





On 13/1/22 5:47 pm, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
  wrote:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116091398

To quote my changeset comment:

This undiscussed, undocumented mass edit that didn't follow the
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct is
introducing a huge amount of incorrect data to the database and should be
reverted.

public_transport=platform doesn't automatically go onto every
highway=bus_stop, only in cases where that's the only thing that's mapped.




If there is an actual waiting area of any kind, the
public_transport=platform belongs on that instead.

see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport#Buses



Umm from the above page

"If there is no real platform and you will only find a simple sign for the
passengers .
Add a node node at the location of the bus stop sign. It gets following
tags:

public_transport=platform
highway=bus_stop
name= or ref=
optional: additional tags like shelter=yes/no, bench=yes/no, bin=yes/no,
etc."



In most instances in Australia all there is is a 'bus stop sign' and shelter
with bench if your lucky. So in the majority of cases the tagging would be
correct.



---

I think this came about from 'public transport version 2'. I don't know if
it is 'required'.

Personally I see platforms for trains, wharf? for 

Re: [talk-au] Position magazine: looking for perspectives on G-NAF

[Anthony Wallace]

Hi there,

I'm looking to gather various perspectives on the release of 
G-NAF<http://www.spatialsource.com.au/2016/02/26/g-naf-is-now-officially-open/>,
 particularly around how it can be incorporated into OSM.

I was hoping you could please identify prominent individuals with in the 
Australian OSM community who would be appropriate.

The result will be an article or articles about the subject for both Position 
magazine and Spatial Source.

Cheers,



Anthony Wallace
Editor
Position magazine +
SpatialSource.com.au<http://www.spatialsource.com.au/>
-

From: Anthony Wallace [mailto:awall...@intermedia.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, 2 March 2016 2:38 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Position magazine: looking for perspectives on G-NAF

Hi there,

I'm looking to gather various perspectives on the release of 
G-NAF<http://www.spatialsource.com.au/2016/02/26/g-naf-is-now-officially-open/>,
 particularly around how it can be incorporated into OSM.

I was hoping you could please identify prominent individuals with in the 
Australian OSM community who would be appropriate.

The result will be an article or articles about the subject for both Position 
magazine and Spatial Source.

Cheers,

Anthony Wallace
Editor
Position magazine +
SpatialSource.com.au<http://www.spatialsource.com.au/>
-
The Intermedia Group
41 Bridge Rd, Glebe, NSW, 2037
Tel. (02) 8586 6134
Mob. 0422 985 973
[ Tw<https://twitter.com/spatialsource> | 
Fb<https://www.facebook.com/SpatialSource> | 
Li<http://www.linkedin.com/company/position-magazine-&-spatial-source-com-au> | 
G+<https://plus.google.com/+SpatialsourceAu/> ]

This communication is confidential and may contain legally privileged 
information. If you are not the named or intended recipient, kindly delete this 
communication and contact us as soon as possible. Please note you are not 
authorised to copy, use or disclose this communication or any attachments 
without our consent. There is a risk that email messages may be corrupted or 
infected by viruses or other interferences no responsibility is accepted for 
such interference. Unless expressly stated otherwise, the views of the writer 
are not those of The Intermedia Group Pty Ltd. Copyright The Intermedia Group 
Pty Ltd 2014.
[Description: pos ss]<http://spatialsource.com.au/>

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

[talk-au] suburb boundaries

[Anthony]

Hello all, I would like to ask what the status of the suburb boundaries is? 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/ABS_Data user pnorman (on 
IRC) has offered to import this data if nobody knows how to do it___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Missing streets in Sydney

[Anthony]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 30 August 2011 16:41, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
 Surveying
 suburban streets by GPS these days makes about as much sense as using
 a horse and cart on a freeway...

 This tracing vs survey argument is as old as OSM is.  My vision of OSM is to
 get take a different route on the bike, or see more of a town when you are
 passing through, or even go for a walk around streets in your local area,
 rather than being a mechanical turk in front of a computer screen, but each
 to their own.

Personally I very much agree with this.  I'd never spend my time
tracing the roads of some boring suburb that I have no personal ties
to.  But I'm very glad that not everyone feels this way.

 Sometimes there is no alternative to tracing, but I think
 tracing without actually ever having placed a foot on the ground in the
 area, leads to a significantly poorer quality map, and you don't need to
 delve to far into the database for evidence of that..

Obviously a map is potentially better if one adds foot-on-the-ground
surveying to whatever other methods you are using.  But that's about
all one can say.

Tracing is quite often more accurate and/or precise than using a GPS.
If high res imagery is available, and it appears to be well aligned,
I'm pretty much always going to use that rather than GPS tracks, even
if I have done a foot-on-the-ground survey.

Put another way, unless your survey equipment is something equivalent
to a google car (http://www.flickr.com/photos/stewb2008/5840727837/)
or google bike 
(http://searchengineland.com/google-woos-brits-with-bike-based-street-view-project-19519),
foot/tire-on-the-ground surveying without using high res imagery also
invariably leads to a significantly poorer quality map.

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

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways

[Anthony]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 You're both a whole continent and
 an island. There is therefore no reason why data users can't use FOSM for
 Australia and OSM for the rest of the world - and even combine the two into
 one dataset.

CC-BY-SA doesn't allow you to combine the two into one dataset
unless that one dataset is CC-BY-SA.

 Because you can just cut out Australia and place it in a new database with
 no linkage, it can be a Collective Database, not a Derivative Database - so
 they don't have to be the same licence. That unambiguously works with ODbL
 (4.5a): whether it works with CC is a moot point because CC is unclear for
 data licensing, but it's likely that it does

I'm not sure why non-clarity makes it a moot point.  If you don't
clearly have a license, then you shouldn't use the work at all.

But as long as you release the combined dataset under CC-BY-SA, there
shouldn't be a problem.

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

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways

[Anthony]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:53 AM, James Livingston
li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:
 On 11/07/2011, at 8:47 PM, John Smith wrote:
 Then why was there such a big fuss made over Haiti edits should be PD
 so that the UN could mix the data with other datasets...

 Because they were mixing the datasets. If you do something like render tiles 
 within the .au boundaries from one database, and render tiles from outside 
 the boundaries from a different dataset, then it's fine.

 Most useful things you can do with the data can be split up like this, 
 besides producing a combined database.

That's not what he said, though.  He said combine the two into one dataset.

And I don't see how you're going to make the tiles without doing this.
 Some of them will overlap.

And even if they don't overlap, once you combine them into a single
map you've got a problem.

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

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways

[Anthony]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 David Groom wrote:
 Are you sure?  ODbL defines 'Collective Database Means this Database
 in unmodified form as part of a collection of independent
 databases ..'. Therefore if you cut out Australia it cant be part
 of a collective database, because it is not the whole database in an
 unmodified form.

 I am sure, yes.

 You would be making planet-combined.osm out of two databases:
 osm-without-australia.osm (ODbL) and fosm-australia-only.osm (CC-BY-SA).

And what is planet-combined.osm?

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

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways

[Anthony]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net 
 wrote:
 David Groom wrote:
 Are you sure?  ODbL defines 'Collective Database Means this Database
 in unmodified form as part of a collection of independent
 databases ..'. Therefore if you cut out Australia it cant be part
 of a collective database, because it is not the whole database in an
 unmodified form.

 I am sure, yes.

 You would be making planet-combined.osm out of two databases:
 osm-without-australia.osm (ODbL) and fosm-australia-only.osm (CC-BY-SA).

 And what is planet-combined.osm?

[quote]
“Derivative Database” – Means a database based upon the Database, and
includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or
any other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the
Contents. This includes, but is not limited to, Extracting or
Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents in a new
Database.
[/quote]

And now, for emphasis:  This includes, but is not limited to,
Extracting or Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the
Contents in a new Database.

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

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways

[Anthony]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:11 AM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
 - Original Message - From: Richard Fairhurst
 rich...@systemed.net
 To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 2:00 PM
 Subject: Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways



 David Groom wrote:

 Are you sure?  ODbL defines 'Collective Database Means this Database
 in unmodified form as part of a collection of independent
 databases ..'. Therefore if you cut out Australia it cant be part
 of a collective database, because it is not the whole database in an
 unmodified form.

 I am sure, yes.

 You would be making planet-combined.osm out of two databases:
 osm-without-australia.osm (ODbL) and fosm-australia-only.osm (CC-BY-SA).

 As it happens, osm-without-australia.osm is a Derivative Database of
 planet.osm, and fosm-australia-only.osm is a Derivative Work of
 planet.fosm.
 But that's immaterial - planet.osm is probably a Derivative of some other
 databases, too. It being a Derivative doesn't restrict your rights under
 ODbL. Once you have the Derivative Database, you are free to use it under
 the full provisions of ODbL, and that includes doing whatever you like
 with
 an unmodified version of it.


 Which seems to me to that you are agreeing with my point, that these are
 derivative databases, not collective databases as you first argued.

osm-without-australia.osm and fosm-australia-only.osm are not
derivatives of each other (*), but planet-combined.osm is a derivative
of both osm-without-australia.osm and fosm-australia-only.osm.

(*) Although in this case they are both derived from
planet-110706.osm.  But pretending that OSMF starts OSM over from
scratch to come up with osm-without-australia.osm.

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

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways

[Anthony]

Anyway, I think what Richard is trying to say is this:

1) Create osm-without-australia.osm by removing australia from the
OSMF database.
2) Create fosm-australia-only.osm by removing everything but australia
from the FOSM database (for both of these extracts, use a boundary
definition that's PD.
3) Make a zip file planet-combined.zip with the two files.  *That*
would be a collective database.
4) Render tiles from osm-without-australia.osm and make them CC-BY-SA. (*)
5) Render tiles from fosm-australia-only.osm and make them CC-BY-SA.
6) Delete tiles so that remaining tiles in australia come from 5, and
remaining tiles outside of australia come from 4.  For tiles which
overlap (mostly water and zoomed out tiles), pick one (randomly, from
one or the other, based on whether it is geographically more in/out of
Australia, based on which tile contains more elements, whatever).

(*) I'm not 100% sure 4 is allowed by the ODbL.  But most people claim it is.

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

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways

[Anthony]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 No: one is a Derivative Database (ODbL) and the other a Derivative Work
 (CC-BY-SA), but the combination of the two is a Collective Database or Work.

Depends on how you combine them.  If you just put the files next to
each other on the hard drive, that's a collective database/work.  If
you combine them into a single database, that's a derivative database
/ derivative work.

ODbL is quite explicit about that.  Extracting or Re-utilising the
whole or a Substantial part of the Contents in a new Database makes a
Derivative Database, not a Collective Database.

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

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways

[Anthony]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net 
 wrote:
 No: one is a Derivative Database (ODbL) and the other a Derivative Work
 (CC-BY-SA), but the combination of the two is a Collective Database or Work.

 Depends on how you combine them.  If you just put the files next to
 each other on the hard drive, that's a collective database/work.  If
 you combine them into a single database, that's a derivative database
 / derivative work.

 ODbL is quite explicit about that.

As is CC-BY-SA.  A collective work requires that the Work is included
in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other
contributions.  To combine the databases into one database, you must
modify them.  To stick them next to each other on a hard drive
(including in a tarball, or in a zip file), you don't.

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

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways

[Anthony]

On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 I think it's reasonably obvious by now that the two sides in this debate
 aren't ever going to be reconciled.

[snip]

 So, I think, we need to get away from this idea that a fork is a bad thing.
 It isn't. There are two divergent communities, and it doesn't do either side
 any good to try and hold them together when they're so opposed.

I'd say recognizing that the fork is not a bad thing is part of
reconciling the two sides in the debate.  And by reconciling, I don't
mean that one side is going to give in and exclusively use the license
of the other side.  But I still don't see why FOSM and OSMF can't work
together, despite the license (and governance) disagreement.

 OSM people needn't invade the FOSM mailing lists and vice versa.

Speaking as a moderator of the osm-fork mailing list (but without
having confirmed this with the other moderators), I invite anyone who
is willing to engage in productive discussion to join us, regardless
of their affiliation with any particular project.

And I hope the OSMF is not going to try to exclude FOSM from its OSM
mailing lists.  FOSM is a content fork, out of necessity (phase 4),
but it has no desire to fork the formats, the APIs, the rendering
software, the editing software, etc.  This will only happen if it
proves to be necessary, and with good communication and cooperation,
it shouldn't be.

The osm-fork mailing list is there for discussions which are outside
of the scope of (or otherwise undesired on) other OSM mailing lists.

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

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways

[Anthony]

On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 John Smith wrote:

 On 11 July 2011 08:16, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net  wrote:

 Can we not - both sides - agree to work on building up our own projects,
 and
 making them as attractive as possible to users old and new, rather than
 knocking the other one?

 But my comment before sets the scene for how OSM-F will look to future
 users, they will be seen as devious in the methods employed, rather
 than being seen as sticking to their moral guns.

 I guess that's a no then. :( :(

Well, eventually one of you two is going to stop responding to the other.

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

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

[Anthony]

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
 I mean throw away the efforts of all the licensing work we've done because
 one guy doesn't like technical detail X or has moral objection Y. That is,
 that we have spent many man years on this and there is no way to make
 everyone happy. We tried hard and it's time to move on. Also, once we're
 switched it's much easier to make the kind of fixes you want as subsequent
 switches are orders of magnitude more easy. Thus, lets put our minor
 differences aside and work for the greater goals we have, like mapping the
 world.

I for one think a partnership between FOSM and OSMF would be a great
thing.  We *are* both trying to map the world.  I've made this
invitation before but I'd like to make it again:  Work with us to help
preserve, and keep up to date, the CC-BY-SA data which otherwise would
be left to rot in a static final dump.  If you believe, as you say,
that CC-BY-SA might work out the problems (which you say are minor) in
the 4.0 license, then you'll be especially glad you have FOSM to help
you switch back.

There's no reason that FOSM and OSMF have to have a hostile
relationship.  We're both trying to map the world, under the license
we deem most appropriate.

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

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

[Anthony]

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
 Anthony

 The reason we have a hostile relationship is because of all your spamming
 and trolling.

I'm not FOSM, so that's rather irrelevant, even if it were true.

I also thought that relationship had been mended, as the previous
conversation we had was cordial.

 You were kicked from the legal list, the only person I'm aware
 of to have managed that.

I was placed on moderation on the legal list.  I have no idea if I
am unique in that respect.

 I suspect the real reason you want a nice relationship is funding and other
 benefits we've worked hard for, while refusing to help with the community
 process to switch licenses.

I'm not interested in your funding.  Not in the least.  You're right
that I think I would benefit from a nice relationship, though.  And
you're right that I don't want to help the community switch licenses,
as I don't agree with the new license (I explained that to you last
time we emailed, which apparently you've forgotten).

As you say that the license disagreement is a minor difference, I'm
not sure why you're harping on it.  I agree with you that we both have
much more in common in our greater goals of mapping the world.

 At this point really the positive gestures need to come from you, for
 example helping us switch so we can all (including FOSM) move on.

If the only way you are willing to have a mutually beneficial
relationship is if I/we/FOSM/CommonMap agree to help you switch to a
license that I/we/FOSM/CommonMap do not approve, then it's not going
to happen.

I cannot support a switch to the ODbL.  But I am very much willing and
interested in supporting OSMF in its larger goal of mapping the world.

Anthony

 On 7/8/2011 6:23 AM, Anthony wrote:

 On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Steve Coastst...@asklater.com  wrote:

 I mean throw away the efforts of all the licensing work we've done
 because
 one guy doesn't like technical detail X or has moral objection Y. That
 is,
 that we have spent many man years on this and there is no way to make
 everyone happy. We tried hard and it's time to move on. Also, once we're
 switched it's much easier to make the kind of fixes you want as
 subsequent
 switches are orders of magnitude more easy. Thus, lets put our minor
 differences aside and work for the greater goals we have, like mapping
 the
 world.

 I for one think a partnership between FOSM and OSMF would be a great
 thing.  We *are* both trying to map the world.  I've made this
 invitation before but I'd like to make it again:  Work with us to help
 preserve, and keep up to date, the CC-BY-SA data which otherwise would
 be left to rot in a static final dump.  If you believe, as you say,
 that CC-BY-SA might work out the problems (which you say are minor) in
 the 4.0 license, then you'll be especially glad you have FOSM to help
 you switch back.

 There's no reason that FOSM and OSMF have to have a hostile
 relationship.  We're both trying to map the world, under the license
 we deem most appropriate.



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

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

[Anthony]

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
 At this point really the positive gestures need to come from you, for
 example helping us switch so we can all (including FOSM) move on.

 If the only way you are willing to have a mutually beneficial
 relationship is if I/we/FOSM/CommonMap agree to help you switch to a
 license that I/we/FOSM/CommonMap do not approve, then it's not going
 to happen.

 I cannot support a switch to the ODbL.  But I am very much willing and
 interested in supporting OSMF in its larger goal of mapping the world.

 Anthony

In case you missed my previous email to explaining this (and for the
benefit of those who didn't receive it), my main sticking point is
this:

If you publicly use any adapted version of this database, or works
produced from an adapted database, you must also offer that adapted
database under the ODbL.

I find that to be completely infeasible from a technical standpoint.
I don't keep around copies of my adapted databases after I create a
produced work from it.

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

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:26 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
 I don't see how it's reasonable to throw everything away for one guy who 
 doesn't like his
 countries laws.

There are more countries without sui generis database rights laws than with it.

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

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:54 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
 I would phrase it that the vast majority aren't lawyers and don't want to
 become one, therefore don't know the implications of the problems with cc.
 That is all this is predicated upon, lawyers say that cc doesn't work for
 data.

Lawyers also say that cc does work for data.

You can generally find a lawyer who will say just about anything.

 The next step is to switch, and then if and when CC 4 comes out and is
 applicable to data then it's a simple process to change to that.

CC 2 and CC 3 are already applicable to data.  If what you mean is
that you're hoping that CC 4 is going to try to override the laws of
jurisdictions which says that facts can't be owned, well, that ain't
gonna happen.

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

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

[Anthony]

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 12:37 AM, James Andrewartha
tr...@student.uwa.edu.au wrote:
 On 8 July 2011 11:26, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
 This reads like you disagree with taxation or death. I do too, but there's 
 not much I can do about it. The vast majority of people are happy with where 
 we are at and now it's down to people holding out because of a comma in the 
 wrong place or a moral objection to various aspects of intellectual property 
 law. While I agree that it's not perfect, I don't see how it's reasonable to 
 throw everything away for one guy who doesn't like his countries laws.

 Unless you have a reasonable solution or I have misunderstood?

 I am quite happy with my country's laws, which don't include database
 right, and don't want to promote such a concept.

 What do you mean by throw everything away? Who is throwing what away?

OSMF is throwing away the data of people who don't relicense under
ODbL.  They're doing this because they don't like the laws of
countries like Australia and the US.

That must be what he means :).

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

Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...

[Anthony]

On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
 On 19 June 2011 14:38, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 Forgot to mention that SVG files are most likely produced works, even
 those they aren't raster images, so converting to SVG and then back to
 map data would potentially be pretty trivial.


 Nearly 12 months since you raised this thread last it was also
 answered then.

 Yes, SVG is an interesting case.
 If the SVG is produced for display it is simplified and normalised,
 making it a extremely poor data source for re-import into a new
 database. (same as per images)

Depends what data you want to extract.  If you just want to extract
factual information, an SVG produced for display is perfectly fine.

Of course, I don't see anything in the ODbL which allows you to
extract those facts from a produced work.

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

Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...

[Anthony]

On Jun 19, 2011 7:17 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
 On 19 June 2011 22:20, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
 On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:12:25 +0100
 Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:

 We have people subverting our CC-BY-SA license right now!!1! *zomg*
 And they wouldn't be abusing our ODbL license in future.
 Case: UN: http://www.unitar.org/unosat-releases-new-maps-over-haiti

 I viewed these maps and understand why you have made the claim that the
 licence has been subverted, with no attribution given, assuming that
 the finding of the displaced person camps and damaged bridges etc was
 OSM volunteer work.

 I should have been clearer. OSM is attributed on the right hand side
 of the map, but they (UN) are violating the letter of our CC-BY-SA
 license.

 There would be no violation under ODbL.

What is the violation under cc-by-sa?  and where are they offering a copy of
their modified database?


 I've not seen this example mentioned in the LWG or Board minutes, so I
 don't know when you contacted UNITAR / UNOSAT to have this clarified.
 I cannot however, follow your logic that it won't happen with a
 differently licensed map.


 Do you care that they are not sticking to the letter of our existing
 license? I certainly don't care, but I would prefer see them not in
 theoretical violation...
 I am an advocate of the ODbL because it makes our lives easier and
 makes it easier for people to use our map data without getting tangled
 up in licensing.

I'd be an advocate of the ODbL if it weren't for the fact that it makes it
much much harder (nearly impossible) to use map data without getting tangled
up in licensing (the need to offer a copy of the modified database, which in
some cases may no longer exist).


 Now returning to thread... Sure we could make 'produced works' more
 restrictive, but the negative consequences would out way the benefit.
 The Open Knowledge Foundation / Open Data Commons (organisation which
 created ODbL license) and LWG's legal council think there is
 sufficient protection already without the need of adding a restrictive
 'no reverse engineering' clause requirement on the produced works*,
 which I think John Smith is advocating for. This has all been
 discussed to death during the drafting phase of the ODbL license back
 in 2008/2009.

 *: Correct me if I am wrong, but the GPL also doesn't have a
 restrictive 'no reverse engineering' clause.

The GPL isn't sold as a license which restricts the use of factual
information obtained from reverse engineering.


 / Grant

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

Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...

[Anthony]

On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Jun 19, 2011 7:17 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
 *: Correct me if I am wrong, but the GPL also doesn't have a
 restrictive 'no reverse engineering' clause.
 The GPL isn't sold as a license which restricts the use of factual
 information obtained from reverse engineering.

LGPL would be a better analogy anyway, and it is clear that LGPL
derivatives cannot be released under a less restrictive license, only
under a more restrictive one.

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

Re: [talk-au] JOSM filtering image/map tile URLs

[Anthony]

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:44 AM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
 I could set up a proxy - on my squid to rewrite URL
 'forbidden_image' to 'google' if I wanted.

In the latest version of JOSM it's actually quite trivial to bypass
the blacklist.  No need to set up a proxy at all.  Of course, if I
publicized the bypass then someone would likely close it.

 However I have zero interest in using google imagery, so I won't.

One nice thing about the Google imagery is that it's often more
up-to-date than the other alternatives.  And so long as you're careful
and check multiple sources, no one is ever going to figure out that
you used Google vs. one of your other sources.

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:

 Richard Weait wrote:
 OSMF doesn't direct JOSM development. Or Potlatch or Merkaartor
 development either.

 Exactly.

 The best-known Potlatch instance is hosted on OSMF-owned hardware at the
 OSMF-owned openstreetmap.org domain. OSMF could, in theory, request a
 particular feature for this instance and refuse to deploy any version that
 didn't contain this feature. They have, however, never done this.

 JOSM and Merkaartor and Mapzen and insert random other editor here
 development is purely at the discretion of the development team. If you
 don't like it, write/fork your own. It's all open source.

While I agree that a fork is a viable option if all else fails, I
believe a fork should be the *last* option, not the first.  And I
don't foresee it being a necessary option in this case.  I don't see
any reason why the developers wouldn't support a build-time option to
turn on/off the blacklist, and I wouldn't consider a special build
with the blacklist off (and with the default API URL set somewhere
else) to be a fork.

For now I'm happy with the fact that there's a loophole in the
blacklist.  And I'm happy to report that JOSM is quickly becoming my
favorite editor.  I just discovered how easy it is to switch between
different imagery layers.  It's really great switching between USGS,
Bing, and Google in the area where I live.  They each have different
subtleties that complement each other, in terms of resolution, age,
and coverage.  I'd guess in Australia it's much the same, with the
candidates bing Nearmap, Bing, and Google.

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

Re: [talk-au] JOSM filtering image/map tile URLs

[Anthony]

On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
 You aren't addressing the core question.  Given that the new imagery
 plugin has made it much simpler to accidentally infringe, is a URL
 blacklist a suitable way to raise that barrier closer to where it was
 a few weeks ago?

The only proper answer to that question is mu.

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

Re: [talk-au] JOSM filtering image/map tile URLs

[Anthony]

On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 7:18 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 31 January 2011 10:04, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
 Frederik is also a member of the Data Working Group, along with
 myself, who have to deal with the consequences of people recklessly
 tracing in from inappropriate sources.
 Although a little different, see a recent case here:
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ec/2011-January/55.html

 Which leads back to Anthony's suggestion about a special build for
 OSM-F with what ever filtering they deem appropriate, they could go so
 far as to host some kind of config that JOSM interacts with *IF* and
 only if the data is being uploaded to OSM-F's API address.

Yes, with a special build they could also allow JOSM to work with a
Trusted Platform Module that could attest that the contributor had
never checked a photograph to see whether or not a particular turn
across a divided highway was possible - at least not using that
computer.

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

Re: [talk-au] JOSM filtering image/map tile URLs

[Anthony]

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 7:21 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
 On Sat, 2011-01-29 at 23:51 +1000, John Smith wrote: Thankfully the main 
 author of the software seems to want a more
 general editor, not just one that works with OSM specific APIs etc.

 This makes me wonder.  Dirk has stated that he does not want the feature
 implemented, while Frederik has stated that he has already implemented
 it.

 Is that not the rudest form of vandalism in OSM (even worse than
 vandalising a part of the map)?

To be fair, Frederik had already made the changes before Dirk stated
that he didn't want them.

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

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map

[Anthony]

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 6:02 AM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
 I can see the legal line of thought for paying to belong to a company /
 organisation.

I can too.  Annual membership dues provide a mechanism for a member to
1) show who they are (thereby making it more difficult to obtain
multiple votes), and 2) show that they continue to be interested in
being a member.  Providing 1 and 2 without any payment at all would
wind up costing the organization money.  I certainly don't think every
contributor should be instantly admitted to the organization.  That
would be a legal nightmare.  On the other hand, a provision for the
waiver of annual dues in certain situations would be appropriate.

Most of all I just wanted to point out that candidates welcome was a
ridiculous comment, though.  The vast majority of the volunteers are
not even members in the OSMF, so our voice to express disagreement
with the policies and management of the OSMF is appropriately on the
mailing lists.

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

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map

[Anthony]

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:

 Steve Bennett wrote:
 Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
  1. OSMF needs a written out strategic plan.
 Hear, hear.

 The equivalent of Patches welcome in this case is:

 OSMF is a democratically elected body. Candidates welcome.

...provided they've paid their membership dues.

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