Re: [talk-au] Vic gov data request denied

Well, that seems to me the typical answer from someone who has no clue, doesn’t care about trying to find one, and just wants you to go away and stop bothering him… From: Little Maps Sent: Friday, 11 March 2022 17:38 To: OSM Aust Discussion List Subject: [talk-au] Vic gov data request

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

This is nonetheless correct mapping! What you are seeing it the resulting impedance mismatch from using linear ways to map what on the ground are actually areas. That sort segment at a sharp angle only exists for connectivity purposes. And the data makes perfect sense when seen in the

Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

I really hadn't expected people here to have such delusions about some of the cornerstones of highway mapping in OSM which have been firmly established for over a decade. To quote the wiki ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways ): A divided

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

***physically*** Legal lane change restrictions are tagged with change:lanes From: Graeme Fitzpatrick Sent: Saturday, 5 March 2022 08:58 To: Luke Stewart Cc: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections Looking

Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

change:lanes=* can represent that solid line. While that would implicitly define the inability to turn right, it can in addition be made explicit using a turn restriction relation with ways as via, specifically: type=restriction restriction=no_turn_right from:

Re: [talk-au] Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

I have to disagree with you here in the strongest possible terms. "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation" is one of the core tenets of highway mapping in OSM. The ways as mapped in this case are simply and unarguably outright wrong, because they imply a physical separate that

Re: [talk-au] Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

I’m in agreement with you that this is not the correct, widely accepted, way of mapping these intersections. Ways should only split at the start of physical separations. Intersections of dual carriage ways should result in a # like pattern. Turn lanes without physical separation should be

Re: [talk-au] Anyone mind if I tidy the wiki a bit?

As I said before, I don't think I'm qualified to decide what exactly, if anything of his changes to keep or not. So my plan was to just revert it all and then invite him to discuss his changes here first and he can redo whatever finds general approval. To facilitate that, I've committed a few

Re: [talk-au] Anyone mind if I tidy the wiki a bit?

Just to make this clear: I'm not really sure I'm qualified to pick and choose on my own what among his changes is acceptable or not. That's the whole issue with them, there are extensive changes, some of which replace previous specified tagging with fundamental different one, and none of them

Re: [talk-au] 2377 occurrences of fixme="unknown type of water crossing"

I very much doubt anyone actually looked at these when the fixmes were added and it was an automated edit that just looked for highway/water crossings without tags. From: Ewen Hill Sent: Wednesday, 23 February 2022 12:59 To: OSM-Au Subject: [talk-au] 2377 occurrences of fixme="unknown

Re: [talk-au] Anyone mind if I tidy the wiki a bit?

Well, rearranging and editing, on top of the questionable edits that are currently on top of the stack of revisions, will cement these changes and make it harder to revert them. Some of the changes have completely replaced what previously was listed as correct tagging practice with

Re: [talk-au] Anyone mind if I tidy the wiki a bit?

If you do, please make sure to not just incorporate the recent undiscussed, subjective, if not outright wrong changes by Aaronsta. From: Dian Ågesson Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2022 17:00 To: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: [talk-au] Anyone mind if I tidy the wiki a bit? Hello, The

Re: [talk-au] Sidewalks as "Path" when bicycles allowed? was: OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta

No it’s not. And I’m pretty sure it didn’t say that on the ATGs before he vandalised them. From: Dian Ågesson Sent: Monday, 21 February 2022 19:18 To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Sidewalks as "Path" when bicycles allowed? was: OpenStreetMap Wiki

Re: [talk-au] train tour

This came up recently in #oceania on the OpenStreetMap World Discord, and after looking at it and some contemplate we came to the conclusion that yes, these are actual routes operating their own trains with multiple scheduled services, so they should be mapped. -Original Message- From:

Re: [talk-au] Help - Node relocation

Well, it was showing for me too like in the screenshot when I looked at it at first. But as I said, a Ctrl+F5 fixed that. (Lisa, the technical explanation below isn’t really important to you) Now, in this case, because I never looked at that area before, it can’t have been my local

Re: [talk-au] Help - Node relocation

The edit mode shows the data as it exists in the database at that moment. So if the node disappears when you go into edit mode, then everything is correct in the database and you don’t need to do anything there anymore. The map view outside the editor is not updated in realtime, it can take

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta

There is also that he seems to be deleting all source tags on any loaded objects with many of his changesets. I wrote a changeset comment on one of the changesets that do that, to which he has simply not replied. (My changeset comments about that and the PBN have been made at the same time, he

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta

Well, he has answered a changeset comment: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116656873 I'll leave it to the WA OSM community if that's a valid reason to simply delete a whole bunch of routes for which there definitely are signs on the ground, and what to do about it. -Original

Re: [talk-au] Aust. Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)

I guess the source of the tagging information might be from the operators website or such instead of someone having seen a sign on the ground. From: ianst...@iinet.net.au Sent: Thursday, 10 February 2022 23:16 To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Aust. Walking Track Grading

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta

Seems that's not the first time they've done that: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2016-June/010953.html -Original Message- From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au Sent: Thursday, 10 February 2022 18:06 To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au]

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta

Also seems to be zealously removing source tags: https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=117189529 -Original Message- From: Michael Collinson Sent: Thursday, 10 February 2022 17:36 To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta

Seeing the large number of changes to the ATG being made in the last 2 days by Aaronsta , I got some questions. Who is Aaronsta? Is it anyone participating in this mailing list? Have any of these changes been discussed somewhere?

Re: [talk-au] Aust. Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)

The source tag should directly name the exact tag for which it specifies the source, so it should be: source:hiking_scale:awtgs= From: Ian Steer Sent: Wednesday, 9 February 2022 15:19 To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Aust. Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS) With

Re: [talk-au] Aust. Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)

Maybe just awtgs=* for officially assigned values and awtgs:informal=* for when the mapper came up with it? Or generally awtgs=*, but add a source:awtgs=official/”name of organisation”/informal ? Cheers, Thorsten From: Graeme Fitzpatrick Sent: Tuesday, 8 February 2022 11:30 To:

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

Well, the advantage of that approach, ***if it were supported by data consumers***, is that you could just classify your ways using some tag, and then have whatever consequences are of legislation apply to them. If the legislation changes, you just make the change to these default definitions,

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

def: can have conditions: “def:highway=footway[walking_track=yes];access:bicycle”=no (I’m not proposing this particular tagging scheme, this is just an example) So if there is any tag on your walking track footways, or paths, or whatever that can be used to distinguish them, you could

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

I assume these National parks where different rules are in effect have a boundary relation. In which case it would be possible to either: a) tag a def: directly on that boundary relation with the rules that apply or (maybe better in this case) b) create a type=defaults relation “Tasmania

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

As I mentioned in my previous post, it’s extremely unlikely any data consumer is making use of that information. But, there is, as far as I’m aware, no other attempt at defining expected defaults in the OSM database. That, despite the fact that, as can be seen at

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

I rarely map things that aren’t urban footpaths. So generally footway or cycleway. As I’m generally mapping in Queensland, where there isn’t much if any legal distinction between general footpath and a signed “shared path”, I’m using footway or cycleway depending on how cycle friendly

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

Tasmania: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2369652 There seems to be only a single default key defined for Tasmania currently: "def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=yes There are no default values defined on Australia: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/80500 Now, it’s worth

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

That table is just the suggested defaults. We actually have default values specified on the state boundaries currently I think using the format specified here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Defaults I think. Any use of explicit access tags will override defaults.

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

In the end, the only thing that counts is what is tagged on the objects in the database, and the OSM database API does not impose any restrictions about that. I believe even iD allows you in the end to just freely specify any tags you like on any object? I’m sure it’s possible to work

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

It can be anything you want, as long as you add enough explicit access tags. From: Phil Wyatt Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 17:20 To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au; 'OSM-Au' Subject: RE: [talk-au] Path versus Footway Thanks Thorsten, So reading from that chart and in regard

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

As far as I'm concerned, footway, cycleway, path(, and bridleway) are all essentially the same thing, a non-motor_vehicle path, just with different implied default access restrictions. We should probably have a discussion about how appropriate the ones listed here are:

Re: [talk-au] Am I using addr:unit correctly?

Well, in regards to Nominatim, from the horses mouth, so to speak: https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=W=1024067995=building why is the addr:unit being ignored here? Because

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

“off-track” here implies trail_visibility=no. If it’s NOT visible on the ground. And it’s NOT part of any signed route. Then it doesn’t meet the verifiability criteria and shouldn’t be mapped. From: Josh Marshall Sent: Tuesday, 25 January 2022 14:42 To: Andrew Harvey Cc: talk OSM

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

OSM is the database. Not what any particular data consumer does with the data. We don’t have control over what different data consumers do with the data. What we have control over is what data appears in the database. My position is that the data in the database should reflect

Re: [talk-au] Removing platform for bus stops Was Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 175, Issue 22

public_transport=platform should not be unconditionally removed from any highway=bus_stop. It should be added to any newly mapped highway=bus_stop IF that single node is the only thing of the bus stop that's being mapped. It should in fact be added to existing highway=bus_stop that are missing

Re: [talk-au] Discord #oceania channel?

History is being kept and is searchable on Discord. From: Phil Wyatt Sent: Friday, 14 January 2022 13:04 To: 'Graeme Fitzpatrick' ; 'Sam Wilson' ; 'OSM-Au' Subject: Re: [talk-au] Discord #oceania channel? Hi Folks, The discord channel is a bit more chatty but I am not sure if old

Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed, undocumented mass edit across all of Australia.

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

Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed, undocumented mass edit across all of Australia.

Hi Phil, iD is a major part of the problem here, by very hard pushing an agenda which doesn't have consensus for it. But that, and even the complete contents of this edit, is beside the point. The central issue is that this is an Australia wide automated edit of 1000s of nodes that didn't

[talk-au] Undiscussed, undocumented mass edit across all of Australia.

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

Re: [talk-au] Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

“This is a human-readable summary of (and not a substitute for) the license .” A) Read the actual license instead of an minimal infographic: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode B) The waiver tells you exactly

Re: [talk-au] Importing 200 emergency markers?

Maybe just create a simple page on the wiki describing what you intent to do along with a link to information about the received permission? Just to make it easier to find in the future if there are any concerns. From: Andrew Harvey Sent: Friday, 26 November 2021 13:46 To: Kim Oldfield

Re: [talk-au] Unconnected ways

Possibly path=link? From: Andrew Harvey Sent: Friday, 26 November 2021 12:34 To: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> Cc: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: Re: [talk-au] Unconnected ways On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 11:54, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > wrote: Same

Re: [talk-au] Service Roads?

The point of that link was that most of them aren’t highway=service to start with, so service=* wouldn’t apply to most of them. From: Andrew Hughes Sent: Tuesday, 23 November 2021 08:55 To: Dian Ågesson Cc: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: Re: [talk-au] Service Roads? Thanks All,

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

If OsmAnd fundamentally misinterprets/misrepresents access tags, that's not "disappointing", that's a critical bug that needs to be fixed ASAP. https://github.com/osmandapp/OsmAnd/issues/11668 Cheers, Thorsten -Original Message- From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, 30

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: : Re: "Removing closed or illegal trails."

If there are issues with how the, correctly tagged, map is presented by data consumers, we should be working on getting these data consumers in line, not mangle the underlying data. -Original Message- From: fors...@ozonline.com.au Sent: Saturday, 30 October 2021 19:13 To: stevea Cc:

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." specifically motor bikes

With the caveat that the access tags should reflect legal basis of access, not physical suitability or actual usage. If the path in question is not legally allowed for motorcycle, then don’t tag motorcycle=yes, even if it’s physically possible and people (illegally) use it that way. If

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

OSM is the database. If there are things incorrectly tagged in the database, they should be fixed. Nobody is saying otherwise. So yes, if in the example you gave below the legal authority has specified that you are only allowed to use specific marked trails with specified modes of transport,

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

I still fail to see how that's a valid argument for not mapping the geometry. We have lifecycle prefixes ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_of_decay ) and access tags ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dno#Illegal_objects ) for this. And I would argue

[talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/112722497 "Removing closed or illegal trails. Tidy up of Fire Roads and places" My opinion on the topic is: If it exists on the ground, it gets mapped. If there is no legal access, that's access=no or access=private. If it's a path that has been

Re: [talk-au] Service road highway areas as frontage road access

Looking on mapillary, it seems you can also enter there, so the current mapping is wrong. Also, I can’t see any legal reason, besides it being dangerous if there is traffic, to cross all the way from the parking lot at the top to that Burnwood Highway Service Road at the bottom, or the

Re: [talk-au] Lifeguards & "Swim Between the Flags"

In Australia, maybe. Globally? Very unlikely. From: Andrew Harvey Sent: Thursday, 21 October 2021 13:53 To: Graeme Fitzpatrick Cc: OSM-Au Subject: Re: [talk-au] Lifeguards & "Swim Between the Flags" Isn't it always the case though that patrolled beaches will have flags and that is the

Re: [talk-au] Source material.

I might be wrong, but from reading the metadata of the derived dataset, I think the base dataset basically only has parcels, but not forestry specific information attached to that, while the derived dataset uses the parcels and then adds forestry specific information to them. From: Little

Re: [talk-au] Path discussion tagging guidelines

The only other difference was a general ambivalence on how shared paths are tagged. The wiki says highway=cycleway & foot=designated, people here were also happy with highway=footway & bicycle=designated. Two sides of the same coin I guess, and depends on which camp you're in.  Personally,

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

While I'm normally all for "you made the mess, you clean it up", this might be something better tackled by someone with extensive experience in reverting multiple changesets? Have we got any experts in that? -Original Message- From: stevea Sent: Wednesday, 13 October 2021 14:13 To:

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

If there is a sign, then it’s =designated, not =yes From: Adam Horan Sent: Tuesday, 5 October 2021 09:24 To: Kim Oldfield ; OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths Hi Kim, highway = pedestrian is for pedestrianised roads/areas rather then

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

This really is all already covered under: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_render er (which should also apply to "don't map for the [broken] router"). -Original Message- From:

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

Except for the missing r, you are correct. Outlook is unfortunately a bit finicky and doesn’t send a Name when you use sender address different from the primary one of the email account. But I’m forced to send emails using the exact address that is subscribed to the list. I’m using

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

>>> In addition there is Karl Cheng's opinion (Mon Sep 20 talk-au) that "this whole "Road Rules" regulation only applies to "roads" and "road related areas". Only footpaths adjacent to a "road", or any path explicitly designated for cyclists are considered to be "road related areas". See rules

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

bicycle=designated implies the presence of one of these signs: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/894078435264196668 /unknown.png bicycle=no implies the presence of this sign: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/894078611248807946 /unknown.png The

Re: [talk-au] Way errors in Quilpie Qld

The correct offset for imagery can change very quickly from one place to another (alignment could be right at one place and off 100m down the road if the imagery is distorted). JOSM has an “imagery offset database” if you install the right plugin:

Re: [talk-au] Shared driveways

Fair enough. That’s a very different situation from what I’m usually mapping. From: Graeme Fitzpatrick Sent: Saturday, 25 September 2021 10:54 To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au Cc: OpenStreetMap Subject: Re: [talk-au] Shared driveways I don't disagree with any of your comments!, but

Re: [talk-au] Shared driveways

Where driveways end at a garage door (which is pretty much all driveways I’ve mapped), I’ve connected the driveway to a node shared with the building outline and tagged as entrance=garage. As the garages are pretty much all part of the main buildings, which have address tags on them, data

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

Yeah, I’m aware of that. As far as I can tell, there is no legal difference between (unsigned) footpaths and (signed) Shared Paths in regards to bicycles in Queensland as far as I can tell. e.g. https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/wheeled-devices/bicycle#footpath simply lists

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

Well, that pretty much matches what I said before: Anything that remotely looks like a footpath (is meant for people to walk on) is, in the absence of one of the 4 (3 + one mirrored) official signs I linked, a footpath. It is not in any way limited to things that would be tagged as

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

In regards to your changeset comment: "I doubt that means that all paths are footpaths unless otherwise signed." Generally speaking, yes, they are. In the absence of one of these signs: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/889007668096819260/unknown.png Everything that

Re: [talk-au] New Bing imagery?

Yes there is. Has also shown up in NSW and Qld. We were discussing that today in #oceania on the OSM Discord. -Original Message- From: Sam Wilson Sent: Wednesday, 1 September 2021 22:25 To: OSM-Au Subject: [talk-au] New Bing imagery? For Perth at any rate, it seems that there is new

Re: [talk-au] highway=service

I think this way is wrong: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/676954097 It’s currently mapped as a parking aisle, but as far as I can see from the imagery, that appears to actually be a pedestrian area, and not a roadway at all. Yes, very clearly:

Re: [talk-au] Sidewalks in Australia

My personal preference is to map sidewalks separately like Graeme described below, plus: sidewalk:left=separate and/or sidewalk:right =separate on the road street relation with sidewalks added using “sidewalk” role I’m also mapping driveways and the intersections between driveways and

Re: [talk-au] Can anyone make sense of this?

He added another 100 to 200 pointless "no u turn" restrictions as far as I can see, without replying to my previous changeset comment (or any of his previous changesets that anyone has ever commented on as far as I can tell): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/108815135 Like, if there

[talk-au] Can anyone make sense of this?

I just noticed this change set: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/108562320 And I have a hard time making sense of it. As far as I can tell, these are primarily 100s of totally unnecessary turn restrictions? ___ Talk-au mailing list

Re: [talk-au] Street Lamps

At first glance, and without digging any deeper myself, that dataset seems to be licensed under CC BY 4.0. Is it covered under any waiver we already have? https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ From: Andrew Munday Sent: Saturday, 12 June 2021 10:00 To:

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

Well, the website of the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads website specifically lists “Local Traffic Only” as an official state level sign. https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/signs/instruction (see section “Local traffic restriction signs”) From: Michael James

Re: [talk-au] network=Translink SEQ vs network=TransLink SEQ

Use download from overpass api in JOSM with this query: [out:json][timeout:999]; ( node["network"="Translink SEQ"]; way["network"="Translink SEQ"]; relation["network"="Translink SEQ"]; ); out body; out skel qt; after download completes, press Ctrl+A to select everything

Re: [talk-au] network=Translink SEQ vs network=TransLink SEQ

With all 7700 objects (both network variants) loaded, I also noticed that there is some variation in the operator tag (excuse the screenshot): Which could probably be cleaned up at the same time if we agree on which ones are the correct ones. From: Graeme Fitzpatrick Sent:

[talk-au] network=Translink SEQ vs network=TransLink SEQ

I've just noticed that there are 3-4k of both network=Translink SEQ and network=TransLink SEQ Given that tag values are generally considered case sensitive, shouldn't these two be conflated into one or the other? ___ Talk-au mailing list

Re: [talk-au] Mapping houses and addresses in Sydney

From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, 18 June 2018 20:57 To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Mapping houses and addresses in Sydney On 18/06/18 20:30, Andrew Harvey wrote: On 18 June 2018 at 19:21, Dion Moult mailto:d...@thinkmoult.com> > wrote: Thanks Andrew

Re: [talk-au] Mapping houses and addresses in Sydney

From: Andrew Harvey Sent: Monday, 4 June 2018 05:13 To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Mapping houses and addresses in Sydney What do you mean by "ESRI as a base map" do you mean the "ESRI World Imagery" available in ID and JOSM? ESRI's map layers are not allowed, just

Re: [talk-au] Small culverts/bridges in bushland

From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, 30 May 2018 19:17 To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Small culverts/bridges in bushland I quoted the whole off-list "discussion" with Thorsten. Since it was short and not controversial, I assumed it was in error not using

[talk-au] FW: Open Mapping team at Microsoft Australian edits

I only just noticed that these didn’t go to the mailing list. I was wondering why everyone behaved like these posts hadn’t be made… From: Nemanja Bračko Sent: Saturday, 5 May 2018 17:37 To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au Subject: Re: [talk-au] Open Mapping team at

Re: [talk-au] Open Mapping team at Microsoft Australian edits

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/58382600 This user, which on his user page says "I am proud to be in Microsoft Open Maps team." Has been making a lot of "Fixed geometry" changesets. Now, the motorway he worked on did indeed in part need fixing, as it was in places 10-30m out of

Re: [talk-au] FW: Am I doing intersections right?

through_route belongs to the transit tag (and is documented in the wiki on that page) I'm highly doubtful if any router is actually making proper use of lane attributes beyond turn:lanes currently. I think it's actually the angle at which the slip road splits off, that's responsible for the

Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?

Please don't break my placement tags. (I've restored them.) They were there on purpose, and they are not what causes OSRM to generate that "Turn left onto unnamed road" instruction. Also, please don't delete my transit relations, these things take a lot of work to properly setup without

Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?

From: Andrew Harvey Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 17:01 To: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right? > I agree, if there if is not named via a sign or otherwise > on the ground then I would leave the

Re: [talk-au] Coastline mods leading to problems with other features.

The Sydney Harbor MP was broken (not sure if "now" or "still", the ways didn't form a closed loop). There was one "coastline" way across the mouth that didn't belong to the MP. I've added it and uploaded the change. From: Derya Dilmen (Insight Global Inc) Sent:

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

> All that said, does data.gov.au actually have any geospatial > datasets anymore? Seems as if that has moved to > http://www.nationalmap.gov.au For Queensland, all geospatial data is now available from: http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

I’ve looked through a number of the “open data policy” documents published by different Queensland government departments, and I’ve noticed that a lot of them contain references to the “Open Data Institute Queensland”. I’ve searched for their website, and it’s here: https://theodi.org.au/