Re: [talk-au] farm airstrips

[Ian Sergeant]

Yeah.  Complete nonsense, unfortunately.

Ian.

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024, 12:25 am Ian Bennett,  wrote:

> Hi all,
> I'll put my two boobs worth in here, but my information is
> extremely dated.
> When I was gliding back in the 80's, we used to fly from a private
> airstrip. There was no windsock
> erected.
> When I asked about this, I was told that a windsock implied a
> public airstrip so could be used by
> anyone. No windsock, no one else could use the strip (unless in an
> emergency).
> That said, it could be an old wives' tale just to shut the
> "young'un" up.
>
> Ian
>
> On 29/4/24 5:54 pm, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > Thanks all - I'll drop that airstrip then.
> >
> > On 29/04/2024 10:04, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> the DWG was contacted by the owner of some farmland about an
> aerodrome=airport that was mapped on
> >> their property and which they would like to have removed since it was
> not a published airstrip and
> >> while they occasionally used it for take-offs and landings they don't
> want ir promoted.
> >>
> >> My standard response in cases like this would be "I can mark it
> access=private but if something is
> >> clearly there, I cannot remove it."
> >>
> >> I have checked with aerial imagery though and there is absolutely
> nothing on the aerial imagery
> >> that would set this "airstrip" apart from the neighbouring grassland.
> Yes it looks like I could
> >> land a plane there, but I could also land a plane the next field over,
> or a little bit further
> >> east or west - it all looks the same. I assume that there might be a
> clue locally like a windsock
> >> or so, but other than that, nothing.
> >>
> >> I'd therefore be tempted to delete the airstrip from OSM. Opinions
> about that? Here's the area:
> >>
> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-38.3681/145.3901
> >>
> >> Bye
> >> Frederik
> >>
> >
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Ian Sergeant]

I understand what you would like the mission statement to be.

But right now, it's clear that we value ground truth.

If our mission is to change that should be a wider discussion.

I still don't see where the authority comes from to delete or revert a
genuine ground feature that someone has mapped in good faith.

We have tags to handle this scenario.

Ian


On Sun, Oct 8, 2023, 6:34 PM  wrote:

> Yes Ewen, I agree
>
> The OSM mission statement is at
> https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement
>
> I would like to see it also include something like Google's "don’t be
> evil"*
> Or doctors' "first, do no harm" or "primum non nocere"
>
> Tony Forster
>
>
> * Google changed "don’t be evil" to “do the right thing† in 2015
> and finally dropped it in 2018
>
> https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393
>
>
>
> > Hi all,
> >   A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those
> protecting
> > the environment over ground truth mapping.
> >
> >  On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits for
> an
> > outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the
> > potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may alter
> > food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage values,". In
> > Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in the
> > Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human activity.
> > In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist
> > protection.
> >
> > I feel the  lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances however it
> > might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to
> protect
> > fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps these.
> >
> > Ewen
> >
> > On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley  wrote:
> >
> >> A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this
> >> particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):
> >>
> >> 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
> >> 2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
> >> 3. Leave the deletion as it is.
> >>
> >> For this particular example, the results would be:
> >> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access
> tags
> >> 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or
> >> alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*
> >> 3. No reversion
> >>
> >> So far I count 5 people in favour of reversion, and 2 or 3 against (I
> >> wasn?t sure about the third!)
> >>
> >> Here?s my proposal:
> >> Partial revert of ways
> >> Way 29415025 - leave this deleted (as it was difficult to find at my
> >> survey in early 2022)
> >> Way 1052666246 - access to an informal lookout - leave this deleted
> >> Other two ways 29415022 and 630040313 reverted with addition of
> access=no
> >> (as NWPS don?t want people going there), and probably a note=* tag to
> >> describe the reason for the access tag
> >> (Possibly disused:highway=* as an alternative - this will prevent it
> >> appearing on the map. Unfortunately we don?t have a new survey of this
> >> area. The NPWS ranger doesn?t appear to want this showing on the map,
> but
> >> hasn?t given any indication on the actual status of the path. Is it
> >> officially closed? Other paths that have been closed in other locations
> >> have previously been marked access=no e.g.
> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/347707596/ )
> >> Delete the viewpoint tags on the ways
> >> Outline in the changes comments the reason for the reversion (i.e. the
> >> mailing list discussion).
> >>
> >> It would be nice to have a resurvey, but I wasn?t planning to go back to
> >> this location any time soon to do one.
> >>
> >> Mark P.
> >>
> >> On 2 Oct 2023, at 2:12 pm, Ben Ritter 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> (I'm a little late to this thread, but wanted to add my two cents.) I
> >> agree with Tom's take and have commented below:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 25 Sept 2023, 8:26 am Tom Brennan, 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Tricky one.
> >>>
> >>> I have sympathy for Land Managers. There can be many reasons why they
> >>> don't want people visiting a place, and why they don't want tracks on a
> >>> map which might encourage it.
> >>>
> >>> But simply deleting the tracks from OSM is not the best way to go about
> >>> it unless the "tracks" were simply bushbashing routes, and were never
> >>> real tracks in the first place.
> >>>
> >>> As others have said, it just makes it likely that the track will be
> >>> added as a new track at a later date, assuming it does exist on the
> >>> ground.
> >>>
> >>> Some basic signage at the trackhead, and formal closure (announcement
> on
> >>> the NPWS alerts page) would be enough to set the various tags so that
> it
> >>> shouldn't appear on downstream maps.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something
> >> should exist in OSM.
> >>
> >> This situation is not a novel one that 

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Ian Sergeant]

Aren't most places classified by the government authority as
cities/villages/towns/localities/suburbs?

Is it done by population currently?  I didn't think so..

Ian.


On Wed, 27 Sept 2023 at 14:21, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Have just raised this for discussion on both the Forum & Discord, so also
> throwing it out here.
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Tagging_towns_by_relative_importance%2C_not_just_population_size
>
> Any thoughts or comments welcome, in any place!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Dual naming in NSW

[Ian Sergeant]

I think including a "slash" character in a name tag is really ugly.  That's
not the way that the GNB record them.  Unless someone can find some
information on the ground that records it that way?

I understand the desire to not diminish either name when they are dual
named, but I think it's wrong to think of alt_name as a "lesser" name.
Alternative means just that, it's an equally valid, but alternative name.
It's looks like exactly the type of scenario envisioned by the tag.

IMO it's a bad outcome to end up with multiple names in one tag separated
by a slash.

Ian.

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 at 12:45, Ben Ritter  wrote:

> I agree that in places where a joint name is in use, that should be
> documented as `name=Booraghee / Bradleys Head`as. From a data
> perspective, I think it is also useful to know that the english called it
> (in english spelling) `name:en=Bradleys Head` and the locals called it (in
> local romanised spelling) `name:aus=Booraghee`.
>
> I have no great understanding of the languages involved, but I want to see
> it as "Booraghee / Bradleys Head" on most maps (because that's part of
> our cultural style, as documented in the quoted policy). On the other hand,
> when I hook up a routing text-to-speech engine, I'm going to have a much
> better time pronouncing the spelling of `name:en` and `name:aus`. Even
> better after someone in the know replaces the vague and non-specific `:aus`
> form with the actual language(s).
>
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 at 09:27, Little Maps  wrote:
>
>> This may depend on the specific place but in many places I believe Phil’s
>> interpretation is correct and Andrew’s is inappropriate. Many places and
>> reserves now have joint management or co-ownership, and dual/joint names.
>> Joint names are not alternative names. John Roberts-Smith is John
>> Roberts-Smith. He is not John Roberts and/or alt-name John Smith. The Rock
>> Nature Reserve / Kengal Aboriginal Place is a legislated reserve. This is
>> the legislated name, as described in the management plan and signposted on
>> all new signs. Since OSM maps what is on the ground, we should include the
>> entire joint name in the one name tag. We are not listing alternatives, we
>> are presenting the entire, signposted, legal name in the one tag.
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Why set coast line to nation park or administrative boundaries?

[Ian Sergeant]

On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 18:15, cleary  wrote:

>
> My knowledge is limited to NSW as that is the state in which I have
> previously made enquiries. Verbal descriptions of administrative boundaries
> have not been used in recent years. Boundaries are now defined
> geospatially, with the NSW Department of Community Services being
> responsible for producing the official maps. It is my understanding that
> the DCS NSW maps are as authoritative as can be obtained (except for the
> surveyors' charts from which the DCS maps are derived). I think the
> government pays a royalty to surveyors in order to be able to use the
> surveyors' data in government maps and licence others to use these maps.
>  DCS NSW certainly does not snap the boundaries to nearby features.
>
>
I'm not necessarily disputing this, but there are so many anecdotes and
opinions being expressed on this topic.  Could I ask if we have any source
or citation for this?  I mean the Department of Community Services doesn't
even exist any longer, and doesn't sound like it should have been producing
authoritative maps even when it did?  I don't even know what "as
authoritative as can be obtained", even means.  Is there legislation,
regulation, gazette?  And the government paying a royalty to "surveyors",
just sounds odd. Wouldn't a government normally engage surveyors in the
normal way, rather than paying royalties?


> I'm uncertain about the terms of use of the government data but,
> generally, when reproducing another person or organisation's resources
> (images, text etc) with permission, one is required not to distort that
> resource so as to not embarrass the donor.  Where a source such as the NSW
> Government has given permission to use its data in OSM, I feel we have an
> obligation to use it correctly. It would be wrong to show inaccurate
> boundaries and attribute them to the Government source.  As the person who
> initiated obtaining access to the NSW data a few years ago, I feel
> particularly embarrassed that we might mis-use it.
>
>
Clearly, if you change the location, you should update the source.  It's an
issue, but OSM does track that changes have been made and by who and why.
Our licence allows us to do this - and I'd argue it's the specific purpose
for the existence of OSM - that is you can change the data.  Nothing is
immutable.  All you need is a source, or ground-truth.

 The only reason I can see for snapping administrative boundaries to nearby
natural features is for convenience - but I see it as convenience at the
expense of accuracy.

>
>
I don't agree.  I think in many cases, for all practical purposes, the
boundary is the feature.  And the law has traditionally allowed for
accretions and erosion.  But if there is some legislative instrument that
defines the boundary by a particular accurate geospatial set that we have
access to, regardless of the feature, then I could be convinced to change
my mind.  And to my mind, if you committed an offence on national park land
above the high water mark, and tried to argue you were outside the park,
because of some geospatial alignment, I reckon you're cooked unless you
could find a legislative instrument to support that being the hard and fast
line.

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

Re: [talk-au] What are the best practices for mass updating cycle paths?

[Ian Sergeant]

I agree with Ben, and I'd be very surprised if the OSM map of the city
cycleways wasn't far more accurate than that produced by CoS.  Usually new
facilities are updated within days.

Ian.

On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 10:52, Ben Kelley  wrote:

> Practically, using this data would be difficult I think.
>
> Partly because there is a lot of stuff already mapped. The other problem
> is that I have found Councils' web sites are a bit optimistic about how
> much of their planned cycling infrastructure actually exists. It's hard
> to know what is "on the ground" from their data sets.
>
>   - Ben.
>
>
> On 7/2/2023 10:40 am, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> > Hi
> > Looking further City of Sydney Data Hub is licenced CC By 4.0 but OSM
> > has been waiting on the waiver since 2020 "CC BY 4.0 - waiver sent
> > 01/12/2020, "considering your request" on 03/12/2020"
> >
> > The licence for the cycle network data links to 2 logos, a CC by 4.0
> > logo and a "Open Data" logo which I can only find 2 other occurrences
> > of in the net and no definitions.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >> Hi
> >> First check that its listed at
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources
> >> If not ykou probably need to get them to sign a release
> >> Tony
> >>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I have been looking into cycle paths data in OSM and found that Sydney
> >>> doesn't seem to have this dataset:
> >>>
> https://data.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/datasets/cityofsydney::cycle-network/explore
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This data is focused on the city centre. Are there any
> >>> recommendations on
> >>> how I should get about this, or if there are any best practices or
> >>> guidance
> >>> when uploading datasets from official sources?
> >>>
> >>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycle tags on motorways

[Ian Sergeant]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 18:33, stevea  wrote:

> In the case of cycleway=lane, that IS paint, and I (and many others) map
> these all the time.  I see nothing wrong with “mapping paint” like this.
>
>
As long as it's not a separate way.  Paint can form a lane, but there
should be no indication that there is actual separation.  And doubly so on
motorways.  Cycling on one in most parts of the world would see you
arrested and starring on Highway Patrol with the stupid guy music in the
background.  In Australia it passes for cycling infrastructure.

This allows people to plan routes avoiding 100km/h+ roads, for example.

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

Re: [talk-au] Aboriginal languages

[Ian Sergeant]

Suburbs boundaries are set by an authority.  They are verifiable - even if
not by ground truth.  They are accurately measurable and surveyable.  This
is the nature of the land system that we have worked within for centuries,
and which OSM reflects.  So they fit right in.

It's possible that Aboriginal lands are not so precisely defined.  There
may not be definite authority.

Rather than being "criminal" to not include them.  It just might mean it's
not the best database structure to model this data.  It even might be
presumptuous of us to assume that this model of mapping is even appropriate
to map this data.

Of course, if there is a usable, measurable form of this data, then sure,
lets do it.  I'm simply saying that there are many items that don't
naturally fall within OSM data for a number of reasons.

Ian.


On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 10:42, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 08:21, Ian Sergeant  wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> I don't see that mapping Nations is an option, I see it as almost
>>> criminal that we don't already.
>>>
>>
>> Surely the essential question to be asked here, is whether these
>> boundaries fit into the OSM model, which is largely inspired by the
>> ordinance survey, where every boundary can be placed as a surveyable marker.
>>
>> So, while they deserve attention and focus, if they can't be verified and
>> measured, then perhaps OSM isn't the right tool.
>>
>
> Suburb boundaries usually don't have anything physical on the ground to
> survey, but we still include them where they actually exist and are a
> concept that is recognised by people.
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Aboriginal languages

[Ian Sergeant]

>
>
>
> I don't see that mapping Nations is an option, I see it as almost criminal
> that we don't already.
>

Surely the essential question to be asked here, is whether these boundaries
fit into the OSM model, which is largely inspired by the ordinance survey,
where every boundary can be placed as a surveyable marker.

So, while they deserve attention and focus, if they can't be verified and
measured, then perhaps OSM isn't the right tool.

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

Re: [talk-au] Shoulder and cycle usage

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi,

Shoulders should always be tagged appropriately.

Shoulders legally in Australia can be used by all bicycles - whether or not
they have a bicycle stencil (painted bicycle sign)  And a bicycle lane is
legally indicated by a sign and not a stencil.  Legally the stencil has no
meaning at all.

My personal advice currently in Australia is to caution against indicating
there is bicycle infrastructure where there is no amenity.   Since, this is
a far greater problem in OSM than missing cycle routes and infrastructure,
and takes far longer to correct and survey.  Google Maps has actually come
from behind to lead OSM in this aspect now in Sydney in most areas.

That said, most motorways that have a wide shoulder, a cycle stencil, and
permit cycling have a bicycle lane indicated.  I think this is probably
appropriate.

Ian.

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 14:19, Sebastian S.  wrote:

> Hi, what is the view of tagging road shoulders and particularly when they
> have painted bicycle signs?
>
> Motorways would be another candidate.
>
> A wiki entry for shoulder exists but is very basic
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shoulder
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] parking and bike lane

[Ian Sergeant]

Generally yes.

There are a few different treatments.  The two main ones are where the
straight through cycle traffic remains to the left of a separated barrier.

Best example I can think of is at Ian Parade near concord.

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/PR6ShOVEl-hNO91xjsDwLQ

And there is also the fully separated off-ramp on-ramp style treatment.
There are also a few of those around Concord.  And also going through the
large roundabouts at North Nowra.  And other places.

As for cycle-lanes actually going through roundabouts.  Well, the classic
example would be on Darling Drive.  There used to be two where the
cycle-lanes went straight through, and there is one remaining.  It's a
terrible piece of infrastructure though.  There are some others around the
place.  If they don't cross exists they can be okay - but the ones crossing
exits are dangerous.

https://goo.gl/maps/r3LG7XajfvbEBRBQA

As much as we'd all like to have OSM to be our representation of how
cycle-friendly a road is, OSM in Sydney is already suffering a fair bit
from people entering their own interpretation of what is cycle
infrastructure.  So, I really think the best thing is to map it as it is.
But appreciate the motivation to try and let others know about the
continuity of a cycle route.

Thanks,
Ian.

On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 19:42, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 31/12/19 16:42, Ian Sergeant wrote:
>
> IMO clearly no.
>
> A router may even prefer to route around roundabouts and prefer a route
> where cycling amenity is actually continuous.  Map it how it is, and the
> router can decide based on the preferences (weightings) of the rider.
>
> Ian.
>
>
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2019, 8:05 am Sebastian S.,  wrote:
>
>> I agree that if there is nothing marked, however my question was rather
>> from a continuity point of view.
>> The roads into and out of the round about have cycle lanes. The cyclist
>> needs to merge with the road traffic to pass through.
>> Should the roundabout have cycle=designated or yes to ensure routing goes
>> through it?
>>
>>
>> On 30 December 2019 6:56:31 am AEDT, Andrew Harvey <
>> andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> If there's nothing marked on the road in the roundabout, then you can
>>> just omit the cycle lane tag from the roundabout.
>>>
>>> On Sun., 29 Dec. 2019, 2:21 pm Graeme Fitzpatrick, <
>>> graemefi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Graeme
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 at 16:52, David Wales 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I prefer to use separate ways for separate foot paths.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As do I.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 28 December 2019 3:02:30 pm AEDT, Sebastian Spiess <
>>>>> mapp...@consebt.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do welcome comments. In particular regarding how to go about the
>>>>>> cycle way and the roundabout.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Looks OK to me, but I've also wondered how bike lanes are supposed to
>>>> work through roundabouts, when there's nothing marked on the road?
>>>>
>>>
> For safety I think you will find all bicycle lanes end before any
> roundabout and restart after the roundabout.. helps stop cars exiting over
> cyclists, well it is supposed to...
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Jervis Bay Territory admin boundary

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi,

I know that there is a lot of water under the bridge - but I think I did
much of this boundary after the great copyright expurgation..

The source I used for much of it was the actual defining legislation.  You
may want to consult that in your work.  The LPI base map may well be
better, and that wasn't available at that time.

"All that piece and parcel of land and water situate at Jervis Bay in the
Parish of Bherwerre, County of St. Vincent, State of New South Wales,
Commonwealth of Australia, area about 18,000 acres, commencing at a point
on the high water mark on the left bank of Sussex Inlet at its intersection
with the western boundary of portion 12 of 40 acres and bounded thence
westerly and north-westerly by that high water mark to the high water mark
of St. George's Basin, thence in a general easterly and north-easterly
direction by that high water mark to its intersection with the production
westerly of the southern boundary of portion 18; thence easterly by a
straight line formed by the western production of the southern boundary of
portion 18, the boundary itself, and its production easterly to the high
water mark of Jervis Bay; thence by a line across the southern part of
Jervis Bay bearing north-easterly to a point in the high water mark of
Jervis Bay at the northernmost extremity of Bowen Island; thence by the
high water mark of Jervis Bay and of the South Pacific Ocean along the
eastern boundary of Bowen Island to the southernmost point thereof; thence
by a line bearing south-westerly across the passage between Bowen Island
and Governor Head to the high water mark of the South Pacific Ocean on the
foreshore of the mainland, at the northernmost point of Governor Head; and
thence by that high water mark in a general southerly and south-westerly
direction to St. George's Head; thence in a general northerly, westerly and
south-westerly direction by the high water mark of Wreck Bay to the high
water mark on the left bank of Sussex Inlet before mentioned; and thence in
a general northerly direction by that high water mark to the commencing
point."

Ian.

On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 at 10:59, cleary  wrote:

> The Jervis Bay Territory/NSW boundary is shown such that Jervis Bay
> Territory overlaps into parts of Shoalhaven Council area and NSW suburbs.
> Obviously not correct. There seems to be no source provided for the
> location of the boundary, although much of it appears to be attached to the
> coastline (also source not apparent).
>
> There have been a lot of edits to this area and maybe someone more
> familiar with the location wants to repair the map in this area. If not, I
> propose to try to fix it, primarily using the NSW_LPI_BaseMap as the source
> for the boundary.
>
> If no one else wants to do it, I'll work in on it in a few days.
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Adding polygons of the aerodromes

[Ian Sergeant]

I'd say there is zero chance that any fixed wing aircraft have used that
strip in the past year.

It's closed to fixed wing craft, and it's absolutely not safe for use.  If
it is approved redevelopment (it's NPWS land, not council) it will likely
be redeveloped with only a single paved runway.

My opinion with airstrips is that we should err on the side of caution.
We've had OSM polluted over the years with imports from ourairports, etc -
that have seen even navigation beacons marked as airstrips.  And *lots* of
strips where there is no possibility of a landing.

And bear in mind that although OSM is not suitable for flight planning,
just about every GA pilot has the OSM maps with them in the cockpit - so in
an emergency it would be nice to thing that someone adding an airstrip at
least was pointing at a bit of dirt that would give you a chance of
survival, and not just colouring in.

And for non-security controlled strips - what a polygon would mean is
unclear.  The ownership boundary of the airport owner?  The fence (if there
is one).  Limits of access - if that is meaningful?

Ian.

On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 at 19:39, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 27/12/19 16:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 at 15:39, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Node: Katoomba Airfield (1042094263) is a little difficult.
>>
>
> I notice that the airfield is marked as "disused", but in the article, the
> new owner says they've had chopper flights come in over the last year?
>
> Should it be re-marked as an active helipad, at least?
>
>
> Think the fire fighting would have seen both helicopters and fixed wing
> aircraft (e.g. crop dusters fitted with water) using it in the last month
> or two.
> The council wants the strip to continue.
>
> I'd leave it as it is and see what happens in the longer term.
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Ian Sergeant]

What does "official" mean?  It's official, in that the signs are placed by
the local council.  However they are not enforceable, because no law
(regulation, etc) gives them a legal meaning.

There is no definitive list of street signs that are advisory vs
enforceable.  But the RMS has a partial list on their website, and the
definitive is the Australian Road Rules (as in various state legislation).

Councils use them to discourage local streets for through use.  They advise
drivers that they aren't a main road - and they may have traffic calming,
etc on them and be otherwise unsuited in design for through use.  They
aren't used at all in many (most?) council areas.

In some cases, they may also have a reduced speed-limit on the same sign.
That would be enforceable.

It's pretty low value information to capture in OSM.  But the signs exist,
so we can capture them - but a access restriction would be inappropriate.
I've said before I agree with Andrew's proposed tagging for discouraged
access.

Ian.

On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 06:38, Sebastian S.  wrote:

> So the sign is put up by the council. Is it not an official sign?
>
> Could someone elaborate on the legal side mentioned here. E.g. is there
> catalogue of street signs in the road rules and this one is not among them?
>
> Are people confusing lax enforcement of the sign with it having no legal
> meaning?
>
> On 9 November 2019 11:37:49 am AEDT, Andrew Harvey <
> andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 02:24, Mateusz Konieczny 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Why it would be irrelevant?
>>>
>>
>>> access tag family is for legal access (with some space for officially
>>> discouraged access),
>>> access=destination is for "transit is illegal", not "local residents
>>> dislike transit traffic".
>>>
>>> OSM is not a place to add a nonexisting ban on transit traffic
>>>
>>
>> Yeah realised this later, see my other post in this thread at
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-November/013188.html,
>> which I suggested motor_vehicle:advisory=destination to tag a suggested or
>> advised but maybe not legally enforceable destination only restriction.
>>
>> On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 01:55, Mateusz Konieczny 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Is it "local traffic only" as in "resident only" or "no transit"?
>>>
>>> Is permission required to enter this area?
>>>
>>> AFAIK there is no tagging scheme for distinguishing "only with
>>> permission of
>>> homeowner" and "available to all residents of closed community".
>>>
>>
>> It just means this road is indented to be used if you're traveling to
>> somewhere along this road, but not if you're just driving through as a
>> shortcut.
>>
>> It's still public land, not private property.
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Ian Sergeant]

I agree the meaning of "discouraged" is what we need here.  But motor
vehicles are only discouraged if they aren't local traffic.  Otherwise they
are perfectly fine.

So, I think the motor_vehicle:advisory=destination covers these two
concepts, and is a better representation.

Ian.

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 18:58, Benjamin Ceravolo 
wrote:

> I feel, as though discourage or discouraged is already an advisory term
> (you can't advise a recommendation if advise is a synonym of recommend).
>
> So I would think "motor_vehicle=discouraged" would be most appropriate.
>
> Just my thoughts.
>
> Ben
>
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 18:12, Luke Stewart 
> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps "motor_vehicle=discouraged"?
>>
>> From the wiki:
>> A legal right of way exists (see yes
>> ) but usage is
>> officially discouraged (e.g., HGVs on narrow but passable lanes). Only if
>> marked by a traffic sign (subjective otherwise).
>>
>> Although that may be getting too far away from the meaning of the sign,
>> but the original intention is to discourage through and non-local traffic
>>
>> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 15:31, Andrew Harvey 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access does say "Access
>>> values describe legal permissions/restrictions. What happens on the ground
>>> may be different: for instance, many footpaths are used as de facto bike
>>> paths, without a legal right to do so. (Various 'greyzone' tags have been
>>> proposed to deal with such situations, but this is controversial and is not
>>> described here.)"
>>>
>>> Similar to existing "maxspeed:advisory"
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:advisory perhaps if
>>> these aren't legal restrictions but still signposted on the ground we could
>>> use "motor_vehicle:advisory=destination". Does that work better?
>>>
>>> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 13:04, Luke Stewart 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 As far as I have read, these signs are not enforceable by councils, nor
 do they appear in the NSW (or Australian) Road Rules. So unless the road
 itself is on private property and this sign is present, the access would
 still be public and it has the same meaning as discouraging the use of the
 street in favour of main roads.
 ___
 Talk-au mailing list
 Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Ian Sergeant]

I disagree with this one

1. I'm pretty sure they are not intended to have any effect to cyclists and
pedestrians.  Who are generally encouraged to use these kinds of streets.
I wouldn't like to think we're putting access restrictions that are going
to cause walking/cycling routing issues.

2. I'm also not sure these signs have any legal effect at all.  They aren't
privately owned.  The signs are just street decorations.  I'd be inclined
to

Ian.


On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 22:36, Nemanja Bračko  wrote:

> I would agree with David on this.
> In that way you will avoid routing thru these streets unless your
> destination is there.
>
> Sent from my phone
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, 12:33 David Wales  wrote:
>
>> I would use access=destination
>>
>> On 7 November 2019 10:21:26 pm AEDT, Sebastian Spiess 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello List,
>>>
>>> how do you map a 'local traffic only' sign as this one?
>>> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/FkY8gmlGX2NmhUARyveMQw
>>>
>>> Following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access states "...Note
>>> that "access only for residents" is private..."
>>>
>>> Would this not break navigation in apps etc?
>>> --
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>
>>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Discussion C: mapping on the street

[Ian Sergeant]

I use Vespucci on Android.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.blau.android=en_AU

In addition to being a fully capable editor, you can add notes, and see
others notes at your location.

Ian.

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 09:06, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Discussion C: mapping on the street
> OSM is great. I showed it to an organisation as large A0 maps of Canberra.
> The largest size that I could print. The maps still covered the whole board
> table when I left. I demonstrated an android app to the CEO. They had never
> heard of OSM of course. "Its a bit like Google maps." I cannot tell you how
> often I have heard that. I hope it will get the conversation going. Thank
> you for everybody's efforts. :-)
> But to the point…
>
> mapping on the street
> It is new and exciting, with people in the cafes but OSM says the street
> building site. We have all experienced this.
> JOSM and ID editors are excellent, but you cannot take them with you. The
> ACTmapi Images 2019 are great, but they are almost a year out of date. GPX
> tracks help but the editing is post-processing. It would be ideal to
> correct the maps in real-time on the street. Canberra is changing so fast,
> it is hard to keep up with.
> It would be best to map on the street. When something needs correcting
> mark it with a comment (or photo) for correction immediately (FIXME). The
> app would run on the smartphone continuously showing the most current maps,
> can this be done?
> I welcome your comments.
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Discussion of state regulation and planing issues for OSM

[Ian Sergeant]

With regard to 4 & 5, I'd observe that even in it's anarchic form, OSM has
been very successful in reflect these changes very quickly. Buildings and
roads change during construction.  Alignments of paths change and get
corrected.  So, I wouldn't necessarily conclude that there is something
here that needs to be fixed.  And people advocating for their interests is
a strength.

The issue of physical existence of a path vs. permission to use such a path
is a still a fairly live one worldwide - and certainly not an issue just
for AU.   And regeneration is just one example of this.  Cultural,
military, privacy provide similar issues when decided where and how to map.

That said, in my experience OSM mostly seems to reflect the ground truth
more commonly than the government issued documentation in Australia.  I'm
always reluctant to see a good survey overridden by a government issued
plan.  And we run up against this all the time with cycling
infrastructure being added from a council plan where none may ever get
constructed or exist on the ground.  And lots of plans can be made and
change before a sod is turned.

Ian.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 09:43, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Country: Australia, Language: English, Topic: Regulation
>
> This AU email forum is the best there is, but I wish there was something
> more. So, I will bring this topic up here where there may be community
> support for something extra. From the header above this user group is
> already specific but is it specific enough? This group discusses mostly
> detail, but the details revolve around a concept and that is what I am
> interested in here. The recent Wollongong discussion bought this to light.
> The fundamental assumption is that OSM represents the real world.
>
> What is covered?
>
>1. Database design: The OpenStreetMap is a database and use is
>restricted by its design, key types and permitted values. There is however
>much scope in actual use that depends on interpretation.
>2. OSM standards: Some of this ambiguity is resolved in the best
>practice outlined in the OSM Wiki and worth knowing, as it is an attempt at
>standardisation and actively enforced by some members of the community.
>3. Regional standards: The AU email forum serves as a regional
>discussion forum to get some sort of consensus of how Australia issues are
>to be dealt with in Australia, i.e. adapting OSM to Australian
>requirements.
>4. State laws and regulations: Australia is a federation and each
>state has its own laws and regulations. Local government is another level.
>This autonomy shows up in OSM particularly in terms of permissions: who can
>do what. In this context, we need to consider private/public property,
>military and secure zones, and finally nature reserves and national parks
>with restricted access but special rules.
>5. Planning codes and zoning: This last one has got to do with how
>land is used over time which arises in OSM as life cycles and featured also
>in the Wollongong discussion as “regeneration”. It commonly arises with the
>rezoning of land, release of land for public use, leases on land for
>grazing and private use (parking). I have an interest in greenfield public
>land developments: rezoned or planned. Once it has funding (parliament) the
>project passes the hurdle that something changes in OSM, even though at
>this stage it may not be anything visible. There is community interest to
>see this on a map. There are many examples of this that include nature
>reserves and new suburbs. End of life issues are track regeneration but
>also track realignment which is common for mountain biking single track
>management. It is not uncommon to hide but keep old track realignments.
>
> This AU email forum does not seem the pace for the last two items, but the
> Wollongong discussion shows that awareness of these things is important for
> the OSM maps to make any sense. Particularly if the maps are for navigation
> (autorouting) or when render specialist maps (mountain biking or walking),
> then such information is critical. There may be a discussion for a track or
> area how to best define the permissions on paths and tracks.
>
> There is a lot of information on the web about this sort of thing on
> government and official websites. I have further written to state
> government departments requesting clarification and improvements. Local
> tensions are not uncommon with competing claims. This tension can be seen
> in the OSM community with certain keys toggling between individual
> preferences. Mappers are people and advocate their interests on OSM and
> sometimes join OSM specifically for this purpose.
>
> Are there any suggestions where matter 4 and 5 could be discussed and
> links provided so that the OSM community can communicate, negotiate and
> formulate a direction for these things?
>
> 

Re: [talk-au] Residential Poolside Building

[Ian Sergeant]

In my view - the reason apple is mapping private tennis courts, is not
because it actually sees a benefit in mapping peoples backyard, it's
because it's using a level of automation that recognises them.  For OSM
it's nothing more than a colouring-in exercise.

I agree with Andrew that marking a building next to a private swimming pool
as anything other than "building=yes", almost always calls for pure
speculation.  Whether it's a pool shed, cabana or outside dunny.

Ian.

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 08:25, David Wales  wrote:

> I think in this day and age, we can't really consider anything private
> if it's visible from space...
>
> Apple appears to be mapping backyard tennis courts now.
> https://www.justinobeirne.com/new-apple-maps
>
> Just make sure that you tag them as access=private !
>
> On 12/8/19 7:58 pm, Warin wrote:
> > On 12/08/19 19:46, Benjamin Ceravolo wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I've been tracing in residential swimming pools and I have not as yet
> >> found an appropriate tagging for the small poolside buildings that
> >> (from my experience); may have an area to get changed and to store
> >> pool-toys, chemicals and other pool care items.
> >>
> >> My current guess is just to mark it as: building=yes
> >>
> >> If there are any other tags I have missed or if I'm just being blind
> >> and missing something obvious, I would like to hear your
> >> option/response.
> >
> > Caution: there are some who object to 'private' things being mapped.
> >
> > These buildings my have toilets and showers too, tags exist for these.
> > I would like a tag for changing rooms, some sports venues have them,
> > some beach side buildings have them. Amenity=changing_rooms?
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Proposed deletion of part of the Gwydir River

[Ian Sergeant]

I'm with Andrew on this one.  It sounds like your research is likely
superior to any other recent survey done in the area, and we're not
wikipedia here - we value ground truth / original research and it would be
a shame it it couldn't be mirrored in the map.

Personally, I'd change it to

waterway=no
note="blah"

because otherwise an armchair mapper will put it back (and I would too,
guilty as charged).  It's ugly and non-standard, but I'd do it anyway.

Ian.

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 22:52, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> I think you've done a top job detailing the situation, so I'd go with your
> findings from on the ground.
>
> We're not here to simply mirror the NSW LPI Base Map, so I wouldn't worry
> too much about what it says.
>
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 18:25, cleary  wrote:
>
>> In the past, I added some parts of the Gwydir River to the map using the
>> NSW LPI Base Map because I could not see a clear waterway on satellite
>> imagery. Since then, I have visited the area twice and cannot actually find
>> a river where it is shown on the map. Much of the "river" is in private
>> property but public roads cross waterways at various locations.
>>
>> The western end of the Gwydir River seems not to exist except on the NSW
>> LPI Base Map and maps which have used it as a source (including OSM).
>>
>> As far as I can ascertain, the river used to dissipate into wetlands and,
>> if there was enough water, the seepage from the wetlands re-formed into
>> waterways. However intensive irrigation has resulted in such low water flow
>> that the wetlands are largely dust and water seems never to flow beyond
>> them (except perhaps in major flood events which are relatively rare).
>> Water from the eastern Gwydir may flow west to the Barwon River via Carole
>> Creek into Gil Gil Creek, via the Gingham Watercourse and via the Mehi
>> River.  But the so-called Gwydir River, west of the wetlands, does not
>> appear to exist except on the LPI Map. And part that of the waterway that
>> does exist is signposted by the Moree Plains Shire Council with a different
>> name (Big Leather Watercourse) at the two places where it crosses public
>> roads.  GNB uses this name for another branch of the river nearer to Moree
>> but locals, including the local council, seem to have a different view.
>>
>> When visiting the area, I found water to be difficult to discuss with
>> locals as there are some strong points of view. Maintaining a river on the
>> map may be a political imperative for government but is not consistent with
>> OSM's philosophy of mapping what is actually on the ground at particular
>> locations.
>>
>> After reflection, I think the Gwydir River does not really exist west of
>> the wetlands and I think it should be deleted from OSM, even though it is
>> shown on the LPI Base Map. I propose to delete this section of the river
>> and follow the local council signposted name for the more westerly waterway
>> that does actually exist at Morialta and Watercourse Roads.
>>
>> I would appreciate any views on this issue.
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Caltex on name-suggestion-index

[Ian Sergeant]

Strictly speaking, I don't think that's true.  Some Caltex operated sites
still branded as Woolworths Caltex, and offered the Woolworths facilities.
You couldn't tell just by looking who owned what.

Of course, now Woolworths has sold all its fuel outlets, and doesn't
operate as a fuel retailer any longer.

I'd go by the name on the sign - as these are likely to change over the
past few months as the Caltex owned stores all revert to form.

Ian.

On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 14:51, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir 
wrote:

> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:55 PM Charles Gregory 
> wrote:
>
>> Are "Caltex" and "Caltex Woolworths" identical in some parts of Australia?
>>
>> "What is the difference between [the 535] Woolworths Caltex and [the 680]
> Caltex locations?
> Woolworths Caltex is a Woolworths owned fuel location, that sells Caltex
> fuel. The shop at a Woolworths Caltex is a Woolworths store.
> The shop at a Caltex location can be a Star Mart, Star Shop or The
> Foodary."
> https://www.caltex.com.au/woolworths
>
> The map on their website makes a distinction between the two when you
> click on it https://www.caltex.com.au/find-a-caltex
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Aboriginal art sites

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi Sebastian,

Thanks for your thoughts.  I'm sure we're all well intentioned.

If I understand your proposal, what you're saying is we build a wiki page that 
lists the relevant authority and what should not be mapped in that area.  Then 
a local mapper would check against that when mapping significant local features?

So that raises two issues I see.

Firstly, since it's defined in the negative it relies on someone seeking out 
the local authority and recording their wishes.  Rather than imposing a 
positive obligation to seek permission.  In that way it seems a little 
different to what others seem to be proposing.

Secondly, we may end up with a wiki page with the areas and significant 
features all laid out.  Which may be counter to what we're trying to achieve 
here.

Ian.

From: Sebastian S.
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Aboriginal art sites
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org, Graeme Fitzpatrick, Ian Sergeant
Cc: OSM-Au


I second that the elders wishes should be respected.

With regards to documenting.
One way would be to mark the local indigenous area/tribe/... And then outline 
in the wiki what should not be mapped in order to respect the wishes. I recall 
a recent blog post or Diary entry regarding indigenous communities mapping.

In a sense this falls in the same category as 'I don't want my backyard shed or 
pool mapped from satellite images'. Although the cultural aspects are not the 
same :-)

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

On 3 April 2019 8:17:25 am AEDT, Graeme Fitzpatrick  
wrote:


On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 20:27, Ian Sergeant 
mailto:inas66%2b...@gmail.com>> wrote:
How do we actually contact "local elders"?

Would have to be done "on the ground" in that local area

  Where do we record their consent?

Possibly in Notes? Maybe the Oz Data Catalogue page 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue or similar?

  What if they change their minds?

Then I think we would need to delete the entries, similar to the way that you 
can request your premises not be shown on Google Maps. I have seen a comment on 
the Tagging list that some town in the US requested that all it's minor streets 
be deleted from all online maps to prevent rat-runners from driving down them!


Are we saying other mappers should delete these sites if they see them on the 
map?  How do they know if approval was obtained?

I would hope that people have done things "properly". As mentioned though, if 
the site is advertised / signposted, then it's fine to map. But if you're 
walking in the Kimberley & find a cave full of paintings, then you should ask 
for approval before mapping them. This was discussed a while back about mapping 
a track up in that area, but I can't find the reference in the archives

is this form of censorship practised anywhere else in OSM - maybe for other 
indigenous people - that we could copy their model?

I don't know? I'll post the question on the Tagging list.

P.S. It's Strait - not "Straight".

Thanks! Corrected :-)

Thanks

Graeme


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

Re: [talk-au] Existing OSM precedent | Re: Aboriginal art sites

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi,

I'm not really concerned with the term.  Or even wanting to discuss the
philosophical arguments behind it.  Happy to use a different word if that
keeps the discussion focussed.  Although, personally I don't think we
should be frightened of it.  What we're doing here is self-censorship to
protect vulnerable groups and sites - and we're comfortable with that.

As to the practical nature of this discussion, we don't seem to have many
answers.  This just seems to be call to mappers to take care and consider
the impact of what they are mapping to the site.  And if that's it, I'm
fine with that.

The assumption that there is a group with one voice that we can use as
guiding and authoritative I don't think extends to many of these sites.
The notion of advertising and signposting is interesting, especially with
those sites that are well documented in guidebooks, blogs, etc, but locally
unsigned.  If I see a site that has been mapped, I can't actually figure
out how I could tell if I should remove it or not.  And as nothing in OSM
is every really deleted, should we have a policy to redact it?

But again, as many of these sites are available to anyone willing to spend
half an hour in a public library, it may be sufficient to just have this as
a guideline to mappers, and just add a thin layer of obscurity that seems
sufficient to reduce the risk from the instagrammers, etc.  If that's the
aim.

Ian.



On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 19:39, Rory McCann  wrote:

> On 01/04/2019 12:27, Ian Sergeant wrote:
> > is this form of censorship practised anywhere else in OSM - maybe for
> > other indigenous people - that we could copy their model?
>
> I don't think "censorship" is a helpful term here.
>
> But there has been a practice in OSM to *not* map certain things, such
> as private/non-publicized domestic violence shelters, or the nesting
> sites of endangered birds. So the same logic applies here I think.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Aboriginal art sites

[Ian Sergeant]

How do we actually contact "local elders"?  Where do we record their
consent?  What if they change their minds?

Are we saying other mappers should delete these sites if they see them on
the map?  How do they know if approval was obtained?

Or is this just intended as a guideline, and not be enforced?

It seems all a bit impractical to me.  The information is out there.

is this form of censorship practised anywhere else in OSM - maybe for other
indigenous people - that we could copy their model?

Ian.
P.S. It's Strait - not "Straight".

On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 15:14, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 13:27, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, please.
>
>
> OK.
>
> Added this:
>
> Aboriginal & Torres Straight Islander sites
>
> Please practice extreme care when mapping sites (e.g rock art, ceremonial
> places) that may be of significance to Aboriginal or Torres Straight
> Islander peoples.
>
> Only map those sites that are sign-posted, or have been publicly
> advertised.
>
> In all other cases, please consult with the local Elders before mapping
> any site, & abide by their wishes if they say they don't want them mapped.
>
> Thoughts or comments?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Question on how to fix this intersection

[Ian Sergeant]

I agree there should be a better way, but I would solve this problem
by bring the road split to the east of the the intersection in this
case.  The road divides on the eastern side of the intersection
anyway.

Then there will be no option but to continue straight.

Ian.

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 09:55, Dion Moult  wrote:
>
> G'day all!
>
> In the intersection of Liverpool road and Burwood road in Burwood, Sydney 
> (see attached), if I am travelling in the direction shown by the red arrow, 
> then my GPS device should tell me to continue and drive straight at the 
> intersection. However, because at that junction, the map splits up Liverpool 
> Road into two roads, OSMAnd tells me to turn left there, which is quite 
> confusing.
>
> What is the appropriate way to fix this mapping? Or is it a problem with 
> OSMAnd?
>
>
> Dion Moult
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[talk-au] National Cycle Networks..

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi,

I've noticed over the past few years a National Cycle Network "creep"
in Australia.

Personally, I'm not sure that Australia has anything that would really
count as a national cycleway network.  This concept was developed in
the UK and Europe where they really do have developed national routes.

I am prepared to accept that perhaps the (now scrapped) coastal
cycleway may approach a national route - and I know that has been
mapped in places.  But if we choose to map those sections we have to
appreciate that the route has many gaps.

This was particularly concerning when I saw that Bulli Pass was mapped
as part of a National Cycleway Network.  This is a section of steep
road, with no shoulder, used by heavy vehicles.  There is no bicycle
facility, no signage, no nothing.

So, sure, bicycles are free to ride wherever they want. And I'm not
saying this can't be cycled safely.   But I think marking sections
like this is arbitrary at best, and at worst dangerous.

I'd like to hear any viewpoints that agree or differ?  Otherwise, I
might start cutting out these sections of these routes that I know
aren't signed and have no amenity.  Sure - we may have a disconnected
route, but that's the ground-truth as I see it.

I'd like to talk about the possibility of removing some of the high
speed road with no shoulder sections too (at least from the national
cycle routes).  If we look at how Google Maps does this, it's much
more reliable than the proliferation of dodgy routes that we currently
have in OSM.  The expectation of a national cycle route should be our
best facilities, not a windy 100km road with no shoulder.

Ian.

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

Re: [talk-au] Shared Zones

[Ian Sergeant]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 16:13, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

> Oh I thought the Australian Tagging Guidelines were a document an Australian 
> could read and learn about all the tags for local features in the local 
> context and terminology. eg. Here's how to tag a school zone.

There has been a fair bit of the document culled where it effectively
just restated what is globally the case.  I don't think it pays to be
too parochial.

The tagging discussion you pointed to had no local proponents - that's
why I was surprised you wanted to add a special case for Australia
based on that discussion alone.  The discussion was globally generic -
where this exists, do that.

Ian.


Ian.

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

Re: [talk-au] Shared Zones

[Ian Sergeant]

Which part do you disagree with?

Do you disagree with me that there has been no specific Australian
arguments made on the referenced discussion?Because I looked
through the thread, and I couldn't see any except for Andrew's post
(which didn't support the proposal, btw).  Did I miss something?

If you disagree with my personal view on shared zones, I'm happy to
hear your argument (which you haven't presented).  I don't have an
immutable view.

Ian.


On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 at 17:55, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Disagree .. Australian 'shared zone' does not appear on the OSM wiki ..
> there should be some reference to it being a 'living_street' in OSM terms.
> Perhaps it can go as well on the 'living_street' page as there is
> already a German equivalent statement there.
>
> On 17/07/18 17:38, Ian Sergeant wrote:
> > I don't see any reason to update the Australian tagging guidelines.
> > There are no Australia specific arguments being made, or even
> > Australian contributors to the discussion (apart from you).
> >
> > If that's the way that OSM moves, then let the general wiki get
> > updated accordingly.  Don't see any need to single out Australia.
> >
> > Personally, we see shared-zones used in Australia for lots of purposes
> > other than shared spaces.  For example, de-facto pedestrian crossings
> > out the front of stations.   I think we should leave people surveying
> > to tag them as they see them, and the maxspeed and access tags may
> > sometimes be more appropriate if it's a crossing space.
> >
> > Ian.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 at 09:29, Andrew Harvey  
> > wrote:
> >> There's a discussion on the tagging list[1] about how to map shared 
> >> zones[2] in Australia. The consensus is to use highway=living_street[3]. 
> >> Please voice any comments you have on the tagging discussion, otherwise 
> >> I'll update the wiki for highway=living_street and the Australian Tagging 
> >> Guidelines.
> >>
> >> [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-July/037820.html
> >> [2] 
> >> http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/downloads/shared_zone_fact_sheet.pdf
> >> [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=living_street
> >> ___
> >> Talk-au mailing list
> >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> > ___
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

Re: [talk-au] Shared Zones

[Ian Sergeant]

I don't see any reason to update the Australian tagging guidelines.
There are no Australia specific arguments being made, or even
Australian contributors to the discussion (apart from you).

If that's the way that OSM moves, then let the general wiki get
updated accordingly.  Don't see any need to single out Australia.

Personally, we see shared-zones used in Australia for lots of purposes
other than shared spaces.  For example, de-facto pedestrian crossings
out the front of stations.   I think we should leave people surveying
to tag them as they see them, and the maxspeed and access tags may
sometimes be more appropriate if it's a crossing space.

Ian.




On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 at 09:29, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
>
> There's a discussion on the tagging list[1] about how to map shared zones[2] 
> in Australia. The consensus is to use highway=living_street[3]. Please voice 
> any comments you have on the tagging discussion, otherwise I'll update the 
> wiki for highway=living_street and the Australian Tagging Guidelines.
>
> [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-July/037820.html
> [2] http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/downloads/shared_zone_fact_sheet.pdf
> [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=living_street
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

Re: [talk-au] Correcting inland water features

[Ian Sergeant]

 On 19/05/18 11:38, Ian Sergeant wrote:
> flow=ephemeral, maybe.  water-presence=ephemeral?

On 19 May 2018 at 11:44, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 'ephemeral=yes' matches the present use of 'intermittent=yes'. I like at
> least some consistency in the tagging.

I think you picked the wrong mapping project :-)

The issue here of course, is that the next tag will something=yes.
Ugliness.  Best to fix it now.

Ian.

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

Re: [talk-au] Correcting inland water features

[Ian Sergeant]

On 19 May 2018 at 11:34, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Some are using stream=ephemeral ... low usage.
> I'd rather go with ephemeral=yes as that then can be used on 'lakes' and
> other things.

flow=ephemeral, maybe.  water-presence=ephemeral?

Ian.

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

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

[Ian Sergeant]

We need the right form of words.  I completely agree we should not rely on
data.gov.au permission for any new datasets.

However, I'm not sure we want words that would give someone justification
to go down the redaction path for existing data sets.  We were given
permission by one arm of the government, about data owned by another arm,
and we relied on that in good faith.   We stopped when we had information
suggesting anything to the contrary.

Ian.

On 12 March 2018 at 17:41, Jonathon Rossi  wrote:

> Thanks Andrew, and thanks again for flagging my use a few months back.
>
> Can we once and for all publicly note the "data.gov.au permission can of
> worms", even if that is simply adding to the existing Contributions page
> text noting exactly what everyone "in the know" knows about the problem,
> OSM contributors shouldn't have to search the mailing list for this info.
>
> I've made the following addition to the wiki page:
> > The explicit permission granted by the data.gov.au team (operated by
> the Digital Transformation Agency) is no longer viewed as valid as there is
> no evidence they had permission to grant us these rights. Permission to use
> the following datasets at any time must be obtained directly from the
> copyright owner (2018-03-12).
>
> If this isn't appropriate, then I'm all ears.
>
> Thanks again guys even though this isn't the outcome we wanted.
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:30 PM Andrew Davidson 
> wrote:
>
>> Yeap, this has already been covered before:
>>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2017-March/011291.html
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jonathon Rossi 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  The CC-BY 2.5 attribution was granted by the data.gov.au team not DNRM
>>> (or a former named department), so how relevant/legal do we think this is
>>> now that we know DNRM's position on the matter who are the actual copyright
>>> owner.
>>>
>>>
>>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] I want to add a national park

[Ian Sergeant]

Do we have permission for that data?  On the face of it the licence is
incompatible with OSM.

Ian.

On 16 October 2017 at 16:12, Paul Morton  wrote:

> OSM is missing the Leeuwin-Naturaliste National Park land use. I have
> extracted a shapefile for the park from https://catalogue.data.wa
> .gov.au/dataset/dpaw-managed-lands-and-waters/resource/
> 274b5ca5-8efd-3f43-92d8-50db803d5c48?inner_span=True and want to import
> it to OSM.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines request I ask you
> for community buy in before importing.
>
> Do you want me to import the data for the park?
>
> What is the best way to import a shapefile to OSM? Shall I use JOSM or is
> there a better way?
>
> Thanks,
> Paul Morton
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging for the router

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi,

I'd suggest the easiest solution is just to change the wiki.

Ian.

On 1 September 2016 at 09:37, Nick Hocking  wrote:

> "My suggestion is that the map data is the best place to store that
> information."
>
> Actually - the wiki page is very specific on this.
>
> "When a particular turn restriction is *the default* for a given
> jurisdiction *and* is *not signed* *don't map them*. It is much better to
> ensure that routing engines embody the regional rule rather than mapping
> every occurrence as a turn restriction."
>
>
> Ok so how do we "ensure that routing engines embody the regional rule:?
>
> E-mailing their support address and asking them to study the road rules
> for every jurisdiction in the world is not going to cut it. So maybe the
> only way is to name and shame them in a public forum somewhere, but where?
>
>
> I don't think that there is a routing engine out there that won't suggest
> crazy +90 degree turns on a high speed road.
>
>
>
> Probably, the only solution is to advise users to always check the "don't
> allow u-turns" box on their navigators.
>
> Also - how do we map a signed "U turn permitted" at traffic lights where
> the default is "not permitted"?
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Refreshing NSW place names from the GNB database.

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi,

What are you actually trying to achieve here?

As I understand, the purpose of the original GNB update was slot in
GNB names where OSM didn't already have coverage.

If there is already a town/village/suburb/locality in OSM, and it is
already well located, then there is no issue that I can see.

What type of changes in the GNB have happened that you want to reflect in OSM?

I'm really not sure how putting a locality node bang on top of a town
node is going to be anything put confusing.  I don't think it
communicates any information at all.

Ian.



On 7 April 2016 at 11:30, Andrew Davidson  wrote:
> There was an import of NSW places from the GNB database done back in 2008
> with a helpful wiki page ;-)
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NSW_Geographic_Names_Import
>
> I'm proposing to review these to see what's changed in the last 8 years but
> I've run into a number of problems:
>
> 1. It would seem that the original import was not complete
> 2. The nswgnb tags have not survived well
> 3. The GNB has "helpfully" created entries for the address localities but
> these seem to have taken on the reference numbers for the original
> town/village/city. They've created new entries for the original entity but
> this means that the town/village/city now has a different reference number.
> 4. Sometimes the locality entry has the same location but at other times it
> can be separated by up to 5km.
>
> Initially I thought that the multiple GNB references could be entered with
> multiple values like this:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3118349777
>
> but this doesn't naturally tell you how the place:nswgnb and ref:nswgnb line
> up and it doesn't lend itself to adding the alt_names that are in the
> database. As an alternative I'd like to use this scheme*:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/113135446
>
> which requires swapping the namespace prefix around to make nswgnb the
> namespace. I think this makes it clearer how the GNB categories line up and
> can be extended for more names (There is at least one place in NSW with
> three different variant names).
>
> I'm also proposing to put the LOCALITY or SUBURB entry at the same place as
> the corresponding TOWN/VILLAGE/CITY etc entry (provided that it still falls
> inside the admin_level 10 boundary).
>
> Any views on these ideas? I think the most important thing is will this be
> useful for the next person who looks at this in 5 to 10 years from now?
>
>
> *Unusually the admin_level 10 boundary for this area is called Lake Tabourie
> and has a separate GNB entry:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4103653600
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Slack

[Ian Sergeant]

On 30 Mar 2016 10:24 pm, "Dave F"  wrote:

> If there were a record, many IRC discussions wouldn't occur. It's often
used by the weak/arrogant who are too scared/self-important to have their
opinions verified & countered.

This is a bit harsh.

In my experience it's used by people wanting a bit of quick help checking a
part of the map or tagging suggestions, or helping counter some vandalism,
or general commentary while mapping.  The channel tends to be largely
quiet, and the people who hang out there seem happy to help.  I've never
seen it as a hotbed of uncountered policymaking.

Ian.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [talk-au] Removing tags from way 169174227 "Blue Mountains National Park"

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi,

To me it seems like you've addressed the issues comprehensively.

I see no reason at all to keep the redundant way.  It's just messy.

If people want to see the history, or get a copy of the way, then
that's easy enough to do - even after it's deleted.

Ian.

On 27 January 2016 at 11:16, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The way 169174227 is tagged;
>
> name=Blue Mountains National Park
>
> boundary=national_park
>
> This covers a very large area ... that is;
>
> part of the Blue Mountains National Park (not the northern section)
>
> all of;
> Yerrandrie State Conservation Area
>
> Yerrandrie Regional Park
>
> Nattai State Conservation Area
> Nattai National Park
>
> Burragorang State Conservation Area
>
> Kanangra-Boyd National Park
>
> Jenolan Karst Conservation Reserve
>
> As such the tags are deceptive.
>
>
> I have added the following relations from LPI Admin. Boundaries;
>
> Blue Mountain National Park (relation 5909718)
> Yerrandrie State Conservation Area (relation 5910215)
> Yerrandrie Regional Park (relation 5910214)
> Nattai State Conservation Area (relation 5910129)
> Nattai National Park (relation 5910128)
> Burragorang State Conservation Area (relation 5910099)
> Kanangra-Boyd National Park (relation 5909870)
> Jenolan Karst Conservation Reserve (relation 5910091)
>
> I am yet to double check for any other major entities within way 169174227
> ... if I find any I'll add those.
>
> These new additions cover most of the area of way 169174227, making way
> 169174227 redundant?
> However I would like to keep the way in the data base for reference, so
> removing the tags and adding a note with a suitable comment
> would look to be a good way of preserving the history and making it easily
> available if needed.
>
> I'll try leaving comments on change sets involving this way and direct them
> here.
>
> So, your thoughts?
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

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

Re: [talk-au] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers

[Ian Sergeant]

On 25 January 2016 at 19:38, Ross  wrote:

> And the guess does not get fixed there are many locations where roads are
> still on admin boundaries but the boundary is no long there (changes to
> boundaries) or the road has moved but  nobody comes back to correct it.


To me this seems like a more general problem.  Mapping bare areas gets
done, but when a road moves or a boundary moves then they don't tend
to get noticed as much.  After the ABS2006 data was imported, it
wasn't linked to features, but quickly fell out of date as suburbs
changed and were added.

Ian.

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

Re: [talk-au] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers

[Ian Sergeant]

On 25 January 2016 at 14:48, Ross  wrote

> How do you know it is the physical feature?

> Just because it follows approximately the feature does not mean it is.  When 
> originally gazetted the physical feature may have been located differently 
> (roads, railways realigned, rivers making new paths)  Don't automatically 
> assume that the feature is still in the same place without looking at the 
> imagery or physical survey.  Don't assume that the boundary changes to the 
> new position of the road, etc.

There are numerous ways you can 'know' something.  Legislation
(including regulations, court judgement) is often the primary thing
involved here.  I'm not calling on people to guess, but we should bear
in mind that OSM is an evolution, and we have often used these
features in evolving the map until we locate or have free access to a
definitive source.

> But the border has not changed the river might have but there is no change to 
> the border from when it was first surveyed/gazetted.  The border is the line 
> as when gazetted, not as where the riverbank is now.

I think you're wrong.  The border has been defined by High Court
Judgement as including accretions and erosion.  Including landslip
such as in the Ward case.

Of course, where the river has fundamentally changed course, the
original course remains the boundary.  But gradual erosion actually
changes the border.

Ian.

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

Re: [talk-au] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers

[Ian Sergeant]

On 25 January 2016 at 15:45, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

> I think in these cases it makes sense to share the boundary
> (or better yet use a multiploygon relation where the river way is just
> a member of the protected area relation).

I always use multipolys for this.  Multi-tagging or ways sharing
consecutive nodes becomes quickly unmanageable in the OSM toolset..

Ian.

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

[talk-au] gmail users suspended..

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi,

mailman seems to have just suspended all gmail subscribers from this list.
Seems to have been response to gmail deciding to bounce some yahoo original
emails.

Anyway, for now I've turned off mailman bounce processing.

But 50-odd members will have to reconfirm their membership.

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

Re: [talk-au] Melbourne Airport (mapped as both node and way)

[Ian Sergeant]

On 1 October 2015 at 21:17, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/10/2015 4:50 PM, Ian Sergeant wrote:
>
> I guess I was talking about navigating there by aircraft.
>
> A 'point' calculated for an aerodrome area would be good enough until you
> had to select a runway .. where you would want the end points of the runway
> .. not the node of the aerodrome (most of them look to be place on/near the
> main building anyway).
>
>
Yes - it isn't about finding the runway! :)  But you would really like the
heading to align with the flight plan.  And the heading will always be
calculated to a specific point on the aerodrome.  There is no way to
automatically calculate this point.

I'm not standing in the way of the anti-nodists.  I'm just pointing out for
those who maintain that there is always a automatic way of calculating the
best node point for an area that this is not the case.  Like we have found
for administrative areas.

But this information is maintained in other databases, so it's just one
less use-case for OSM.

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

Re: [talk-au] Melbourne Airport (mapped as both node and way)

[Ian Sergeant]

I guess I was talking about navigating there by aircraft. For passengers,
sure you'd want a passenger terminal location, and an entrance to the same.

Ultimately, regardless of what form of transport you use, you are going to
be navigating to a point. The question is there an automated algorithm that
can calculate a reasonable point, or does this need to be placed manually.
It seems not for passengers.  I'd argue there probably isn't in general.

For Sydney Airport, they have just opened up all that land on the other
side of the canal - and the runways themselves extend way into the bay.
It's complicated to calculate a reasonable point.

So, I do see it as roughly equivalent to the boundary/admin_centre.  Where
a basic centre of gravity algorithm works to convert a way to a node, then
you probably don't need a node.  Like a building.  Where this type of
algorithm doesn't produce a reasonable point, then I think we should at
least have the possibility of placing a point manually.

Ian.


On 1 October 2015 at 16:06, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> When travelling to an airport, you normally travel to a terminal which are
> separately mapped, ideally with an entrance=main. Where would you put this
> point at say Sydney where international and domestic are on opposite sides?
> I think it's not the same as admin_center for admin boundaries.
> On 01/10/2015 2:01 pm, "Ian Sergeant" <inas66+...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Certainly when navigating to an airport, you need a 'point' to navigate
>> to.  An calculation of a valid airport point from a airport boundary that
>> may often include industrial parks, etc, is problematic - verging on
>> intractable.  Having this point 500m off significantly breaks stuff.
>>
>> It's a similar issue to admin boundaries, where this issue is addressed
>> with a relation and an admin_centre tag.
>>
>> Ian.
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Melbourne Airport (mapped as both node and way)

[Ian Sergeant]

Certainly when navigating to an airport, you need a 'point' to navigate
to.  An calculation of a valid airport point from a airport boundary that
may often include industrial parks, etc, is problematic - verging on
intractable.  Having this point 500m off significantly breaks stuff.

It's a similar issue to admin boundaries, where this issue is addressed
with a relation and an admin_centre tag.

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

Re: [talk-au] NSW NP tracks closed during total fire ban days

[Ian Sergeant]

On 25 September 2015 at 09:54, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Some tracks/paths in a NSW National Park now have signs up that say they
> are closed during declared Total Fire Ban days.
>
> I have tagged these using
>
> opening_hours="Closed during Total Fire Ban days"
>
> I think I'll add that to the Australian wiki page. Comments?
>


I don't think it fits well with "opening_hours".  It's more a conditional
access restriction.

I'd consider something like

restriction=total_fire_ban

or seek inspiration from
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions

But if we're capturing the info that's good.  We can refine the tag later..

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

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

[Ian Sergeant]

On 15 August 2015 at 00:12, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:

 As I have said before 'Delete' is something that should never happen on
 what has at some time been correct information. 'Archive' is the correct
 term and making that data available as required ... Delete is only
 appropriate when the material is proven invalid.



Your 'never delete' argument, is of a very different form to the 'never
delete abandoned railroads' argument.  I suspect the railway=abandoned
people wouldn't care less had the nodes been intelligently replaced by more
accurate ones.  They are interested in the line of the railway, not the OSM
markers that make it up.

Your argument is to preserve some kind of history.  And OSM sort-of does
that because nothing is ever deleted - it is all in the full database.  But
you want everything to be in the active database instead.  But OSM doesn't
support that - because today's lake way is tomorrow's multi-poly, and the
next year (hopefully!) we'll have a better way to represent it at OSM
level.  Today's one-way freeway is 17 ways after yesterday's survey edits
get done.  I'd suggest you first work on an OSM model that actually
supports continuity of objects, and then we'll do the Wikipedia linking,
and then we'll talk about never deleting.

Of course people should show respect to previous mappers.  Not tearing down
other's work is the essence of a community project.   But also is the
knowledge that your work isn't sacrosanct.  And OSM isn't open history map,
and isn't a record of everything that ever was.

Ian.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks

[Ian Sergeant]

On 30 July 2015 at 10:20, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:


 I have spoken with Parks Vic and they request that bike riders do not
 create additional trails and only use official trails. They would prefer if
 such unofficial trails were not mapped or named because it implies official
 status to park users.


Would they just 'prefer' it.  Or is there actually a regulation preventing
their use?  We have ways to tag to indicate there is no legal access to
bikes.

However, I'm not sure how we would tag to indicate someone's preference for
things not being used.  There is a tag value of official and designated,
but someone has tied themselves in knots with this stuff, and I doubt it
would be effective here.

As another (somewhat related) example, the Parks often don't map Aboriginal
sites and drawing on their maps - only the 'official' ones where there are
fences, etc.  In the past I've chosen not to map these sites, but I've no
idea what I would do if I saw someone else had mapped them.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] README tag with editor support

[Ian Sergeant]

Perhaps a nice objective tag, rather than README text.

If a feature is new, add a start_date tag.

The editor can then have options..

1, Alert the user if the start date  is more recent than the layers
currently displayed.
2. Visually indicate if the start_date is within a configurable recency
(say, draw a halo around objects constructed in the past two years, or so).

There is also some scope for automated analysis, rather than depend on free
text.

Ian.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [talk-au] camp sites

[Ian Sergeant]

On 3 May 2015 at 15:27, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:


 Whatever way it is cut there is a 'responsiblity', and I'd rather see the
 'rules' and have the mapper make the choice from local knowledge rather
 than pass it to some remote person who can only judge it from a yes/no
 answer.




I'm in also in favour of subjective decisions, when we need a subjective
decision, to be made close to the source.

However, there are some tags that simply aim to group objective facts by
applying a ruleset to them.  From the description this looks like one of
those cases.  I look to see what amenity a campsite has, look up the
proposal, and decide on a category to assign it to.  I can choose to list
the amenities too if I want.

People might misinterpret the ruleset, and meanwhile, we are losing hard
data about the amenities.

Is there supposed to be a subjective step that I'm missing?  That is you
look at all the amenity, and make a judgement call on the category?

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

Re: [talk-au] camp sites

[Ian Sergeant]

On 3 May 2015 at 10:22, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote:


 No possible, in any readable way, to render something like this. Either
 all the icons appear on top of each other or, most are discarded. And
 imagine just how many columns need be added to the render database.


The proposed categories are almost a mapping of the amenity to broad
categories.  So the mapper would have to identify the amenities, decide on
a corresponding category, and tag that.

I can't see any reason why this responsibility should be given to the
mapper. The corresponding categories may be better held in a software
ruleset, and the mapper just enumerate the amenities on the campsite that
they are aware of.

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

Re: [talk-au] camp sites

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi,

My only observation would be that in Australia toilets and no water seems a
very common combination at camp grounds.  You know the kind of campground
I'm talking about, with either drop toilets or unpotable  water.

It would probably be worthwhile making a call on the classification that
applies to these kinds of camp grounds.

Ian.

On 2 May 2015 at 10:25, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote:

 Hi Folks, as some of you are possibly not subscribed to the tagging
 mailing list, thought I'd point out a proposal under way.

 Its about a rough classification of camp sites in an ordered way. With
 the intention of making them a bit easier to render or search for.

 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site

 Note we use camp site as being the larger area that we, in Oz, would
 call a camp ground. And what we would call camp site, where one tent
 or caravan would be set up, is a pitch. They are UK terms, that's OSM
 policy.

 But camping is Australia so please consider voting folks. The discussion
 has driven home to me just how lucky we are in this country in this
 respect at least !

 David




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

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

Re: [talk-au] StreetToTransit connections mass edit

[Ian Sergeant]

I've noticed the same changeset, and most of it is nonsense, and isn't
based on the actual connections.  It isn't that it does no harm, because it
introduces footway connections where none actually exist.

I think the concept is good for stations that are well developed.  Like
some stations you can only access from one side, etc.  So, I've slowly been
tidying some of them up.

However, I'd have no issue with a revert for those that remain unmodified
since the original changeset.

Ian.



On 25 April 2015 at 15:58, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:

 I've noticed the changeset
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/14080990 where the user
 connected a bunch of highways/footways with the railway=station node
 and used the name StreetToTransitConnection.

 I've asked the user about this in the changeset comment but I've had no
 reply.

 First problem is, these are all named incorrectly as
 StreetToTransitConnection.

 Secondly in some instances I've found the footway the user added was
 actually incorrect, went straight across the railway line where there
 was no footway in conflict with the existing footway network.

 In other cases the footway simply doesn't exist. I am curious if we
 need a footway to the actual station node? Normally you would have a
 footway to the platform and then that is enough, but maybe for routers
 we need a way to link the platfrom to a given station so that we don't
 need these incorrect footways linking them?

 Is a mass revert justified? Or do I need to go and do a mass removal
 of the StreetToTransitConnection name tag and fix up the ones I know
 about (which means there is no footway between the station node and
 the rest of the network)?

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping dangerous bicycle locations?

[Ian Sergeant]

On 10 March 2015 at 08:30, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:


 These hazards exist for all kinds of traffic and not indicated on maps.
 Usually people are expected to be aware of their surroundings, not to rely
 on other aids as to what is visually obvious? :-\



The idea here is not to use it as a replacement for being visually aware,
but possibly to avoid (or minimise) these hazards when planning a cycle
route.  That said, I think we still have to find a way to map objective and
verifiable facts to that end.

Ian.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [talk-au] New key proposal - paved=yes/no

[Ian Sergeant]

These two level keys work well, and I'd encourage everyone to use them
where they fit and make sense.

natural=water
water=lake

Gives a higher level primitive to those who aren't interested in the
detail, and means you don't need to enumerate every possible type of
water that can exist to give some meaning to the first tag.

Similarly,

surface=paved
paved=asphalt

works the same way.

Ian.

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

Re: [talk-au] Question - names of motorways leaving Sydney

[Ian Sergeant]

When these names were first gazetted they included the route number in the 
name. 

They corrected it in a subsequent gazette to just the names. 

I think that's the best and generally aligns with ground truth. 

Ian. 

 On 7 Sep 2014, at 4:10 pm, Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote:
 
 When the new alphanumeric route numbers in NSW were unveiled, some of the 
 motorways were renamed (e.g. Sydney-Newcastle Freeway became Pacific 
 Motorway, South-Western Motorway became Hume Motorway).
 
 In OSM these all have the new route number included in the road name (e.g. 
 name=M4 Western Motorway, rather than name=Western Motorway).
 
 The signs on these roads don’t include the route number as part of the name.
 
 Does anyone object if I rename these roads without the route number (route 
 number will remain in the ref=* tag)? Or is there a good reason for the route 
 number to remain in the name tag?
 
 Mark P.
 
 
 ___
 Talk-au mailing list
 Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

Re: [talk-au] Sydney - Hornsby section of 'Pacific Highway' to revert to old name

[Ian Sergeant]

On 27 June 2014 11:38, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:

 The Roads and Maritime Service (RMS) has moved the highway name and route to
 George Street and Jersey Road. So this means that those sections of  George
 Street and Jersey Road need their names changed to 'Pacific Highway'. Assume
 their numbers remain the same too?

We should be a little careful here.  There is a a Pacific Highway main
road route, like there is a Princes Highway main road route.

You can see those here..

http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/doingbusinesswithus/downloads/lgr/reg_table_for_internet_31jan11.pdf

However, this doesn't mean the actual street names will change.  The
chances are that George Street and Jersey Road will remain names as
these,

Of course, if the RMS choose to whack up new signs, then we'll change it in OSM.

See, for example City Road at Broadway, and King Street leading on
from it, which as far as the RMS is concerned form part of the Princes
Highway for administrative purposes, but road names are as signposted.

Ian.

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

Re: [talk-au] Highway=path Oz Tag Guideline

[Ian Sergeant]

Whatever we do, let's do it globally. 

We shouldn't duplicate global content on the local tagging guidelines. It gets 
outdated. 

Let's just link to the global doco. 

Ian. 

 On 4 Jun 2014, at 10:48 am, David Clark dbcl...@fastmail.com.au wrote:
 
 This is what I'd suggest is added to the Australian Tagging Guidelines wiki 
 if there is no objection. (This is a simplification of what is at 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface ).
 
 Add to both sections:
 * Urban Footpaths and Cycleways
 * Bush Walking and Cycling Tracks
 
 ---start
 
 Paths for non-motorised use (highway=footway; highway=path) should always be 
 tagged with surface given that there is no default for such paths.
 
 surface=paved is non-specific and covers the specific tags of sealed, tarmac, 
 asphalt, bitumen, concrete.
 
 surface=unpaved is treated as the opposite of paved, specific tags are dirt, 
 earth, ground, grass, gravel, metal, sand, wood.
 
 ---end
 
 What do you think?
 
 All the best,
 David
 
 ___
 Talk-au mailing list
 Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Proposed Data import - Queensland, Australia: Peaks and Mountains

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi,

The overall import strategy looks good to me.

I can, however, personally see absolutely no point in adding SRTM data
to mountain elevations.  None will be accurate.  None will be official
mountain heights. You could equally well add ele data to every single
node in OSM using SRTM.

If there is an official survey height that we have access to, we
should add that.  Or even an actual measured height.

Ian.

On 4 May 2014 17:01, Christopher Barham cbar...@pobox.com wrote:
 Hi Simon,

 Ref Elevation data for mountain nodes,
 Following your question, I realised that the height should be available from 
 the NASA SRTM datasets; so have just tried to add it to the peaks/mountains 
 nodes as an ele tag in metres.
 Have added a section to the wiki import proposal page on adding the ele tag 
 with values from SRTM here: http://bit.ly/1lNmCyN

 Test output file of the result is here (mountains with heights) : 
 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/446994/osmQldPeaks/test_with_srtm.osm

 currently the ele values are floats, so I'll add a manual step to round the 
 metres from floats to integers before any import.

 Cheers,
 Chas

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

Re: [talk-au] Wither Sydney suburb boundaries?

[Ian Sergeant]

On 30 April 2014 00:10, Michael Gratton m...@vee.net wrote:

 The changeset is here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/22023461,
 does anyone have any comments about how it could be improved?

Personally -

1. I wouldn't use the new source value ABS SSC_2011_AUST.  I've used
ABS2011-data.gov.au, and that has close to 1500 uses.  ABS2011 has
over 5000.  Pick one of those, rather than a new source tag.

2. I'd add the postcode to the relation.  Nominatim uses it, and it is
goodness.  Assuming you know what it is.

3. Where there is a boundary between the racecourse, the properties,
and the suburb, I would maintain they are all the same boundary, and
would use the same way.  The racecourse doesn't overlap the properties
by a few centimetres, so I don't think we should map this way either.
I know others disagree.

As an aside, the inaccurate shifting of bing data that happened a year
or so is corrected in the mapbox satellite imagery we now have.
Although we don't have the same zoom levels, it again allows us to
accurately map these property and road centres, that are all misplaced
on the bing imagery.  Hopefully greater detail is coming soon.

Ian.

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

Re: [talk-au] Wither Sydney suburb boundaries?

[Ian Sergeant]

 On 30 Apr 2014, at 10:53 pm, Michael Gratton m...@vee.net wrote:
 Yeah, I noticed that last night. My inclination was to pretend it isn't a 
 problem until the LPI comes around, then make everything align to that. :) I 
 don't disagree that adjacent property boundaries should share ways, but I'm 
 inclined to prefer suburb boundaries have their own, since they are political 
 at best (social at worst) and hence independent of land title boundaries. 
 TRhe splitting of Newtown between the Sydney and Marrickville councils was a 
 good example. In any case, Mapbox for me is giving a pixel's width difference 
 between the three, so I'm not confident about using that (or Bing) to try to 
 rectify (so to speak) the situation at the moment.
 

I agree that if and when we can use the definitive suburb boundaries we should 
use their line. 

The ABS data just doesn't have the accuracy for that in my experience.  I think 
you'll generally find in cases like this that the actual boundary is the 
property line. 

So fingers crossed for positive response from LPI!

 What happened to Bing anyway? 

About a year ago they loaded new Sydney and surround imagery that was all 
offset.   Yes you can manually adjust, but there is getting to be more and more 
stuff unaligned. 

I contacted bing maps but no response. 

If you are going to use bing then it must be aligned to known good features or 
easier still to mapbox imagery. 

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

Re: [talk-au] Wither Sydney suburb boundaries?

[Ian Sergeant]

Admin_centre. 

 On 30 Apr 2014, at 6:11 am, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Hi.
 
 I seem to remember there is a way to add the node to a relation so that it 
 marks where the name should go for the boundary.
 
- Ben
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Wither Sydney suburb boundaries?

[Ian Sergeant]

On 28 April 2014 14:23, Michael Gratton m...@vee.net wrote:

 So you are saying the ABS suburb boundaries should be checked individually
 rather than imported en mass? How do you know that the quality of the
 GNB/Wikipedia/etc data is any better than that of the ABS dataset where they
 disagree?

Yes.

Firstly, the ABS data is several years out of date.

The GNB is the authoritative source for whether a suburb exists or not.

Comparing several sources - council, gazette, ABS, GNB - if they
concur, then you've probably got something accurate on your hands.

If they disagree, then further research is in order, and it is
possible that there may not be an open and accurate data source for
that suburb boundary.  Take the opportunity to fix Wikipedia at the
same time.

Coastlines, waterway boundaries are also an issue.

 On a related note, what's the appropriate way to map suburb-sized areas that
 are partitions? A way for each suburb that share nodes along common borders,
 a way for each suburb that don't duplicate nodes along common borders, or
 using a single way for the border and using a relation?

Yes.

 Hopefully we will have access to the accurate and official suburb
 boundaries in Sydney in an open format sometime in the future (like we
 have for other cities).  Then this problem will go away.


 I literally just heard back from LPI about my enquiry: LPI is currently
 reviewing the licencing framework and will be in a better position to answer
 your query within the next 4 to 6 weeks, so maybe we will have the data
 sooner rather than later. I've asked if I can make a submission to whoever
 is doing the review, will post the details there if I get them so we can
 canvas for a good outcome.

If we have the definitive suburb boundaries, then yes, they are
definitive.  We already have the definitive information for a number
of Australian cities, and this is goodness. The ABS data has numerous
problems, right around the country.  From inaccuracies to completely
fictitious regions.  It's made for stats, and I'd be opposed to a
blind import, and I think I can back up that position.

Ian.

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

Re: [talk-au] Wither Sydney suburb boundaries?

[Ian Sergeant]

 On 28 Apr 2014, at 10:48 pm, Michael Gratton m...@vee.ne
 So how accurate does it have to be? For example, I just downloaded Andrew's 
 ABS OSM converted datafile (thanks Andrew!), loaded it into JOSM, and have 
 been eyeballing the differences for the ABS version of Randwick with the LPI 
 cadastre using in SIX Maps. It's confidence is rated very good and I can see 
 that the ABS data matches quite well, but it's missing fine details such as 
 where the suburb falls entirely one one side of road rather than the 
 centerline, and some corners are a bit off. 

When I'm doing a suburb boundary I think it's minimally important that each 
property is in the correct suburb. So sometimes that makes the road the 
boundary. At other times the property line not facing the road.  

I don't hesitate to modify the ABS data accordingly. What we are mapping is our 
very best estimate of where the suburb boundary lies. This is especially true 
for coastline. 

I think this is the best we can hope for with the data we have available to us 
today. 

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

Re: [talk-au] Wither Sydney suburb boundaries?

[Ian Sergeant]

On 29 April 2014 11:02, Alex Sims a...@softgrow.com wrote:

 I’d prefer relations that depend on single ways, this avoids JOSM
 complaining too much about duplicate ways and can also tie into the
 definition in words that might belong in Wikipedia.

Yes.  I general I do too.

However, we should only use the way when it does represent the
boundary, not because it happens to physically coincide with it.

Usually this is apparent from the data.

 If appropriate ways do not exist, then create ways can be untagged or have a
 “ref=“ tag to indicate what they mean e.g. “Centreline of Smith Road” or
 “Southern side of Smith Road” etc that corresponds to their actual
 definition. Then build the relation (suburb) and super-relation (Postcode,
 LGA area) etc on top of these.

I agree we can build the relations on these.  Super-relations aren't
well supported, and I see no need for them here.  The LGA should be
separate relation utilising the same ways.   This is the only way I've
seen it done, and it works well.

Postcode relations?  Well, if you are keen.  However at least as far
as Sydney goes, each suburb belongs to a single postcode, and I think
it works well to just be a appropriate tag on the suburb relation.

 As to the type of relation as “boundary” or “multipolygon” I’ve still not
 figured out which is best.

No winners here.  Even the validators disagree.  I've been known to use both.

Ian.

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

Re: [talk-au] Wither Sydney suburb boundaries?

[Ian Sergeant]

On 29 April 2014 12:56, Jason Ward jasonjwa...@gmail.com wrote:
 I have intentions of following the British structure for QLD boundaries (no
 permission to use this dataset yet).  Boundary is the chosen type there:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1464290

 multipolygon, though, is winning that race it seems:
 http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/type

I don't think that indicates multipolygon type is more popular than a
boundary type for a relation defining a boundary.  Multipolygons have
extensive usage independent of boundaries.  I suspect the only reason
that boundary is even in the race, is due to some large imports.

The issue stems from overloading of the meaning of 'type', in the
relation definition.

Multipolygon uses 'type' as defining the geometry of a relation.  This
appears to be the original usage.  And a boundary clearly has this
geometry.  So, if 'type' refers to geometry - as it did originally -
then boundary should never have been used as a type, and it should
just have been a multipolygon.

This usage isn't apparent from the word 'type', and you can see why
the person who came along and created boundaries thought they were a
of a different type, even though they were of the same geometry.  And
if type was meant to define the geometry, then it would have been a
idea to use a different tag originally.

Now we have type being used with both meanings.

Ian.

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

Re: [talk-au] Wither Sydney suburb boundaries?

[Ian Sergeant]

I don't really agree.  I think we need suburb boundaries to be as
accurate as we can make them at the time we create them, and not do a
mass import leaving us with thousands of FIXMEs.  Importing data we
know is wrong at the time we import it is the wrong thing to do.

I've created manysuburb boundaries in Sydney after checking ABS, the
GNB, the gazette, Wikipedia and council websites.  They aren't
perfect, but some are direct ABS copies, some amended with textual
information available in other sources, and some abandoned because the
information just isn't available in an open format and the ABS data is
wrong.

I have all the boundaries from ABS in OSM format in single file by
suburb.  If anyone would like a copy of the zip file, just drop me a
note.  I think Andrew has much the same on his website somewhere.  You
can pull each one straight into JOSM, and after checking accuracy,
fixing coastline, etc, you can simplify/upload.

Hopefully we will have access to the accurate and official suburb
boundaries in Sydney in an open format sometime in the future (like we
have for other cities).  Then this problem will go away.

Ian.

On 21 April 2014 18:24, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi.

 My memory of the last abs import was that it was reasonably accurate, but
 not always totally accurate.

 As such it is definitely worth importing from a data quality point of view.

 A way to deal with updates would be good though. Is there an ID that from
 abs for the boundaries that could be kept in OSM? Perhaps a tag like tiger
 has to show if the boundary has been edited.

- Ben.

 On 21/04/2014 5:44 PM, Daniel O'Connor daniel.ocon...@gmail.com wrote:


  This is interesting. Looking at
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Australian_government_public_information_datasets,
  it seems ABS data should already be fine to use, and is indeed already in
  use for suburbs. However from the import plan page
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/ABS_Data, the import
  doesn't seem to have gotten too far, and also questions the accuracy of the
  data.
 
  Given that many suburbs in NSW are currently indicated by nodes, would
  an import of the ABS boundaries, however inaccurate, be better than 
  nothing?

 Possibly,  but to go further than the concerns in the abs data page -
 these aren't suburbs,  just approximations for statistics at a fixed point
 in time. That means there are areas where the population count is low and
 distorts the reporting area.
 As you would expect that's more remote areas, but it does make the data
 different from the gazetted suburb lists.

 If you had a process mapped out to migrate/redraw these when local data or
 updated abs data is avail,  it'd be a lot more valuable than a one time
 import.
 Given its been raised before,  might be worth checking the imports and
 talk Au archives for more nuanced opinions too.


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


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


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

Re: [talk-au] Can I delete these suburbs

[Ian Sergeant]

On 03/12/13 16:54, Alex Sims wrote:

Are there any steps I should take before deleting them?


Email the user?

Ian.

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

Re: [talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail

[Ian Sergeant]

On 30 November 2013 14:56, Mander Li mander...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
 No such problem. There is one and only one official route that walker, MTB
 and horse are able to take on; ie the existing 3 relations should be exactly
 the same.

Cool.  So obviously you have the right idea that they should be de-duplicated.

 The BNT is too long to be maintained in one relation. The recommended size
 of a relation is 300 members (see
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation#Size). Even if it is separated
 into 3 relations (one for each state), it is well over the recommended size.
 Actually, to reduce the size problem, it'd better to have 12 BNT relations -
 one for each BNT guidebook.

Yeah - personally I'd ignore the wiki, but that's just me.

We have relations for admin boundaries for entire countries, and
relations for cross-country railways and highways.  They'd seriously
break if we made them into relations and super-relations just to
satisfy someone's idea of how many is manageable.

Ian.

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

Re: [talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi,

It seems the point of the three relations is to identify which parts
of the trail are accessible to which categories of users.  How do you
intend to encapsulate that info?

What is the basis for splitting the trail into state sections, and
putting three relations into another reln?  I don't think relations of
relations is well supported, and I can't see the motivation for it
here.

Ian.


On 22 November 2013 20:52, Mander Li mander...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
 I tried to create a Bicentennial National Trail relation, but found 4
 relations of this name:

 Relation 176684: created in July 2009 by John Henderson with route=hiking.
 This covers 213km from Canberra CBD to Taralga (half way between Canberra
 and Sydney)

 Relation 2347837 created on 13/8/2012 by Nick Barker with route=hiking. This
 covers about 95% of VIC section, 40% of Canberra section, 2% of NSW section,
 1% of QLD section. Total 715km of which 53km of the Dargo High Plains Road
 is not part of the BNT

 Relation 2347838 created on 13/8/2012 by Nick Barker with route=bicycle.
 This is almost the same as Relation 2347837 (with less ways and without the
 53km of Dargo High Plains Road). Total 645km.

 Relation 2347839 created on 13/8/2012 by Nick Barker with route=mtb. This is
 the same as Relation 2347838.

 Question for Nick Barker: Why 3 relations? BNT is a trail for walkers,
 MTBers, and horses, so these 3 relation will be the same.

 Question for John Henderson and everybody: what should be the route type
 (route=hiking, bicycle  or mtb) when the trail is for walkers, MTBers and
 horses?

 I suggest:
 1. Relation 2347837: to be renamed as Bicentennial National Trail - VIC
 section; and remove sections in other states

 2. Relation 2347838: to be renamed as Bicentennial National Trail - NSW
 section; remove sections in other states; and merge with Relation 176684

 3. Relation 2347839: to be renamed as Bicentennial National Trail - QLD
 section; and remove sections in other states

 4. Relation 176684: remove all sections; put Relations 2347837, 2347838,
 2347839 into it as members; ie this relation will become a super-relation
 with 3 relations as member

 5. Change all 4 relations to have tags: route=mtb, foot=yes and horse=yes
 IMHO, this is becasue 1) BNT is for road bikes, 2) trails for hiking may not
 allow MTB, 3) 99.9% of trails that allow MTB also allow walkers, 4) it
 allows the tags mtb:difficulty=advanced, and mtb:type=crosscountry as in
 now Relation 2347838

 John Henderson, you won't be able to see the trail at
 hiking.waymarkedtrails.org, but it will be at mtb.waymarkedtrails.org.

 Any comments? or I'll do it.


 Mander



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


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

Re: [talk-au] M31 at Holbrook

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi Arthur,

You may get a response here, but unfortunately only a small percentage
of editors subscribe to the talk-au list.

You may have better luck contacting a few people who have edited
locally via OSM, and asking them to check on your work.

Next time, you need to get a dashcam, to refresh your memory!

Ian.

On 15 November 2013 11:14, Arthur Geeson ag200...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi,

 Yesterday I drove down the M31 and left the GPS running and this morning I
 uploaded the gpx 'Parramatta to Lancefield'.  I get extremely good
 correlation all the way with the exception of the new Holbrook by-pass.  I
 was wondering if we should get some local confirmation before making the
 changes to the map as some other local streets are affected?

 Thanks Arthur (geesona)

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

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

Re: [talk-au] loading JOSM

[Ian Sergeant]

HI Brett,

Remember that josm has its own repository for the latest version.

So if you are running a ubuntu derivative, look at the instructions here

http://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Download#Ubuntu

You can use the ubuntu tools, and keep your josm at the latest without
having to do any copying over.

Ian.

On 31 October 2013 11:28, Brett Russell brussell...@live.com.au wrote:
 Hi

 I am using JOSM on a Bodhi Unix which is a light version of ubuntu.  The
 process I used was to install it using the package manager which put up a
 very old version of JOSM but it worked.   Then download version 6319 and
 moved it over the top of the old version and this appears to have worked
 extremely well.  Yes, I get the warning that the version of Java I am using
 will soon not be supported (version) but no issues.

 It was rather a rough process so I did not keep notes on the exact process
 but by using the package installer it set up the menu items in the operating
 system interface under Education applications.  The copy straight over the
 top struck me as rather rough but t worked.

 Cheers Brett

 Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 11:54:37 +1000
 From: i...@4x4falcon.com
 To: ag200...@gmail.com
 CC: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [talk-au] loading JOSM

 Revert to java 6

 The message on the start up screen has been there for ages and it's
 sometime soon.

 I'm using ubuntu 12.04 as well and have no problems running josm with
 java 6.

 Cheers
 Ross


 On 27/10/13 11:27, Arthur Geeson wrote:
  Hi,
 
  Firstly a thank you to the replies I got about the missing bench seats
  that were not appearing on the map.
 
  I have been trying to get JOSM working and it implied that I had a
  version of java that was too old. I then spend several hours to get a
  new version of java and now when I try to run JOSM it just falls over. I
  am using Ubuntu 12.04 and get the following problems:
 
  arthur@arthur-Aspire-5750G:/usr/lib/jvm/java-7-openjdk-i386/bin$ java
  -version
  java version 1.7.0_25
  OpenJDK Runtime Environment (IcedTea 2.3.10)
  (7u25-2.3.10-1ubuntu0.12.04.2)
  OpenJDK Server VM (build 23.7-b01, mixed mode)
 
  arthur@arthur-Aspire-5750G:/$ josm
  Using /usr/lib/jvm/java-7-openjdk-i386/bin/java to execute josm.
  java.awt.HeadlessException
  at
  java.awt.GraphicsEnvironment.checkHeadless(GraphicsEnvironment.java:207)
  at java.awt.Window.init(Window.java:535)
  at java.awt.Frame.init(Frame.java:420)
  at javax.swing.JFrame.init(JFrame.java:218)
  at
 
  org.openstreetmap.josm.gui.MainApplication.main(MainApplication.java:316)
 
  I have tried reloading JOSM and the plugins but it seems there maybe
  something wrong with java?
 
  Thanks - Arthur (geesona)
 
  ___
  Talk-au mailing list
  Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


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

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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Deleting data

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi,

I think it is self-evident that correct data shouldn't be deleted from
OSM.  I'd be surprised if anyone actually disagrees with that.

However, frequently as an editor I have to make decisions as to the
correctness of data in the database.   In the areas I work there is a
lot of data that is just plain wrong, and part of correcting data is -
sometimes - deleting it.

I look for several cues to assist my decision making whether data is
correct.  If I'm familiar with the mapper and their work.  Whether the
mapper has entered information other than what can be determined from
imagery.  The source tagging on feature and changeset.  The date of
the imagery.  The date the object was added to the database.  If the
mapper is local.

It's a complex assessment.  Notes and source tagging really do assist
it finding what is correct when imagery and the database clash.
Extensive surveying is ideal, and I'd never dream of changing recently
well surveyed data to replace with data traced from imagery.
However, sometimes that's not the clear choice that is presented, and
quite often the changeset and object source tags are no help in
determining that.

Ian.

On 19 October 2013 16:05, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
 This is wrong, and it's got to stop. Nobody should be deleting data
 that somebody else entered unless they have actually BEEN to the
 place, failed to see any trace of the mapped entity, and are an expert
 at identifying the mapped entity. This should be the case no matter
 the entity: whether fire hydrants, buildings, intersections, park
 benches, railroads, canals, whatever.

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

Re: [talk-au] vicmap data licensing

[Ian Sergeant]

I see there are two ways we can approach this.  One is to make the
data available in OSM form.  People can use information to
trace/import to complete the map as they go about their daily mapping.

Secondly, we can have a complete plan as to how we import bits that we
know come from good sources and should complement/replace existing OSM
data.

If we import LGA and postcodes, we immediately need to consider things
like what happens when these align with coastlines, or with each
other, or with suburb boundaries?  Probably other things too.

Worst case is, as has been done on some occasions in the past, is for
the import to be done and to leave hundreds of thousands of fixmes
scattered around the country.

Ian.



On 14 October 2013 08:21, Nyall Dawson nyall.daw...@gmail.com wrote:
 Maybe a good approach would be to start with the easy things first. It
 should be quite straightforward to import the boundary information like
 postcodes and LGA borders. Unless I'm mistaken, these boundaries are
 basically non-existent in Victoria OSM at the moment.

 Property boundaries would be another good candidate like this - there should
 be very little existing information we'd need to worry about.

 Nyall



 On 11 October 2013 07:37, Li m...@lixia.co wrote:

 Does anyone have experience on importing data? In particular avoiding
 duplicates?

 Li.

 On 10 Oct 2013, at 5:16 pm, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi.

 I guess the thing to consider is how you would handle a second import if
 someone had edited the data in OSM in between.

 I think this kind of conflict would be very difficult to resolve. You
 could either plan to do a 1-off import, or maybe include a tag on the
 imported data matching a unique identifier for the same feature in the
 vicmap data. The US Tiger import did something like this.

   - Ben Kelley.

 On 10 Oct 2013 17:12, Li Xia m...@lixia.co wrote:

 Hi everyone,

 I'm meeting Vicmap and data.gov staff tomorrow to get their blessing on
 importing vicmap data into OSM.

 Once the licensing is squared away, we can move onto discussing
 techniques of importing the data. Snapshot data in shp format is available
 from data.vic.gov.au. Alternatively a vicmap provides a live feed to weekly
 data diffs directly. Any advice on how to import this data is much
 appreciated.

 Li

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


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



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


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

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 76, Issue 5

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi,

Whatever process we undertake will have large manual elements to
integrate the datasets and keep them updated.  Even if that is simply
merging the datasets in josm.

We need to get the vicmap data in a form that will have maximum
utility to OSM mappers.

Ian.

On 12 October 2013 09:09, Li Xia m...@lixia.co wrote:
 Hi Nick,

 Yes, vicmap data does contain road geometry, names plus many more
 attributes.

 Vicmap also produces are raster version from this dataset so that work is
 already done. I will enquiry about getting access to this. However manually
 tracing and editing is a LOT of work.

 Does anyone know of a process where a mass import can be done without
 manually tracing imagery?

 The dataset is very comprehensive. Here's a quick summary of it's features:

 Release under Creative commons 3.0 license, dataset can be obtained in
 various formats from http://www.data.vic.gov.au/ The has heaps of datasets.
 I've downloaded most relevant datasets in shp format and combined the
 datasets into logical structure, download links below. If anyone is interest
 in other features such as forestry reserves, national parks etc, have a look
 and pull the data down from data.vic.

 Transport shp data documentation
 Hydro - shp data - documentation
 Administrative - shp data

 Li.









 On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:00 PM, talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:

 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: vicmap data licensing (Li)
2. Re: vicmap data licensing (Nick Hocking)


 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 07:37:31 +1100
 From: Li m...@lixia.co
 To: Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com
 Cc: OSM Australian Talk List talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [talk-au] vicmap data licensing
 Message-ID: 91641499-6fb4-426c-8313-c0d82c305...@lixia.co
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

 Does anyone have experience on importing data? In particular avoiding
 duplicates?

 Li.

  On 10 Oct 2013, at 5:16 pm, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Hi.
 
  I guess the thing to consider is how you would handle a second import if
  someone had edited the data in OSM in between.
 
  I think this kind of conflict would be very difficult to resolve. You
  could either plan to do a 1-off import, or maybe include a tag on the
  imported data matching a unique identifier for the same feature in the
  vicmap data. The US Tiger import did something like this.
 
- Ben Kelley.
 
  On 10 Oct 2013 17:12, Li Xia m...@lixia.co wrote:
  Hi everyone,
 
  I'm meeting Vicmap and data.gov staff tomorrow to get their blessing on
  importing vicmap data into OSM.
 
  Once the licensing is squared away, we can move onto discussing
  techniques of importing the data. Snapshot data in shp format is 
  available
  from data.vic.gov.au. Alternatively a vicmap provides a live feed to 
  weekly
  data diffs directly. Any advice on how to import this data is much
  appreciated.
 
  Li
 
  ___
  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/20131011/98778e6c/attachment-0001.html

 --

 Message: 2
 Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:18:17 +1100
 From: Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com
 To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [talk-au] vicmap data licensing
 Message-ID:

 caded0cxpnfdoza4jsnvn0xczcgaun0hnn5x2nk-siuxlfdv...@mail.gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

 Hi Li

 Does the vicmap[ data include road geometry and road names. If so then a
 really usefull thing to do would be to create an imagery layer from this
 data that could be used in JOSM.
 This is what is done in the USA with each year's TIGER data.

 Then we could use the Bing imagery the vicmap layer and existing data to
 fill in all the unnamed streets/roads and include any new ones or ones
 that
 have not yet been surveyed or traced. It would only be a matter of months
 and all of Victoria's roads would be completely up to date.

 Curerently, I'm spending hours each day using the TIGER data and Bing
 imagery in helping to fix up the horrible original TIGER data but would
 love to be helping in fixing up Australia.

 Nick Hocking
 Canberra
 -- next part --
 An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 URL:
 

Re: [talk-au] South Australia Suburb Boundries

[Ian Sergeant]

On 1 September 2013 09:34, Tony theoneintrain...@gmail.com wrote:
 does anyone have any issue with using this suburb boundary shape file for SA
 http://data.sa.gov.au/dataset/suburb-boundaries
 ...
 Once I learn how to upload a shape file I will do it

An import of this magnitude will obviously be considerably more
complicated that just the conversion/uploading.

You'll see some of the issues mentioned on the wiki
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import, and also discussed on the
imports mailing list.
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/

Perhaps you could start with a bit of a plan as to how you're going to
handle overlaps and existing suburbs, coastline and river boundaries,
etc.

Then we can review the plan, and may be able to help with suggestions
and some aspects of the conversion.

Ian.

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

[talk-au] Bing alignment in Sydney

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi,

I've noticed that since (at least) June, Bing imagery appears to have
shifted, across vast swathes of Sydney by about 2-3m to the north
west.

You can see the effect clearly where I mapped quite precisely from
bing imagery as recently as june.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-33.71454/150.90355

My feeling is that it is now less accurate - that's mainly from
comparing with gps traces and nearmap mapped stuff from before the
licence change.

Anyone else noticed the effect?

Ian.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Which legislation applies: server or data location?

[Ian Sergeant]

On 27 August 2013 12:04, Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote:

 Amidst hard questions in the Brazilian community, I've been wondering
 which copyright legislation should apply to OpenStreetMap's data (in
 the case of suspicious data imports): that of where the data is stored
 and provided from (seems to be from the UK right now) or that of where
 the data refers to? Or both? Or some other international law?

OSM has to obey the laws in the country where it operates.  Data
shouldn't contributed to the server in the UK that would be in breach
of UK law.

Contributors should obey the laws of the jurisdictions in which they
reside, or are otherwise obliged to obey.

Local mapping communities should be able to reach a consensus about
contributions that may (for legal reasons) reduce the utility of using
the maps in that jurisdiction. This will always be a measured
discussion, depending on the particular circumstances.  My personal
contribution to any such discussion would be that imports that are
contrary to local laws that can be substituted legally by other data,
survey or otherwise, should not be accepted.

Ian.

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

Re: [talk-au] Incorporating public information into OSM - Legal situation

[Ian Sergeant]

On 20 August 2013 18:29, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote:

 Did they confirm with Geoscience that the Creative Commons Attribution
 3.0 Australia is compatible with ODBL?

 This is one of the reservations that some of us had with changing to ODBL.


Maybe.  The issue for both licences is just getting the attribution right.
I think you've taken the view that just an attribution in the data is
sufficient, and nothing on the map itself?  I think it is best in both
cases just to agree with the data owner what constitutes reasonable
attribution for the medium, and that we can deliver it.

Also you will find it's not that easy.  It takes a significant amount of
 time and effort to include this data from the downloaded shapefiles. They
 can not just be imported to osm.
  Talk-au@openstreetmap.org


Well, shapefiles or otherwise there are lots of issues in a bulk import.

If the data is available, then making it available to trace or very
selectively import could be useful.  I don't think we want to go down the
path of another significant data load with poor quality data with lots of
fixme tags.

I'm yet to see anything on the GA that I think would make an appropriate
bulk import to OSM, not that there isn't lots of good stuff there.  Of more
interest are some of the city detail info that we've discussed previously
on this list, some of which is hard to obtain by survey.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Wikivoyage and licensing

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi,

In relation to data WV - OSM.

Typically, the project has not wanted to accept coords from Wikipedia,
because many of them are derived from  sources seen as incompatible with
OSM.   I see any existing WV coords as just another level of indirection.

As far as adding WV users adding new POIs to OSM, this is open to everyone
who agrees the OSM contributor terms.

If you are considering an automated import into OSM of WV POIs, then once
you have the licencing right, this should be discussed on the imports
list.  I can think of lots of issues here, and legal is just the tip of the
iceberg.

OSM online editors are becoming more user friendly for adding POIs, in the
alternative.  Don't want to reinvent the wheel.

In relation to geocoding from OSM - WV, and the resulting licence.

Firstly, you may want to look at this recent discussion about OSM and
Geocoding.

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2013-June/007547.html

Personally, I think if there is batch geocoding to the extent there is a
resulting dataset, it should be available under the ODbL, with attribution.

However, the written pages of WV included geocoded POIs in my opinion
constitute a produced work.

Being pretty familiar with WV and OSM, what I think is the right thing to
do is for any automated geocoding is to set up an OSMGeocodeBot account on
WV (or similar).  That account contains details of what it does, and
contains the appropriate attributions and links. In the edit history when
adding geocoding it also contains the appropriate attribution and link.

If any individual user wants to geocode an handful of individual POIs from
OSM, I don't think there is a substantial use, and I don't believe any
attribution is required.  However, the method above would provide a
template should a user wish to use it.

Ian.


On 9 July 2013 15:25, torty3 singaporem...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi all, Wikivoyage is a travel-based wiki, and was recently incarnated as
 a Wikimedia project. In its previous history, there weren't any solid
 attempts at introducing and integrating OpenStreetMaps, but much progress
 has been made at http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyag … 
 Expeditionhttp://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Dynamic_maps_Expeditionand
  examples can be seen internally at
 http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wheaton, which relies on an external map
 server http://maps.wikivoyage-ev.org/w/poimap2 … 
 e=Hornburghttp://maps.wikivoyage-ev.org/w/poimap2.php?lat=52.02912lon=10.60377zoom=16layer=Olang=dename=Hornburg.
 I think we are pretty close to start site-wide implementation, but before
 that, it looks like we need to sort out attribution and legal issues.

 I know Google Maps data is not accepted here, and we have tried our best
 to steer users to use OSM data, but some are still more comfortable using
 Google Maps What's here as a way to pinpoint coordinates. From what I
 understand, that isn't kosher either - is this correct?

 We would definitely want to work more closely with OSM, at both importing
 and exporting data. Plans have been discussed to batch geocode points of
 interest from the OSM database and also for us to send back new Wikivoyage
 POIs to OSM. Since coordinate data is still in infancy, if OSM are unsure
 of Wikivoyage sources, it is still early enough to remove such data and
 require stronger attribution in the future, to make sure we follow
 licensing more closely. What would be the suggested process here?

 On a user basis, we could ask for a source, but what would be the required
 attribution on a site basis, as we'll be merging OSM geodata into our
 listings, but some will also be non-OSM/personal geodata. Has enough
 information been added for a Produced Work?

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


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

Re: [talk-au] Vicmap data released on data.gov.au

[Ian Sergeant]

We should send an email to the data owner to seek permission under our
contributor terms.

I don't think there is any relationship between data.vic.gov.au and
data.gov.au, so I don't see how any permission we have is relevant to this.

Ian.


On 8 July 2013 09:27, Nyall Dawson nyall.daw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi all,

 I'm not sure if this has been raised yet, but in the last week the
 entire VicMap dataset was released on data.vic.gov.au under a
 CC-Attribution 3.0 license. This includes the entire address [1],
 roads [2], parcel boundaries [3], and administration boundaries [4]
 for Victoria. I gather by

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_permission
 that we're OK to use data from data.gov.au for OSM.

 Does anyone know if this is still the case, and if so, how we could go
 about getting this data into osm? I'm willing to do any hard work
 required, but don't want to duplicate effort and first want to see if
 there's already any ongoing discussion about this data release.

 Regards,
 Nyall Dawson


 1. http://www.data.vic.gov.au/raw_data/address-vicmap-address/748
 2. http://www.data.vic.gov.au/raw_data/road-network-vicmap-transport/4877
 3. http://www.data.vic.gov.au/raw_data/parcel-view-vicmap-property/2038
 4.
 http://www.data.vic.gov.au/raw_data/locality-boundaries-property-polygon-vicmap-admin/2043

 http://www.data.vic.gov.au/raw_data/local-government-area-boundaries-property-polygon-vicmap-admin/2039

 ___
 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] surface=unsealed in 4wd/dirt road tagging

[Ian Sergeant]

On 3 July 2013 08:52, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:


 Also a quick stat for you. 165,000 highways in Australia have a
 surface tag. 718,000 don't.


Surprising stat.  Especially considering paved is considered the default.


 it's no more burdensome
 to show all of [unsealed, unpaved, gravel, dirt] as a dashed line
 rather than just, say, unpaved.



I really like multi-level tags.

natural=water
water=lake

surface=unpaved
unpaved=gravel

surface=paved
paved=asphalt

It makes it easy for people two write simple parsers without enumerating
the options, but people who are want to parse the details to do so.

There are a number of instances when OSM uses this type of multi-level
tagging scheme, but it lacks any form of consistency.

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

Re: [talk-au] iPhone, XP Professional and JOSM

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi,

It is difficult to diagnose at a distance, but at a guess I'd say that when
your connection drops there are some kind of routing or ip changes that
need to occurring (new IP addresses or new gateway or something), and that
the changes that windows needs to make aren't being done while an active
network connection is in progress.

It is really unlikely that a network level issue like this is related to a
specific application.

If I'm right, then something like tcpview may help.   You'll see the
network connection and can close it.

Ian.



On 29 June 2013 21:01, Brett Russell brussell...@live.com.au wrote:

 Hi

 Just wondering if anyone else has struck problems using JOSM on XP
 Professional connected to the internet by a iPhone hotspot under Bluetooth
 or direct usb cable.  What happens with me is the internet connection drops
 out and eventually after a few disconnects and reconnects the iPhone and
 computer stop acknowledging each other until you kill JOSM.  Then they talk.

 My normal computer runs Windows 7 and works well, well as Windows and Asus
 laptap can work.  The older XP laptop is ok until I run JOSM.

 More curious if anyone else has struck the same problem.

 Cheers

 ___
 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

[talk-au] surface=unsealed in 4wd/dirt road tagging

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi,

I know we had some discussion over 4wd/dirt road tagging.

This ended up in the wiki as a recommendation to use

surface=unsealed

http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/surface=unsealed

I really can't see a significant reason here not to stick with

surface=unpaved

http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/surface=unpaved

When it is so much more likely to used, and therefore so much more likely
to be rendered, navigated, etc.  There are the other surface=* tags that
can be used if more specific information is available, but surface=unsealed
is obscure to no benefit IMO.

If there are no objections, I'll update the wiki.

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

Re: [talk-au] Using OSM Inspector

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi Brett,

The relation it appears OSMI is complaining about:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/3007272/history

The relation that appears is there now:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/3018458/history

Ian.


On 26 June 2013 12:26, Brett Russell brussell...@live.com.au wrote:

 Hi

 I have been having a look at OSM Inspector and noticed an error it picked
 up in my mapping.  It is Lake Picone in Tasmania and has an island in it so
 done as a multipolygon relationship.  Can some familiar with mapping such
 things have a look at it and let me know what I should be doing.

 Much appreciated any help to improve my mapping.

 Cheers
 Brett Russell
 PO Box 94
 Launceston Tas. 7250
 Australia
 0419 374 971
 ___
 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] Using OSM Inspector

[Ian Sergeant]

Well OSMI takes a while to update sometimes.

However the history of the relations tells us that the ways that made up
the original relation were deleted, new ways were created and added to a
new relation.

This left an empty relation.  The existing relation may or may not have had
a bad geometry, I'm not going to bother checking it, but the new one you
have created appears perfectly fine.

In terms of mapping style, I guess that you removed the old ways that made
up the original relation in order to improve on them.  However, that left
an empty relation.  Empty relations are very easy to lose track of because
they have no location information left in them.  Personally I think there
should be a warning as you are removing the last object from a relation,
because it isn't something you really want to do.

Ian.




On 26 June 2013 15:02, Brett Russell brussell...@live.com.au wrote:

 Hi Ian

 Thanks for looking at this.  Err, I not to sure what I am looking for as
 this is the first time I have seen changesets.

 One strange thing though.  In Polatch 2 the lake is no longer coloured
 blue like other lakes.  Is this a side effect of having an island?

 Cheers Brett

 --
 From: inas66+...@gmail.com
 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:51:27 +1000
 Subject: Re: [talk-au] Using OSM Inspector
 To: brussell...@live.com.au
 CC: talk-au@openstreetmap.org


 Hi Brett,

 The relation it appears OSMI is complaining about:

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/3007272/history

 The relation that appears is there now:

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/3018458/history

 Ian.


 On 26 June 2013 12:26, Brett Russell brussell...@live.com.au wrote:

 Hi

 I have been having a look at OSM Inspector and noticed an error it picked
 up in my mapping.  It is Lake Picone in Tasmania and has an island in it so
 done as a multipolygon relationship.  Can some familiar with mapping such
 things have a look at it and let me know what I should be doing.

 Much appreciated any help to improve my mapping.

 Cheers
 Brett Russell
 PO Box 94
 Launceston Tas. 7250
 Australia
 0419 374 971
 ___
 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] Newcastle Inner Bypass - Motorway or not ?

[Ian Sergeant]

On 1 June 2013 15:29, Nilbog_Aus OSM nilbog_aus_...@nilbogcave.com wrote:


 Not that I'm sure we should use it but I think they are usually gazetted
 by state government
 eg NSW
 http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ra199373/s48.html?stem=0synonyms=0query=Freeway

 Any state that has laws prohibiting access to certain groups (eg
 pedestrians) to freeways needs a legal definition.

I'm pretty sure most states and countries that have freeways limit access.


A quick search of the NSW gazette shows many instances of freeways being
gazetted by the RMS.

On 1 June 2013 19:55, Michael James m.ja...@internode.on.net wrote:


 The Australian road rules (on which each states rules are based) :-
   ...

Any sign that has the following is considered a freeway :-

 freeway
 motorway
 tollway
 expressway


Yes, RR177 seems to define a freeway, making the rules self-contained.  All
that is required by this definition is to have the sign in place - no
reference to any external definition or gazetting.

It is made more interesting, by the RMS road classification document not
identifying main roads as freeways or otherwise, stating that it is a
matter for their real-estate division.

So, it looks like we have several options for test for what type of road
should be represented by an OSM motorway tag in NSW.  The ones I can think
of are:

1. Indicated by an 'M' in the route reference.

2. Indicated by a Start Freeway/Motorway sign.

3. Gazetted as a freeway.

4. Constructed to a engineering freeway standard according to the NSW RMS.

5. A controlled access dual carriageway road with at least two lanes in
each carriageway.

6. A consensus among editors that the road should be represented in OSM as
a motorway.

7. A combination of the above.

Personally, I've changed my mind with each contribution to the discussion
I've made (so I should just leave the discussion now, but here goes..)

I like the objectivity and remote mapping capability of just using the
route reference as an identifier.   I don't like the thought of referring
to the gazette.  I like the possibility that if a freeway conditions are
indicated by a sign, then we can map them as freeways we well as just 'M'
roads.  I don't like identifying sections of the Hume south of Berrima as
different than north, when to all intents and purposes the driving
conditions are identical.

If I had to make a call, I'd say that either a 'M' in the route reference
OR a 'Start freeway/motorway' sign, both deserve a motorway tag.  This
gives us something objective.  Unfortunately, I think that means large
sections of the Hume, and the Newcastle link road go to trunk.

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

Re: [talk-au] Help checking out huts on the Overland Track

[Ian Sergeant]

Last I looked the osm Australia download was months old. 

I use garmin.openstreetmap.nl.  Fast and up to date. 

Ian. 




On 01/06/2013, at 2:52 PM, Brett Russell brussell...@live.com.au wrote:

 Hi
 
 Thanks for that.  Must be the changes are not reflected in the OSM Australia 
 download that I did two days ago. Normally Alpine Hut shows up.  In my Garmin 
 file it is showing as a shelter so you need to be down at less than 50 metres 
 for it to show.  Alpine huts hang in for 2km from memory. 
 
 Actually would not mind working with someone to put up a bushwalking specific 
 img so mountains and foot designated paths hang in.
 
 Oh and I be Ent.   Mapped the area out in detail for our nine day walk. 
 
 Once again thanks for the prompt response, much appreciated. 
 
 Cheers
 Brett Russell
 PO Box 94
 Launceston Tas. 7250
 Australia
 0419 374 971
 
 On 01/06/2013, at 2:38 PM, Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Hi Brett,
 
 Can you be a little more specific.  What is your OSM id?
 
 The Pine Valley Hut used to be amenity=hut, and now is tourism=alpine_hut.
 
 I can't imagine the latter will show up.
 
 It was changed by user=Ent on the 22nd of May, but no other changes for 
 years..
 
 Ian.
 
 On 1 June 2013 14:28, Brett Russell brussell...@live.com.au wrote:
 Pine Valley Hut
 
 
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Newcastle Inner Bypass - Motorway or not ?

[Ian Sergeant]

On 1 June 2013 09:29, Michael James m.ja...@internode.on.net wrote:


 There is a legal difference between a divided highway and a freeway in
 Australia, so if it is not actually called a freeway/motorway via
 signage then it really isn't one.


Firstly, I'm a little sceptical of there actually being a legal
difference.   Can you point to a source that would make this clear?
Freeway/motorway standard is a term commonly used by the RMS, but it is
an engineering standard.  RMS are labelling roads clearly not motorway
standard as 'M' roads and v.v.  The standard required clearly also varies
between states, with what passes for a freeway in Victoria doesn't cut it
in NSW, for example.  There are freeway commence signs on roads that will
not be labelled as 'M' roads (or even, in some cases, not even given an
alphanumeric designation)

*RMS appreciates that other sections of road that will be signposted as
the A1 under the new system may already be of motorway standard. However,
to avoid frequent changes between M1 and A1 numbering, RMS will hold off
assigning the M1 designation until sections of the road between major town
centres have been upgraded *.

So, the question is, do we want to use the engineering standard of the road
to decide our tagging, or do we want to use the RMS 'M' indicator - because
the two aren't necessarily linked.

Personally, I'd like to think we can find a way to use the roadway
standard.  For example, I think tagging the Harbour Bridge as a motorway
(60km/h non-divided) is wrong.

However, I also see the value of adopting objective standards in OSM, so
I'm happy to go along with the labelling that RMS uses, if it allows more
consistency across the state.

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

Re: [talk-au] Extraction tools (Was: Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 71, Issue 26)

[Ian Sergeant]

Osmosis does most of the heavy lifting.  It will filter planet files by 
just about anything.


There is also a perl script Frederik Ramm wrote (in svn) that calculates 
way distances.


I'd like to say I wrote some kind of gee-whiz script, but I just threw 
the right arguments and scripts in a pipeline.


Ian.

On 28/05/13 15:19, Li Xia wrote:

Ian,

Interested to know how and what tools you use to extract data for this type of 
analysis.

Li.





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

Re: [talk-au] Newcastle Inner Bypass - Motorway or not ?

[Ian Sergeant]

I just looked to see what Google and Whereis do.

Whereis calls the Hume Highway the M31 throughout its length in NSW.  
Many of the actual 'A' sections are coloured as motorway.


Google calls it the A31 to the border where it is actually the M31, but 
only seems to colour the actual RMS 'M' sections as motorways (even 
though it has the labelling wrong).


I'd like to indicate freeway class sections as motorways, however, I can 
see the argument to just objectively use the RMS classifications.  Will 
save edit wars down the track to just have one easy rule.


Ian.

On 29/05/13 18:26, Michael James wrote:

On 29/05/13 10:40, Ben Johnson wrote:

Any thoughts on whether the completed sections of the Newcastle Inner City Bypass (now 
being referred to by the RMS as A37 - Newcastle Outer Ring Road) should be classified 
as type Motorway …?

If they're calling it A37 then they're not calling it a motorway.


___
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] data.sa.gov.au

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi Daniel,

The first step should be to find out if they are willing to have their data
relicenced under our licence?

CC-BY data is nice, and means that the data owner is likely only seeking
attribution (which we do provide) but my understanding is that it is still
insufficient for us to use without further permission from the data owner.
Pointers to our attribution page have worked in the past in gaining such
permission.

Ian.

On 24 May 2013 18:58, Daniel O'Connor daniel.ocon...@gmail.com wrote:

 The SA govt has joined many of the other state/local governments in
 publishing open data.

 The current implementation is powered by CKAN, and though I haven't seen
 it yet, appears to be leveraging openstreetmap / cloudmade in some fashion.

 Anyway, the majority of the data sets are CC-A licensed, and in either CSV
 or Shapefile format:

 Some initial things that might be worth importing/using as a
 reference/looking into:
 http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/major-and-minor-roads
 http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/library-locations
 http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/parks-and-reserves
 http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/sa-playgrounds
 http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/stormwater-nodes
 http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/surface-water-catchments
 http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/suburb-boundaries
 and of course:
 http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/centrelink-office-locations

 Not sure how much overlap with data.gov.au data sets (assume some).

 Anyone want to have a look around and
 1) Call out the things you think are missing
 2) Call out the things you'd want to have imported or manually transcribed
 into open street map

 ___
 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

[talk-au] Australia licence change redaction recovery..

[Ian Sergeant]

I crunched some numbers comparing AU planet extracts from today and prior
to the redaction commencing.  Although they were for my personal
edification,  I thought I'd share them.

We have about 70,000 km of additional mapped unclassified and residential
road now than we did before the redaction process - that is an increase in
distance of about 27%.   In terms of distance of named roads in this
category, we're about where we were before the redaction in absolute terms.

Trunk and motorways there is no significant variation.  The number of
kilometres of mapped road and named roads in this category is roughly
unchanged.

In primary, secondary, and tertiary, we've had an increase in mapped
distance of 35,000km, or around 20%.  Although we've seen a significant
decrease in the number of secondary roads, and marked increase in the
mapped km of tertiary roads.   Our post-redaction remappers have a tendency
towards tertiary roads, it would seem.  Our length of named roads in this
category is up in actual kilometres, but down on a relative basis.

In paths, tracks, footways and cycleways and service roads our mapped
distance is also up,   We've seen huge increases in mapped tracks - closing
on double what we had before.

So, my summary would be that we've probably comprehensively remapped he
motorways and trunk roads across the country.  We've got significantly more
tracks, paths and residential/unclassified roads than we had before.  There
would seem to be artifacts of extensive aerial remapping, with the lower
percentage overall of named roads, and what I'm thinking could be a
consequent tendency to underrate what passes for a secondary road in
Australia.  I'd also attribute greater mapping outside of urban areas to
the more extensive bing imagery coverage, and possibly the focus of the
redaction process on urban areas.

Of course, this is all quantitative data, not qualitative.  Take it for
what it is.  My summary is just a guess, and I can't say with any certainty
that the increase in distance isn't just fence posts on the Kimberley!

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

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap in Government

[Ian Sergeant]

I think in parts of this discussion we are confusing grouping and
categorisation of facts with subjectivity and information loss.

For example, ski runs are categorised into Green/Blue/Black runs.  A run
may be classified as black if it exceeds a certain narrowness, or a certain
roughness, or a certain gradient, or a certain length/duration.  That
doesn't make the classification scheme subjective.  It can be a largely
objective classification, based on specific facts that are verifiable,
leading to a higher level classification.

Information is lost in the categorisation, but this doesn't make it
unverifiable.  Cartography is necessarily a simplification and
categorisation of what is on the ground, otherwise in the extreme case we
end up with just a 3D image of the road.  Good cartography is preserving
the right information.

At the highest level we've chosen to classify roads as primary/secondary,
etc.  We could perhaps have instead use number of lanes, average traffic
speed, average traffic capacity, etc and left the classification to an
algorithm based on those facts.

The answer here seems to be that we need to have a classification scheme
based on verifiable criteria.  I think the classifications being proposed
largely meet this.  We also need to have the corresponding tags to identify
(at least) those input criteria so we can capture the extra information
when possible.  I see this as a particular issue with 4wd tracks, where one
trip through with a grader or rain can make a huge difference to road
condition.

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

Re: [talk-au] Alphanumeric references in NSW

[Ian Sergeant]

Okay, I've updated the part of the wiki that says we shouldn't do it.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#NSW_Alphanumeric_references

Ian.



On 10 May 2013 09:45, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi.

 The new routes are supposed to be complete by the end of this year.

 I know it takes me a while to get around to fixing something on OSM.

 Perhaps if you are keen then approach 2 is OK (and signage will catch up
 eventually). If you are lazy then 1 is the default. :)

   - Ben Kelley.
  On 10 May 2013 07:06, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi,

 I'm surprised you couldn't find some F3 signs there as well!

 In any event, we can..

 1. Ignore the new routes until they are completed.  Then re-reference the
 road.
 2. As soon as the route is confirmed and there are some signs,
 re-reference the road
 3. Adopt some new schema that allows us to have both route references at
 once.
 4. Adopt of hodge-podge approach, and reference partial roads, based on
 the assessment/whim of the mapper concerned.

 I originally proposed 1, but now I'm leaning towards 2, because I feel
 I'm swimming against the tide.

 I don't think we're capable of doing 3.  And I'd hate to end up with 4.

 Ian.


 On 10 May 2013 05:29, Ben Johnson tangarar...@gmail.com wrote:

 I took a look there last weekend. As you say... inconsistencies
 everywhere.

 Northbound all are M1 with B74, and there's even a distance reassurance
 sign (not interchange-related) showing distances to Brisbane, titled M1
 Pacific Mwy which I was surprised to see.

 Southbound all are NR1 with B74.

 The signs at the top of the ramps are in odd combinations like NR1
 Pacific Mwy on one sign, and M1 Freeway on another...

 It's a real tourist attraction for sign geeks!

 BJ

 On 09/05/2013, at 22:11, Nathan Van Der Meulen natvan...@yahoo.com
 wrote:

  You're not going to win any way you change the route references.  On
 the ground, around the Tuggerah Interchange alone are references to Nat
 Route 1, M1, Pacific Motorway etc.  Note that the freeway is referenced as
 M1 from Wyong Rd (B74) but on the freeway it's still NR1.  B74 only seems
 to be referenced at the interchange.  If you only edit as per what's on the
 ground, how do you edit that?
 
  Sent from my iPad
 
  On 03/05/2013, at 21:00, talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
 
  Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 
  To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://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. Alphanumeric references in NSW (Ian Sergeant)
   2. Re: Alphanumeric references in NSW (Ben Kelley)
   3. Re: Alphanumeric references in NSW (Ian Sergeant)
   4. Re: Alphanumeric references in NSW (Ben Johnson)
   5. Re: Alphanumeric references in NSW (Ian Sergeant)
 
 
  --
 
  Message: 1
  Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 15:07:02 +1000
  From: Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com
  To: OSM - Talk-au Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
  Subject: [talk-au] Alphanumeric references in NSW
  Message-ID:
CALDa4YLY+4KEnutrnBmjcRpE5z3G5hH4z6Yzyu=duwiw5sn...@mail.gmail.com
 
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
 
  Hi,
 
  I've noticed a few people are changing the references in NSW to the
  alphanumeric references before the signage has changed.
 
  I don't see the purpose of this.  I doesn't correspond to what is on
 the
  ground, it must be confusing to people actually trying to use OSM for
  navigation.  Also, given it is the RTA coordinate this, it wouldn't be
  surprising if some of the routes actually differed from the proposed
 routes
  on the webpage.
 
  To the best of my knowledge the only route that has been
 re-referenced is
  the B73, the others still retain their existing signage - with
 perhaps an
  uncovered sign here and there.  I traced the
 
  I'd suggest we can use the wiki to coordinate as these references
 change?
  That way we can ensure the entire route is renamed at once, rather
 than a
  patchwork?
 
  Ian.
  P.S. Of course there have been a few routes (M7, A31/M31 approaching
  Albury) that have been this way for a while, and aren't at issue here.
  -- next part --
  An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
  URL: 
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20130503/f593d5da/attachment-0001.html
 
 
  --
 
  Message: 2
  Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 15:33:45 +1000
  From: Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com
  To: Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com
  Cc: OSM - Talk-au Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
  Subject: Re: [talk-au] Alphanumeric references

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap in Government

[Ian Sergeant]

On 10 May 2013 17:01, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:


 3) There are decades of practice in cartography to learn from. We
 might as well go with existing practice in current 4WD maps. The
 standard distinctions seem to be something like 4WD/2WD/dirt/sealed,
 and sometimes one more category indicating something like possibly
 impassable. So no need for the 10 point roughness/tracktype scale -
 it's too hard.


But your overall point is surely that as long as we have the basics, if
some group of people want the extra information and are willing to gather
it, and some other group of people want to use the information and are
willing to render/route it, then all is good.

We're here to use our data in new an innovative ways, right?

On this topic, we seem to have some people who are keen to build apps with
4wd data, and other people who would like to add the 4wd tags to specific
data.  Both sides seem to be looking to the Wizard of OSM for the answer,
but they appear to be wearing ruby slippers.

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

Re: [talk-au] Alphanumeric references in NSW

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi,

I'm surprised you couldn't find some F3 signs there as well!

In any event, we can..

1. Ignore the new routes until they are completed.  Then re-reference the
road.
2. As soon as the route is confirmed and there are some signs, re-reference
the road
3. Adopt some new schema that allows us to have both route references at
once.
4. Adopt of hodge-podge approach, and reference partial roads, based on the
assessment/whim of the mapper concerned.

I originally proposed 1, but now I'm leaning towards 2, because I feel I'm
swimming against the tide.

I don't think we're capable of doing 3.  And I'd hate to end up with 4.

Ian.


On 10 May 2013 05:29, Ben Johnson tangarar...@gmail.com wrote:

 I took a look there last weekend. As you say... inconsistencies everywhere.

 Northbound all are M1 with B74, and there's even a distance reassurance
 sign (not interchange-related) showing distances to Brisbane, titled M1
 Pacific Mwy which I was surprised to see.

 Southbound all are NR1 with B74.

 The signs at the top of the ramps are in odd combinations like NR1
 Pacific Mwy on one sign, and M1 Freeway on another...

 It's a real tourist attraction for sign geeks!

 BJ

 On 09/05/2013, at 22:11, Nathan Van Der Meulen natvan...@yahoo.com
 wrote:

  You're not going to win any way you change the route references.  On the
 ground, around the Tuggerah Interchange alone are references to Nat Route
 1, M1, Pacific Motorway etc.  Note that the freeway is referenced as M1
 from Wyong Rd (B74) but on the freeway it's still NR1.  B74 only seems to
 be referenced at the interchange.  If you only edit as per what's on the
 ground, how do you edit that?
 
  Sent from my iPad
 
  On 03/05/2013, at 21:00, talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
 
  Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 
  To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://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. Alphanumeric references in NSW (Ian Sergeant)
   2. Re: Alphanumeric references in NSW (Ben Kelley)
   3. Re: Alphanumeric references in NSW (Ian Sergeant)
   4. Re: Alphanumeric references in NSW (Ben Johnson)
   5. Re: Alphanumeric references in NSW (Ian Sergeant)
 
 
  --
 
  Message: 1
  Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 15:07:02 +1000
  From: Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com
  To: OSM - Talk-au Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
  Subject: [talk-au] Alphanumeric references in NSW
  Message-ID:
CALDa4YLY+4KEnutrnBmjcRpE5z3G5hH4z6Yzyu=duwiw5sn...@mail.gmail.com
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
 
  Hi,
 
  I've noticed a few people are changing the references in NSW to the
  alphanumeric references before the signage has changed.
 
  I don't see the purpose of this.  I doesn't correspond to what is on the
  ground, it must be confusing to people actually trying to use OSM for
  navigation.  Also, given it is the RTA coordinate this, it wouldn't be
  surprising if some of the routes actually differed from the proposed
 routes
  on the webpage.
 
  To the best of my knowledge the only route that has been re-referenced
 is
  the B73, the others still retain their existing signage - with perhaps
 an
  uncovered sign here and there.  I traced the
 
  I'd suggest we can use the wiki to coordinate as these references
 change?
  That way we can ensure the entire route is renamed at once, rather than
 a
  patchwork?
 
  Ian.
  P.S. Of course there have been a few routes (M7, A31/M31 approaching
  Albury) that have been this way for a while, and aren't at issue here.
  -- next part --
  An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
  URL: 
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20130503/f593d5da/attachment-0001.html
 
 
  --
 
  Message: 2
  Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 15:33:45 +1000
  From: Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com
  To: Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com
  Cc: OSM - Talk-au Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
  Subject: Re: [talk-au] Alphanumeric references in NSW
  Message-ID:
CAE4-2TKPPKzjA3EE-kwfkDrH=8b-_by+h74hv3ytdgn+ajl...@mail.gmail.com
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
 
  Hi.
 
  I have seen a few A15 signs on the New England Highway, but there are
 still
  quite a few 43 and 15 signs along the route. The ground can still be a
 bit
  confusing.
 
  - Ben Kelley.
  On 3 May 2013 15:08, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Hi,
 
  I've noticed a few people are changing the references in NSW to the
  alphanumeric references before the signage has changed.
 
  I don't see the purpose of this.  I doesn't correspond to what

Re: [talk-au] Gates and access

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi,

It is documented on the wiki here:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:seasonal

If you want to, you could add it to Map Features.  It may just stay there,
as a tag in reasonably widespread use.  Or, someone might remove it, and
say you haven't gone through the correct Proposal Process, so that the
eight or nine people who occasionally vote on such things have missed their
opportunity to express their opinion (over the several hundred who appear
to have used it).

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features

Is there a particular reason why you'd want to see it there?  If you find
the tag has utility, then use it.

Ian.

On 9 May 2013 15:29, Li Xia lisxia1...@gmail.com wrote:

 Cool, but it's not listed in the main map features page?
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features

  What's the process to get it listed there?

 Li.


 On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi,

 The seasonal tag exists, and is reasonably well used.

 http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/seasonal#map

 However, I also agree with Andrew's note, that if you have detailed
 information on access, then the opening_hours syntax and conditional
 restrictions is quite expressive.

 Ian.

 On 7 May 2013 14:01, Li Xia lisxia1...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Mappers,

 Gates in many regional, state reserves or national parks have seasonal
 access. There's no official tag for this in the OSM wiki, right now options
 are

 access=yes or no

 If someone knows of the accepted way seasonal access should be tagged,
 that would great,

 Alternative, i'm proposing the access=seasonal tag.

 Li.

 ___
 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] Gates and access

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi,

The seasonal tag exists, and is reasonable well used.

http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/seasonal#map

However, I also agree with Andrew's note, that if you have detailed
information on access, then the opening_hours syntax and conditional
restrictions is quite expressive.

Ian.

On 7 May 2013 14:01, Li Xia lisxia1...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Mappers,

 Gates in many regional, state reserves or national parks have seasonal
 access. There's no official tag for this in the OSM wiki, right now options
 are

 access=yes or no

 If someone knows of the accepted way seasonal access should be tagged,
 that would great,

 Alternative, i'm proposing the access=seasonal tag.

 Li.

 ___
 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] Alphanumeric references in NSW

[Ian Sergeant]

Agreed.

I could see a strict on-the-grounder changing the ref for each road
section :-)

I've noticed Google Maps is using the A36 now for the Princes Hwy, but I've
only seen one sign at Rockdale, so I still think it is too early to change
the route in OSM, but I'm open to be convinced.

But I think using the wiki to coordinate when a particular route has been
referenced, and then we use old_ref to capture the previous route
referencing.  Currently when I use skobbler to do navigation its ugly
moving back and forth in references between the same road.

Ian.

On 3 May 2013 15:33, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi.

 I have seen a few A15 signs on the New England Highway, but there are
 still quite a few 43 and 15 signs along the route. The ground can still be
 a bit confusing.

   - Ben Kelley.
 On 3 May 2013 15:08, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi,

 I've noticed a few people are changing the references in NSW to the
 alphanumeric references before the signage has changed.

 I don't see the purpose of this.  I doesn't correspond to what is on the
 ground, it must be confusing to people actually trying to use OSM for
 navigation.  Also, given it is the RTA coordinate this, it wouldn't be
 surprising if some of the routes actually differed from the proposed routes
 on the webpage.

 To the best of my knowledge the only route that has been re-referenced is
 the B73, the others still retain their existing signage - with perhaps an
 uncovered sign here and there.  I traced the

 I'd suggest we can use the wiki to coordinate as these references
 change?   That way we can ensure the entire route is renamed at once,
 rather than a patchwork?

 Ian.
 P.S. Of course there have been a few routes (M7, A31/M31 approaching
 Albury) that have been this way for a while, and aren't at issue here.
 ___
 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] NSW Transport Data Exchange (TDX)

[Ian Sergeant]

On 22 January 2013 23:17, Michael Gratton m...@vee.net wrote:


 While stop/station locations infrequently change, routes do seem to come
 and go more frequently. It wouldn't be too hard for someone to run a
 process on a server somewhere to keep tabs on changes in the feed and
 update the map as needed, but it seems like some coordination there
 would be a good thing.


It raises the age old question, if we can't edit it, why put it in OSM?  If
each set of data is intended to overwrite the last, what do we do when
people change it?

It would be nice to see the data integrated with OSM as another layer,
however from what Andrew was saying it is only a point to point graph, so
we can't get OSM style public transport routes from it, only stops.

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