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

[Michael Collinson]

On 28/09/2023 11:18, Andrew Davidson wrote:

On 28/9/23 08:21, cleary wrote:

Windorah Qld and Ivanhoe NSW are both currently shown as "town" in 
OSM but neither has more than rudimentary health service (if any), a 
hotel, small primary school and service station. I couldn't buy a 
coffee in either place last time I visited. 


That is the general problem, most people want to inflate the 
importance of a place so that it renders. Windorah has a population of 
76 and Ivanhoe 202. If it's lucky Ivanhoe might rate a village but 
Windorah is most firmly in the hamlet class.



Perhaps this apocryphal Ireland solution should be used? :-)

A house - building

A house and a church - hamlet

A house, a church and a pub - village

A house, a church and two pubs - town


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

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

[Michael Collinson]

On 28/09/2023 10:19, Warin wrote:


On 28/9/23 17:04, Michael Collinson wrote:


TL;DR: We need to get a systematic measure of population density into 
OSM to act as a guideline for mapping software to vary what goes at 
what zoom level.



Off topic:

On a global scale that does not work due to the population densities 
changing over the world. When adjusted for Europe to have a 'good map' 
then using the same software rules the map goes blank in various 
places like central Australia.


Yes, agreed, it has to be regional/local. That is thrust of the essay, 
so I'd reword the summary as:


TL;DR: We need to get systematic measures of regional/local population 
density into OSM to act as a guideline for mapping software to vary what 
goes at what zoom level.


That can be done in the existing db by attaching a tag to admin boundary 
relations. The drawback is that it needs to be done at at least a 
sub-state level to accommodate, say, Western Australia minus Perth 
economic envelope. I personally feel the long-term solution is to be 
able to define more arbitrary polygons as they can be used for many 
other metadata use cases.




My thinking is the map generating software should fill the map at a 
zoom with data until the map density reaches a certain level and then 
stop. This way the map would not be blank nor over crowed, but what is 
displayed adjusts to suit the data available. There could be limits on 
what detail could be displayed in both directions - minimum data and 
maximum data but what it uses is simply between the two limits and 
adjusted for data/map density ... Of course there is a lot more to 
this .. like the tiles being sized to suit the data density rather 
than an arbitrary lat/long size.
Yes, another good idea. Potentially practical at "big iron" level, such 
as commercial server solutions like Mapbox or the OSM server itself 
where you have processing power and memory.



___
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 towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Michael Collinson]

TL;DR: We need to get a systematic measure of population density into 
OSM to act as a guideline for mapping software to vary what goes at what 
zoom level. This can be done either by adding the appropriately 
calculated/derived density measure to admin boundary relations or, more 
radically, as part of a separate Metabase where more arbitrary polygons 
are allowed.


And now a bit of an essay:

For me, population size is the only meaningful indicator of relative 
importance as it is quantitative albeit fuzzy (to me it doesn't really 
matter whether it is for an admin area, urban envelope, metropolitan 
area, whatever - if anything more rigorous is desired, use specialist 
tagging).


But the rub is the word "relative". Relative to what? When I mapped 
Dalby, Queensland in 2006/2007 the ABS population was below 10,000 which 
in the then Brit-centric guidelines made it a village, which is 
ridiculous given the importance of the town within the area.


So, I think some sort agreed national level hierarchy of populated place 
is important in order to jive with cultural, legal, cultural and broad 
population density criteria. But to vary it locally or regionally is 
dangerous and I agree with cleary (if I am reading the quote levels right).


Graeme then says:

> ... but it would be good to do something that fixes the vast empty 
when you cross the Great Dividing Range.


Yes. I think this is a map presentation issue not a map data issue.  I 
have a series of Android hobby apps published for specific areas and the 
way I resolved it was to simply have a "low zoom" flag in some of them 
which tells the map style sheet to show farms, hamlets and villages at 
much lower zoom levels and with greater prominence at higher levels. 
place=locality can also be a good one to pick out as can landuse or even 
buildings. For Australia, specifically, my tip would be to 
systematically tag main farm building(s) as place=farm or derive it from 
named landuse=farmyard.


But that raises another question. Is there a generic way to generate a 
"low zoom" flag? There are at least two possible solutions.


The first is to use the existing OSM data structure. Calculate or derive 
(ABS??) population density for administrative areas and put it on 
boundary relations, national, state and "local". It is then up to the 
mapping software to see what is available and make zoom-level detailing 
decision based on it. This is doable but makes things hard for the small 
mapmaker like me to implement.


More democratic is to use a notion proposed by Sarah Houseman for 
geocoding and I believe has much wider implication and is an important 
step forward for OSM. I floated this at 2020 or 2021 SOTM.  This is to 
have a separate "metadata" database of polygons with, following OSM 
practice, whatever you like attached to them.


The point of the polygons is that you can attach rules and hints to 
them. They can follow legal jurisdiction boundaries or can be more 
general. As an example "All of Western Australia except the Perth 
metropolitan envelope".  Or, outside this discussion, "the area where 
 is the main spoken language". Here are the three main areas that I 
propose. (3) is relevant to this discussion.


(1) Rules. In the NSW polygon, bicycle=no where footpath=sidewalk except 
for children under 16. In the Australia polygon, driving is to the left.


(2) Default hints.  In the YYY polygon, surface=unpaved/paved where 
highway=primary and surface tag not defined.


(3) Hints. Population density. Main spoken language(s). How addresses 
are structured.  ... and anything else that could be useful for mapping, 
searching or routing in this area.


[Having such an open data, systematically structured database removes a 
danger that map making moves back into the realm of companies with deep 
pockets because only they have the resources to 1) collate the data, 2) 
be able utilise it on the fly when presenting maps, routing, searching 
based on OSM data.]


Mike



On 28/09/2023 04:04, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Thu, 28 Sept 2023 at 11:25, cleary  wrote:

All valid arguments, thanks.

If everything is exaggerated so that villages are described as
towns and towns as cities etc., then I think it just devalues the
whole database on which the map is based.


I certainly see where you're coming from, but it would be good to do 
something that fixes the vast empty when you cross the Great Dividing 
Range: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=7/-27.163/145.569


I'll be interested to read comments from other mappers.


So would I, but so far there's apparently not too many interested in it?

Thanks

Graeme






On Thu, 28 Sep 2023, at 9:08 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> Yes, it probably shouldn't be a one size fits all equation.
>
> Against what you said, Rathdowney in SEQ, with ~1800 people,
only has a
> cafe / takeaway / store with a few grocery items, pub, currently
closed

Re: [talk-ph] Proposal to move talk-ph to OSM Discourse

[Michael Collinson]

+1 from me. I am probably the list's biggest dinosaur - an old timer who 
just loves doing everything via email. But it looks as though I can 
still get my email (just PH-tagged??) and it is a chance to try 
something new.


Mike

On 2023-07-13 04:13, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:

Hello all,

How do people here think about deprecating the use of the talk-ph 
mailing list and start using PH-tagged threads in the OSM Discourse 
site? https://community.openstreetmap.org


To give some examples, here are threads tagged for the German 
community: https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/de/


And here are the threads tagged for the United States community: 
https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/us/


Supposedly, talk-ph is the "official" communications channel for the 
PH community but this mailing list barely has any posts in the past 
few years.


One advantage of OSM Discourse is that it's tied to OSM accounts and 
can still be accessed via email (so it won't alienate people who 
prefer email).


~Eugene



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



--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping tracks from Strava heatmap

[Michael Collinson]

I use Strava heatmaps only as a "referential" source, i.e. seeing 
potentially missing or badly misaligned paths and then taking a walk 
that way. In addition to other comments about using them directly, I'd 
also wonder whether Strava copyright allows it but have not explicitly 
analysed.


In Sweden, I have found them a great referential source, but then we 
have "all man's right" and off-path walking is not generally an issue so 
there are many useful informal paths.


Mike

On 2023-02-26 22:10, Adam Horan wrote:
My view is also that Strava heatmaps are insufficient on their own to 
prove a track. They do show that a reasonable number of people have 
passed along a particular route in recent times. They don't prove a 
path or track, and they give no indication of permissions.


However I did look for details of way 963735356 in the Strava heatmap, 
and there's very little in Strava in that area. It's possible the user 
did have the heatmap open in iD but didn't trace all the routes from 
there. Some might be 'local knowledge'.


I do make use of the strava heatmaps frequently to refine the route of 
known tracks, especially if there's lots of tree cover and you can't 
see the tracks too well in imagery.
10s or 100s of averaged GPS tracks is better than a single GPS track 
which you might record yourself.


Adam



On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 at 18:24, Tom Brennan  wrote:

Do people have a view on the armchair mapping of tracks from Strava
heatmaps?

I can see a bunch of tracks in Kanangra-Boyd NP that have been
mapped by
an overseas mapper off Strava heatmap.

They almost certainly don't exist on the ground. They are known
bushwalking routes (off track), but would be very unlikely to have a
track even in good times, let along after the fires and 3 years of
La Nina!

Example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/952248376

cheers
Tom

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

___
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-auBEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:4.0
EMAIL;PREF=1:m...@ayeltd.biz
EMAIL:mike.collin...@ticketebo.com.au
FN:Michael Collinson
N:Collinson;Michael;;;
TEL;TYPE=work;VALUE=TEXT:+61 491 086 207
TEL;TYPE=cell;VALUE=TEXT:+46 73 581 22 19
X-MOZILLA-HTML;VALUE=BOOLEAN:TRUE
UID:fd70790f-e54a-1b4d-a9e3-7ea6b0059431
END:VCARD
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Melbourne - Suburban Rail Loop - Too early to mark as under construction?

[Michael Collinson]

Being a grand cynic or at least just jaundiced,  'proposed' can be 
translated to "I'll be lucky to see this in my life time", so any actual 
work at all is a major, major change in significance so I'd go for 
'under construction' in at least Graeme's example. Utility works also 
have an impact on the visible landscape (visual navigation) and may 
affect formal/informal right of way, particular to foot traffic.


Mike

On 2022-11-01 23:07, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Similar question here on the GC with the latest stage of the Light Rail.

They've now started "utility works" - relocating power poles & 
conduits, sewer & water manholes, removing some trees etc.


When should the "proposed" line get updated to "under construction"? 
Now, or only when they actually start digging the roads up & laying track?


Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 at 07:43, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 8:37 PM Dian Ågesson  wrote:
> Just seeking views from others here: is this a bit premature?
Should only a section of the loop be marked as under construction,
or any parts of it at all?

Normally I would have said that construction would only apply to the
bits that were actually under construction. However, in this case it's
underground, so we won't be able to tell.

___
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] Use of "Proprietary" imagery to edit OSM

[Michael Collinson]

and note that Bing imagery is provided to us on the same basis - for use 
in OSM but not otherwise.


Mike

On 2022-10-27 00:08, Clifford Snow wrote:


On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 2:59 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:

Concerning this changeset:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128035436

Changeset comment:

added missing roads according to proprietary aerial imagery

Editing organization's follow on comment:
"Proprietary" for Lyft meaning "provided to us for use in OSM but
not the general public"

Is this acceptable?  In my mind it is not as the whole community
should have access in order to verify and build on these edits.

I look at it as if they were using local knowledge. For example, If I 
walk downtown and take pictures of business doors to capture address, 
name, and hours for use in updating OSM but don't upload those pics - 
I consider that acceptable.


For Lyft to make their imagery public they would have to insure that 
nothing private, such as faces, license plates, etc. I'm sure they 
don't want the added cost required make them public.


Clifford

--
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us 
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

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

Re: [talk-au] Cycle permissions by a user

[Michael Collinson]

I suggest a good consensus basically following the rest of the world 
would be:


1) If a path is clearly marked for use by bicycles then use 
bicycle=designated.  I.e.  "there ARE signs present to indicate bikes 
are expressily permitted".


2) If a path has no signage barring cycling and no clear law or bylaw 
preventing it, such as for unsigned sidewalks in most (all?) Australian 
states and it is practical to use by bicycle, then use bicycle=yes. In 
the real world we cannot expect every legal usage of everything to be 
explicitly signed, it does not make sense.


BTW, the way mentioned is a grass strip used mainly for pedestrian 
access. It was tagged by me and I use it regularly by bicycle when 
working in that area. There is no earthly reason for removing. I think 
the user is  basically mixing "yes" and "designated". I should also add 
that other types of edits by him are completely in order and I continue 
to welcome him in our OSM community.


Mike


On 2022-10-07 11:22, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Hi
I have been monitoring the edits by a user who still "changes shared 
paths to footpaths as no signs present to indicated bikes are 
permitted" in Victoria Australia.


Most of these changes are small ways where there are unlikely to be 
serious consequences, its not worth the petrol (or electricity in this 
case for my Nissan Leaf) to go out and inspect the way and I have said 
nothing.


I have commented on way 1008258040 in Changeset: 126886850 where 
bicycle=yes by the previous editor has been removed because there were 
"no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted"


There is good street level imagery. It is not a footpath in the 
sidewalk sense. It looks OK for bicycles to me. Sorry to bother but I 
request a clear community consensus again on whether "no signs present 
to indicated bikes are permitted" is of itself sufficient evidence 
that bicycles are disallowed.


Sorry to bother you all
Tony



___
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-se] Upplandsleden Hiking trail wiki page + relation are MIA

[Michael Collinson]

Not answering the question but a couple of other useful resources for 
folks looking for relations:


https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#routelist - show your broad are of 
interest on the map, then click "Routes" in bottom right.

http://ra.osmsurround.org/index

I use the second a lot when searching for bus routes, but seems to work 
here with:

Relation Name: Uppland
Route: hiking

Not sure how often these are updated but ra.osmsurround.org is often 
enough for my needs.


Mike



On 2022-08-31 08:25, John Bäckstrand wrote:
It just seems the page was split so that Upplandsleden is now on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sweden/Hiking_trails/National_trails. 
The relation it points to is

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/241043

Does this look correct?

/John Bäckstrand

On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 8:18 AM Christopher Barham  
wrote:


Hi!

A while ago I hiked and mapped bits of Upplandsleden, but it seems
the relation has disappeared along with mention of it on the
hiking page on the wiki.

Does anyone know what the reason for removal is? Can it be
recovered or repaired?

The official route:
https://www.upplandsstiftelsen.se/upplandsleden/etapper__168
OSM wiki hiking page (missing the entry now - no notes in the
history) : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sweden/Hiking_trails
OSM search for relation:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=Upplandsleden


Cheers,
Chas (OSM user Chas678)


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



--
John Bäckstrand

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

Re: [talk-au] Usage of Openstreetmap at EMSINA

[Michael Collinson]

Graeme,
You are one with Steve Coast on seeing that as a major focus.

Yes, use and of use.  Anecdotally, I have a peripheral connection with a 
small commercial app map/routing library and have hobby-business apps 
Android apps based on it. Yes, definitely of use particularly on longer 
roads ... which bit do I want to aim for? Either by visual indication or 
by searching then routing.


Mike

On 2022-08-26 04:15, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
One thing that I'd love feedback on if possible is street numbers, 
particularly for rural areas?


Does anybody use them & are they of any use?

Thanks

Graeme


On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 11:37, Alex Sims  wrote:

Hi,

I’m at the EMSINA (Emergency Management Spatial Information
Network Australia) PDP day as part of AFAC (Australasian Fire and
Emergency Service Authorities Council) 2022 Conference in Adelaide
and finding a few “OpenStreetMap used here”.

Feedback from participants I’ve spoken to:

  * The price is right, free!
  * Good coverage of health facilities

Uses of OpenStreetMap I’ve not noticed before, mainly background maps

  * Find a police station (SA Police)
https://www.police.sa.gov.au/about-us/find-your-local-police-station
(via ESRI)

And oddly an attribution where OpenStreetMap is credited but its
SA government mapping

  * Bus Stop location map
https://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/stops?id=16490

My own observation and I suppose the reason I’m here is there are
plenty of users of our mapping but not much feedback from users as
to what they want, which we are probably willing to map.

Alex

___
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] Cycle tags on motorways

[Michael Collinson]

Purely as a question: Is there a case for actually mapping the whole 
cycleway separately as a cycleway? As a cyclist, I like to see what I 
have in store. Argument for: Well, that is what it is, a dual use 
cycleway and hard shoulder. And I guess main argument against: Ah, but 
it is not physically separated and, slightly repurposing Andrew's 
comment, "you are mapping paint".


On 2022-08-18 08:48, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 13:17, Andrew Harvey  
wrote:



We should explicitly tag every motorway with bicycle=yes/no
because some motorways allow bicycles and others forbid them.


& then you get situations like this:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-28.535651543577=153.53896264714=17=1164980277280563=photo=0.3457481526763355=0.5159430950498471=2.6582278481012658 



then 100m further:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-28.536232873317=153.53874804183=17=387825812412523=photo=0.4645538612648733=0.5690565818776447=1.5949367088607593 



which is tagged as: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/666546115

Yes, it works, I guess, but to my mind it looks ridiculous, & also 
errors in Osmose etc as an unconnected cycleway!


 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] Industrial area or not?

[Michael Collinson]

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


Mike

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



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



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


Thanks

Graeme

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

Re: [talk-au] Queensland railway stations

[Michael Collinson]

On 2022-04-18 13:08, Andrew Davidson wrote:

On 9/4/22 10:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Thanks Richard, we'll check them out.

Thanks

Graeme



Well that proved to be a very tedious job. After reviewing hundreds of 
these about 240 of them have been converted to "no longer a station". 
Which leaves about 300 active stations in QLD.


It seems that a guy in the UK has made it their life's work to list 
every railway stop that ever existed...and another's to add them to OSM.


This is what guys in the UK do!  Thanks for sorting it out.  /Mike 
(speaking as a Brit)BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:4.0
EMAIL;PREF=1:m...@ayeltd.biz
EMAIL:mike.collin...@ticketebo.com.au
FN:Michael Collinson
N:Collinson;Michael;;;
TEL;TYPE=work;VALUE=TEXT:+61 491 086 207
TEL;TYPE=cell;VALUE=TEXT:+46 73 581 22 19
X-MOZILLA-HTML;VALUE=BOOLEAN:TRUE
UID:fd70790f-e54a-1b4d-a9e3-7ea6b0059431
END:VCARD
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Funding for OpenStreetMap initiatives

[Michael Collinson]

On 2022-04-18 10:51, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 at 03:23, Edoardo Neerhut  wrote:

OpenStreetMap merch could be a good thing to fund yeah. Would
business cards be helpful for people? Personally I have never had
much trouble, although contributing to Mapillary has prompted the
odd question here or there.

From practical experience, no. I certainly thought business cards were 
a great idea and had them when more active as OSMF board member and 
working group member, carried them assiduously ... and probably gave 
away about 3 outside SOTM and only one in a field mapping situation.  
Stickers with the OSM website printed would probably substitute - it 
backs up your story and gives folks something to look up if they are 
inclined.


Mike
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:4.0
EMAIL;PREF=1:m...@ayeltd.biz
EMAIL:mike.collin...@ticketebo.com.au
FN:Michael Collinson
N:Collinson;Michael;;;
TEL;TYPE=work;VALUE=TEXT:+61 491 086 207
TEL;TYPE=cell;VALUE=TEXT:+46 73 581 22 19
X-MOZILLA-HTML;VALUE=BOOLEAN:TRUE
UID:fd70790f-e54a-1b4d-a9e3-7ea6b0059431
END:VCARD
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] HighRouleur edits

[Michael Collinson]

As the original mapper of the cycleway in changeset 11862794 and having 
viewed Tony's photos [1] to refresh my memory, I concur with Tony's 
proposal that the way should be split in two. The western part being a 
parkland cycleway and therefore satisfying routing. But the eastern 
part, the "cycleway" - perhaps better described as "cycle route" - 
follows the St. Andrews Court residential motor road not the narrow 
asphalt path that winds around trees, that should be an ordinary 
footway=sidewalk as editted by Sebastian. My general observation is that 
there should be a balance between rigorously only mapping what is 120% 
properly signed cycleway, (this is sadly not true in many parts of the 
world and particularly not true in suburban Melbourne), and having a map 
that can route cyclists along safe routes that are used on a practical 
basis (may or may not be clearly de jure) everyday.


I thank both Sebastian and Tony for the effort put in collaboratively 
improving the map. I'm currently on my annual 4 month Melbourne stint - 
living this time in Seaford this time and cycle commuting daily through 
to Cheltenham.  If either of you are in that area and want to meet up 
for a social coffee, I'd be delighted. Email me privately. Sadly, only 
two more weeks to go this time but will be back in Nov.


Mike

[1] 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/tonyf1?lat=-37.962247513974=145.01882162969002=18.085357379143982=158986949844367=photo 



On 2022-03-27 19:33, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Hi Sebastian and list,

2) are cycle routes cycleways or footways, specifically Changeset: 
118627943


I have provided a link to my photos and labeled the main ones at 
Changeset: 118627943


I believe that way 671174716 should be split in 2, the eastern part 
appears to be the footpath, there is only one side with a footpath, 
the bicycle route is intended for the road, St Andrews Ct, not the 
footpath


The west section through the parkland is a cycleway, photos 22 and 23 
show a bicycle route with green circle below. Its unclear what used to 
be in the circle before it faded.


Photo 21 end of McKay shows no signage. I looked.

18 and 19 are a bit confusing, they show a route coming out of Tricks 
Reserve


18 partly obscured shows a route east along McKay
51 shows this sign more clearly

Tony



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-auBEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:4.0
EMAIL;PREF=1:m...@ayeltd.biz
EMAIL:mike.collin...@ticketebo.com.au
FN:Michael Collinson
N:Collinson;Michael;;;
TEL;TYPE=work;VALUE=TEXT:+61 491 086 207
TEL;TYPE=cell;VALUE=TEXT:+46 73 581 22 19
X-MOZILLA-HTML;VALUE=BOOLEAN:TRUE
UID:fd70790f-e54a-1b4d-a9e3-7ea6b0059431
END:VCARD
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Any ID-edtor savvy mapper who could help with a Young Engineers Australia mapathon?

[Michael Collinson]

Hi all,

Is there anyone who could help me co-host a Young Engineers Australia 
mapathon in the March-ish time-frame? I happy to do most of the talking 
about OpenStreetMap and HOT but I am most definitely not ID-editor 
savvy. The basic task would be to run through using ID for a specific 
to-be-selected HOT task, for example mapping building outlines, and then 
being on hand to answer any newbie questions. This will be video online 
only.  The plan is to do a familiarisation dry-run with select committee 
members first and then do the real thing - so a chance to practise if 
you have not done this before. If you are diffident about doing the 
initial demo, I could handle that with your help.


Background:

The global engineering firm WSP have had an annual mapathon for a number 
of years and I've helped out with the onsite Melbourne office 
participation. It has been fun and introduced a number of folks to 
OpenStreetMap contributing.


This year they need to be online only and the Melbourne office felt it 
would have more social impact if they initiated a broader Young 
Engineers Australia event.


Do email me publicly or privately if you can help!


Mike


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

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

[Michael Collinson]

Seems to have it in for Perth cyclists:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116655265#map=12/-32.0362/115.8349

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117224600

Not from Perth so can't judge correctness but it doesn't look right.


On 2022-02-10 18:13, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:


Probably

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/aaronsta


 Who is Aaronsta?







Is it anyone participating in this mailing list?



Have any of these changes been discussed somewhere?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Tagging_Guidelines 
 
=revision=2262794=2250661 (ignore the street cabinet 
stuff at the bottom, that’s from someone else)




Cheers,

Thorsten



From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Sent: Thursday, 10 February 2022 08:41
To: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging  
Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta













On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 at 22:35, OpenStreetMap Wiki 
 > wrote:



The OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been
changed on 9 February 2022 by Aaronsta, see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines for
the current revision.

Editor's summary: Fix undiscussed changes



Sorry but that's a bit ironic, or did I miss the discussion about  
these changes?




One I noticed is that you've taken it upon yourself to include:

"Cycling is not permitted on footpaths in NSW, QLD, or Vic."



Would you like to share this with Qld Transport?

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/wheeled-devices/bicycle


Riding on a footpath or shared path


On footpaths and shared paths, you share the space with pedestrians.

You must:

*    keep left and give way to all pedestrians
*    always ride to the left of bicycle riders coming toward you.

Looks like we may need a major reversion done here?



Thanks



Graeme










___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-auBEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:4.0
EMAIL;PREF=1:m...@ayeltd.biz
EMAIL:mike.collin...@ticketebo.com.au
FN:Michael Collinson
N:Collinson;Michael;;;
TEL;TYPE=work;VALUE=TEXT:+61 491 086 207
TEL;TYPE=cell;VALUE=TEXT:+46 73 581 22 19
X-MOZILLA-HTML;VALUE=BOOLEAN:TRUE
UID:fd70790f-e54a-1b4d-a9e3-7ea6b0059431
END:VCARD
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] "Bad" directions on Outback roads

[Michael Collinson]

We have a reasonable if not perfect tagging system for a router to 
assess (and make assumptions) about the quality of a road for various 
types of vehicle in BEST CASE  conditions. motorway versus track, 
tracktype, asphalt versus gravel being the main ones.


From a router point of view it would be nice to dynamically place 
routing penalties on roads or stretches of road according to 
temperature, snow, rain, side wind (and ?). Simplistically, input "snow" 
and pick up from OSM tags advising "often impassable in snow" or "snow 
chains advised in winter" and then the router can decide how much 
penalty to apply given projected conditions and vehicle type.


Sounds reasonably simple to devise and implement. I've played mentally 
with the same idea for suggesting footpath routes that vary depending on 
the weather.


More esoterically and more real time would be a community project to 
develop an open overlay database of transient data where the public 
and/or authorities can label osm ways with advisories quantitative 
enough for routers to again assess a routing penalty. The obvious 
starting point would be a simply "closed".



Mike

On 9/2/22 1:17 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Reading this article earlier:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-08/google-maps-to-fix-routes-trapped-travellers-queensland/100805884

So what's the best way to avoid the same issues?

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] Tagging a house name

[Michael Collinson]

> If I go to Officeworks and get a sign printed with the name "Bob" and 
put it on my letterbox, does that become the name of my house?


An interesting question which begs another question, what is an address? 
(warning: a bit of a philosophical ramble on a Friday night).


My global analysis so far suggests that there are basically three: 
POSTAL (so the postal service is usually involved), CADESTRAL (the 
building plot as defined by the local government and/or land 
registration body) and "HABITUAL" which is actually very powerful: if 
your Officeworks sign remains for long enough, the postman will find it 
even if not formally sanctioned by the postal service. Interestingly, in 
Ireland a "descriptive" address "The blue house called Bob, on the other 
side of the stream in the village of Inverkeith" is also formally 
acceptable - this is rare globally though.


Following a similar thread in the UK, it is evident that we don't have a 
clear definition in OSM for the addr: namespace and that makes things 
like tagging a house name a matter of debate and localisation. In Sweden 
where I usually live, properties have two completely different 
addresses: a formal postal address (always just road, house number, 
formal postal area (i.e. a city/town/village), post code) and a title 
deed "cadestral" address (unique block name, block number, block number 
subdivision number) which is used by the local council and the tax 
office. We use the postal format in the addr: namespace and again there 
is recent debate on whether addr:name is relevant.


From that perspective it looks like Australia is similar with the 
postal service and your local council being separate authorative sources 
but, unlike Sweden, they use overlapping nomenclature. The following is 
not a primary source so I would be more than curious to know if anyone 
has a more formal answer:


https://www.houzz.com.au/magazine/how-to-name-your-house-stsetivw-vs~50717452

*"Make it legal*
You can call your home any name you want, but if you want to register it 
as its official address, contact your local council and postal service. 
They will ascertain if the name is already taken in the area or if there 
are restrictions on removing an existing name. They’ll even disallow 
rude names! You’ll still require a street or road number attached to 
your address, though."


Mike

On 2022-02-04 19:48, Dian Ågesson wrote:


Genuine question:

If I go to Officeworks and get a sign printed with the name "Bob" and 
put it on my letterbox, does that become the name of my house?



On 2022-02-04 06:31, Warin wrote:



On 4/2/22 17:25, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

I've always listed the name of units & so on just as name=*.



+1

No longer used as the address, used 2 centuries ago.



Thanks
Graeme

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 at 16:14, Mat Attlee > wrote:


Whilst I was out surveying today I stumbled upon a building that
had a street number but also a house name, as just above the
entrance and door number it said Rivenhall. Now the question is
should this be tagged as the name or addr:housename? I know the
latter is common in the UK though I couldn't find anything about
best practice in Australia.



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


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-auBEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:4.0
EMAIL;PREF=1:m...@ayeltd.biz
EMAIL:mike.collin...@ticketebo.com.au
FN:Michael Collinson
N:Collinson;Michael;;;
TEL;TYPE=work;VALUE=TEXT:+61 491 086 207
TEL;TYPE=cell;VALUE=TEXT:+46 73 581 22 19
X-MOZILLA-HTML;VALUE=BOOLEAN:TRUE
UID:fd70790f-e54a-1b4d-a9e3-7ea6b0059431
END:VCARD
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Sydney bus stops

[Michael Collinson]

local_ref has been used it at least the UK and Sweden to tag the stand 
number. It doesn't (yet) render on the OSM map main layer but does on 
the transport layers.    /Mike



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

Swedish example:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/59.39035/18.04367

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/59.39035/18.04299=T

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/59.39035/18.04299=O



On 2/2/22 2:24 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1128912626 is an okay example, with 
ref being the Stop ID, and name being the stop name with the stand 
number appended to the end.


So in your case,

ref=20
name=Kings Cross Station Darlinghurst Rd, Stand A

I don't think this is perfect but probably the best compromise 
currently. We could consider something like ref:stand=A.


On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 11:49, Mat Attlee  wrote:

What is the convention for tagging Sydney bus stops? I stumbled
upon one but not sure how to tag the stop number and the stand
letter so put those details in the note field

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9465614221
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


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

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

[Michael Collinson]

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


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


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


Mike

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




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


Check out Nominatim,

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


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


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


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

Thanks

Graeme

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

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

[Michael Collinson]

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


Tom says:

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

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

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

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


The list processor sorts out bounces.

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


Hi Michael,

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


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

Alex

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

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


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

HI Graeme,

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

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

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

Alex

*From: *Graeme Fitzpatrick 
<mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>
*Date: *Monday, 31 January 2022 at 9:20 am
*To: *OSM-Au 
<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
*Subject: *[talk-au] Strange e-mail address?

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

Says that message was sent to

OSM-Au  & OSM-Au
, but
public.gmane.org <http://public.gmane.org> couldn't be found.

The response was:

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

Does this mean anything at all to anybody?

Thanks

Graeme



___

Talk-au mailing list

Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

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


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

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

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

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

[Michael Collinson]

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


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


HI Graeme,

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


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


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

Alex

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

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


Says that message was sent to

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


The response was:

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


Does this mean anything at all to anybody?

Thanks

Graeme


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

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

[Michael Collinson]

Ian,

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


The categories I've played with conceptually are:

- I could take my very elderly mother

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


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


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


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


- Bring it on


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


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

Mike

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


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


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


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


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


Ian


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-auBEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:4.0
EMAIL;PREF=1:m...@ayeltd.biz
EMAIL:mike.collin...@ticketebo.com.au
FN:Michael Collinson
N:Collinson;Michael;;;
TEL;TYPE=work;VALUE=TEXT:+61 491 086 207
TEL;TYPE=cell;VALUE=TEXT:+46 73 581 22 19
X-MOZILLA-HTML;VALUE=BOOLEAN:TRUE
UID:fd70790f-e54a-1b4d-a9e3-7ea6b0059431
END:VCARD
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] The ACT Place Names Advisory Committee has a sense of humour

[Michael Collinson]

Phew, Coombs must have been a ruthless place previously.



... Sorry. Mike

On 2021-11-30 20:27, Andrew Davidson wrote:
So we have a new park in Coombs that needs a name. A name based on the 
suburb's theme of notable public service:


https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/View/di/2021-260/current/html/2021-260.html 



___
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] Suburbs: Nodes, Areas, or both?

[Michael Collinson]

Hi Dian,

I have an interested in mapping what I call, for want of better 
terminology, fuzzy names or sense-of-place and comment in that specific 
regard.


In summary: if the suburb has a defined boundary, use an area, if it 
doesn't use a node. I would certainly NOT however use both to represent 
the same suburb. From experience with Russian cities, that makes if very 
difficult to make maps without pre-processing OSM data to remove 
duplicates. For things like airports and islands where this often 
happens accidentality due to the evolution of the map or simple 
misunderstanding, I can and do remove the node and merge any extra info 
onto the area.


I would comment that from my understanding, Australian suburbs are 
somewhat unusual in often having defined admin/postal boundaries. A more 
common situation is a "sense of place" that can really only be mapped 
with a node. As an example, my UK home town has an area mapped as a 
suburb called the Weston Estate. In the 1930s(!) it was a defined new 
housing development. Everyone know where it is, north of the river and 
to the west of the road out of the valley. But does it include later 
development? Does it include the older houses and a couple of farms? 
Hard to say and who you talk to gets a slightly different answer. So 
dangerous to map an area because then the map is making the landscape. 
Perhaps this is the case with Gruyere? (I genuinely don't know).


If anyone has an interest in sense-of-place mapping, I've experimented 
with is_in:* tags to map physiological regions, often historic but still 
relevant or loosely geographic. The idea being to end up with a point 
cloud that can then be processed according to need.  I find that if you 
ask someone who lives there, "Are in X?", they can give a straight and 
usually consistent yes/no answer. But if you ask "And where does it 
end?", you'll get either a very vague answer or a look of panic. But I 
am wandering off topic, so will leave it there.


Mike

On 2021-11-05 04:15, Dian Ågesson wrote:


Hey all,

I would appreciate the thoughts of the community with regards to 
suburb representations.


In a recent change set 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113355648) a node was 
introduced for Gruyere. Gruyere is on the urban boundary, but is 
technically in Metropolitan Melbourne. As such, it straddles the 
border between what could be considered a bona fide suburb, and an 
independent town.


Mick has correctly pointed out that many of the other localities in 
the area are represented by both an area and a node.


Is this the way all suburbs should be represented? Or is it an 
urban/rural distinction?



Dian


___
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] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Michael Collinson]

A bit late to the party on this one. But a couple of observations follow 
up Graeme's 2012-10-03 point about the myriad of "You can ride on a 
footpath if" exceptions and how to deal with them.


1) I suggest rigorously using and making synonymous footway=sidewalk [1] 
with what are clearly and unambivalently "road-related" areas in VIC [2] 
and NSW, i.e. generally urban footways that clearly (mostly) parallel a 
vehicular road with/without a nature strip and don't have any cycle 
signage. That throws the problem of exceptions on to router software, 
which I think is the right approach.


Perhaps emphasise this relationship in:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Urban_Footpaths_and_Cycleways

2) However, this does create an un-level router playing field favouring 
the big boys. Sarah Hoffman raised the general issue at SOTM in her talk:


2021: Boundaries, Places and the Future of Tagging
Sarah Hoffman (keeper of Nominatum)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAzljx1ewZ0=PLQNy8KsDknCoq3AkVd5Nlgtwp1fnAWOcn=16

While she is talking about geocoding and all its local variations, her 
general point is that there is a layer of cultural and regulatory 
metadata which is missing from OpenStreetMap. This allows larger 
corporations to provide this and potentially "take over" OpenStreetMap 
by simply being able to offer a much better use-experience than the rest 
of us can by refining their software to take into account local needs. I 
am currently tasked along with Andy Allan of look at take over risks to 
the OpenStreetMap Foundation and will be adding this.


What I personally think we need is a completely separate open data-set 
that sets out to capture all this information basically on the premise 
"If you are in this polygon, then these rules apply" for language, 
access, addressing, whatever. It currently remains an I'd like to do 
this if I had time project, but if anyone is interested in working with 
me on it, let me know.


Mike

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dsidewalk


[2] Matthew Seale 2021-10-03:
"

The full version of the Victorian Road rules can be found here (or via 
the link from the VicRoads website)


https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/statutory-rules/road-safety-road-rules-2017/014H 



As noted in an earlier comment on this forum the Vic road rules apply in 
roads and road related areas – see rules 11-13.  Footpaths and nature 
strips adjacent to roads are considered a road related areas and are 
 subject to the footpath cycling restrictions in those areas.


However there does not appear to be any provision in the Victorian Road 
Rules that I can find to extend Victorian road rules to all unmarked 
(I.e. the vast majority) off-road and unsealed paths in Victoria away 
from roads. "




On 2021-10-03 07:08, Thorsten Engler via Talk-au wrote:


Ah, I now see there are subtle differences in the definition of “road 
related area” in Victoria and NSW…


While the NSW rules, as written, expand the definition of “road 
related area” to any public space which has as it’s primary purpose 
use by pedestrians, the Victoria rules do not seem to do that.


Though the Victoria version of the road rules includes this:

a place that is a road by virtue of a declaration under section 
3(2)(a) of the Road Safety Act 1986


and if you follow that rabbit hole all the way down, you get to:

(2) The Governor in Council may by Order published in the Government 
Gazette-


  (a) declare any place or class of places, whether open to vehicles 
or not, to be or not to be a road or roads or a road related area or 
road related areas for the purposes of this Act;


Which means that to actually figure out what is a road or road related 
area in Victoria, someone will have to do an exhaustive search of the 
Government Gazette.


*From:*Matthew Seale 
*Sent:* Sunday, 3 October 2021 14:18
*To:* Sebastian Azagra ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org
*Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

The full version of the Victorian Road rules can be found here (or via 
the link from the VicRoads website)


https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/statutory-rules/road-safety-road-rules-2017/014H 



As noted in an earlier comment on this forum the Vic road rules apply 
in roads and road related areas – see rules 11-13.  Footpaths and 
nature strips adjacent to roads are considered a road related areas 
and are  subject to the footpath cycling restrictions in those areas.


However there does not appear to be any provision in the Victorian 
Road Rules that I can find to extend Victorian road rules to all 
unmarked (I.e. the vast majority) off-road and unsealed paths in 
Victoria away from roads.



___
Talk-au mailing list

Re: [talk-au] Mapping tree cover

[Michael Collinson]

Picking just Adam's question about mapping after a fire. [I also very 
much support the idea that OSM ways should ideally have only one primary 
tag and so agree that natural and boundary does not go together.]


I went through a similar self-dialogue where I am now in Sweden as to 
what to with clear-cut areas. My conclusion was just ignore them and 
still map as wood/forest. I think the same applies here.


It remains woodland, just in a special state. And it opens a two cans of 
worms: When does it stop? (Natural regeneration, replanting). Highly 
impractical given the wildly different dates on imagery commonly 
available to us.


That said, cutting and fires have a huge impact on navigation markers, 
aesthetic enjoyment of the countryside and more so it would be "nice" to 
see some sort of mapping.  I follow an OSM doctrine of the "the more, 
the merrier" and see nothing wrong with experimenting by adding separate 
polygons of burnt areas. Adding a burn year would throw the question of 
"when does it stop being burnt?"  from the data to the renderer. Of 
course, the counter argument is that it won't show on maps. But I remain 
hopeful that we will see a federation of national level OSM maps 
rendered to suit local tastes and requirements. Just musing.


Mike

On 2021-10-08 04:28, EON4wd wrote:


Another part of the question is how many trees before it can be 
classified as such?


I have been to the Grampians within the last 12 months and I did not 
find any scorched area left. All trees had growth.


If I look at the satellite picture from the OSM id editor, large areas 
look burnt. Look around Lake Wartook. All this area is definitely not 
burnt now and I think should classify as covered in trees. Other 
satellite images show this area better.


I would agree that ‘natural’ areas should be separated from ‘boundary’ 
layers.


*From:*Adam Horan 
*Sent:* Friday, 8 October 2021 12:59 PM
*To:* EON4wd 
*Cc:* OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
*Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Mapping tree cover

There is another aspect to your question, which is how to map 
woods/trees after a fire?


You're right it looks like someone has mapped the wooded areas as a 
relation with holes for non-wooded areas


https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9300964/history 



Some of the current gaps might be due to recent fires, and I don't 
know if they should be mapped as something else. Depending on the fire 
severity then it's possible the woodland will regrow quickly, slowly, 
or not for a long time. I assume there's some precedent & 
convention based on the large fires in the east a couple of years back.


Adam

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:33, Adam Horan > wrote:


I think you're asking the same question as Andrew, but you
possibly have different viewpoints or opinions on it.

I see the map as a painting that's becoming more detailed and
accurate as time progresses. In the beginning the map was blank,
and people added large areas of landcover just to get something
down. Mappers took conveniences like marking a national park as
all desert or all trees.

However now that all the basics have been done mappers are adding
more detailed, accurate information and using more
sophisticated tagging schemes.

I think it's entirely right that we map what's on the ground. If
there's a 20m gap in the trees for a road, or significant fire
break, or there's been clearing, then people should map that in
detail if they have time and inclination.

Also the trees tend not to respect administrative boundaries, it's
almost like they don't know they're there... Tree cover extends
beyond the National Parks in a continuous run, and similarly there
are clearings, lakes, meadows, moorlands within the parks.

However the first step in mapping this detail is to remove the
blanket landcover from the admin boundary.

Adam

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 09:22, EON4wd mailto:i...@eon4wd.com.au>> wrote:

Hi,

Further to Andrew Parkers question about forested areas.

I am also a casual user for uploading data and I also create
my own maps from the data.

My interest is in 4wd tracks.

The Grampians has had the ‘landcover – tree’ ‘areas’ changed
which in my opinion is now not correct.

See

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=16/-37.1268/142.3867


The Grampians is a National park and is covered in trees.

There are a number of rocks and rocky outcrops (lots actually)
and a few lakes and roads plus some swamp and rock quarries,
but generally speaking it is completely covered in trees,
everywhere, including the rocky outcrops.

I suspect that some well meaning person has mapped what they
could see via a satellite image 

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

[Michael Collinson]

Just a thought and I hope not too imperialist sounding:  in UK England 
and Wales law, a distinction evolved between a "footway" and a 
"footpath", just possibly pre-1900 (unclear):


https://pedestrianliberation.org/the-law-2/
"'footway' is the modern legal term for ‘that part of the highway set 
aside for pedestrians’, commonly referred to as the pavement, and 
‘footpath’ is the modern legal term for other pedestrian thoroughfares"


I wonder if the same distinction made its way into Victorian state law??

Mike



On 2021-09-19 13:39, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
In regards to your changeset comment: "I doubt that means that all  
paths are footpaths unless otherwise signed."

Generally speaking, yes, they are. In the absence of one of these signs


Hi all
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s250.html 


ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 250
says "Footpath is defined in the dictionary" but it doesn't say which 
dictionary.


Apparently the word "footpath" is used differently in different 
countries. In Australia it means a US "sidewalk".
"A sidewalk (North American English), pavement (British English), 
footpath (Oceanian English), or footway, is a path along the side of a 
road."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidewalk

This is what my understanding of the footpath rule is in Victoria 
Australia, don't ride on the path that runs between the property line 
and the kerb.


That's not we are talking about here
ways 157071087 and 304507133 intersection
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.92361389015=145.329104=17=941113219764485=photo 



So I disagree with the suggestion that all paths are, for legal 
purposes, footpaths unless otherwise signed.


Tony



___
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] highway=service

[Michael Collinson]

I've added my comments below Andrew's. Hope that is not too messy. /Mike

On 2021-08-14 03:59, Andrew Harvey wrote:



On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 at 09:12, Tom Brennan > wrote:


Like my previous post on sidewalks, this one is also from walking and
cycling all of the streets of my LGA (Willoughby). The other area
where
tagging seems to me to be a bit messy is:

highway=service

This messiness may be more of a general OSM issue than
specifically an
Australian one!

Where possible I've been trying to add a service=? tag to define
these
better, in line with the relevant pages on the wiki. In my area, the
majority of these seem to be:

1. laneways between houses -> service=alley
For me these are part of the official road network, but in Willoughby
they are normally narrow, and lead to/past people's garages. This one
seems relatively clear cut - and also appears to be the only
service tag
that does relate to the official road network(?)


Yeah I'd agree, but these are part of the public road network, they 
are just lesser importance roads because they are mostly for access to 
the rear of houses.
+1.  And in the US and northern UK may be poorly maintained, cobbled, 
temporarily obstructed etc, a good flag to routers.



2. driveways (private property) -> service=driveway + access=private
This seems pretty clear cut in residential areas. It also seems
fairly
clear for small business/industrial property that are for
employees/business vehicles only.

Where it gets a bit confusing is if the driveway is to something
else.
For example, in the Willoughby area, there are many industrial
complexes
which have "driveways". But if it leads to parking
(amenity=parking?),
is it still a driveway, or is it just highway=service without
service=*.
The access=* issues also interplays with this - because in larger
industrial complexes there may be a mix of access=private and
access=customers.


Can you post examples? In my opinion, a good rule of thumb for 
driveway is where you need to turn off the road and cross the 
footpath. I realise it's not always clear though.
Technically only the section inside the front fence is private, the 
section between the footpath and road is public but I've never mapped 
to this level of detail.


Personally, I ONLY use driveway for residential driveways. I feel using 
it for anything else is confusing and adds no value - despite what Map 
Features says. Like Andrew, I rarely split the sections into private and 
public sections but it IS useful for foot and wheelchair routing.



3. parking areas
This one can also be a bit confusing - following the wiki, some of
these
end up being service=parking_aisle, but others are without
service=* eg:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-33.80928/151.20897

I imagine you can do in theory do an area query to establish
highway=service within amenity=parking, but this does seem clunky!
And not that we should be mapping for the renderer, but the rendering
also seems inconsistent:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-33.80939/151.20923



If you can turn from the way directly into a parking spot, then it 
should be parking aisle, so that one I think should be parking aisle.


Slightly different view here. I find that most car parks have "arterial" 
ways for ingress/exit, navigation within larger parks, and sometimes 
very local through "destination" traffic; obvious from design or width. 
I don't put a parking_aisle on these. I think leads to better map 
presentation and routing. In Melbourne, I find that many car park 
service roads double up as useful bicycle connectors.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping driveways under awnings.

[Michael Collinson]

Simon,

Without knowing the nature of the challenge, I assume the apparent 
anomaly is a road apparently bulldozing through a building.


Me, I'd either leave it as it is or to be squeaky clean (if I know from 
on-the-ground) I'd map the two sticky out bits as building=roof. I don't 
know if there is any consensus on whether a simple canvas awning counts 
as a "roof" or a temporary accoutrement not worthy of mapping at all - 
others may comment.


This could also be an opportunity to introduce simple 3d buildings. Here 
leave the building as is but within it draw 3 building part areas:  
building:part=roof, building:part=roof,  building:part=yes


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:part
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_Buildings

Here is what Swan Hill currently looks like: 
https://demo.f4map.com/#lat=-35.3427895=143.5619395=18


Mike


On 2021-08-11 08:23, Simon Slater wrote:

G'day all,
From a Maproulette challenge ( https://maproulette.org/browse/
challenges/19168 ) which had a couple of things in our area marked as VIC -
BuildingRoadIntersectionCheck , one of which is a KFC drive-through with
awnings, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-35.34316/143.56033

Is this something to leave as-is, or should a change be made to either the way
or building or both?  If a change is needed, what type?



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

Re: [talk-au] highway=track update

[Michael Collinson]

I don't map much in the US but do in Australia and Sweden. In both 
countries, I have rarely come across what I consider to be gravel roads, 
instead consider most unpaved roads and tracks to be 'dirt' or 'compacted':


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:surface%3Dcompacted

Apropos the current discussion, I wonder what other mappers think? 
Especially if you have any road engineering background in Australia. I'd 
like to fall in with a consensus.


Background: I mostly look at tracks/roads as a cyclist. If my tyre is 
mostly resting on small stones of various sizes, then it is gravel and 
riding is generally tough with tendency to skitter. If my tyre is 
resting mostly on (often rollered) dirt with usually embedded very small 
stones  for cohesion and traction, then I am on a compacted surface and 
riding is much easier. Here in Sweden, almost all unpaved public and 
residential roads are the latter as are many logging and farm tracks. A 
half-decent compacted surface can often be car driven at 70 kmph, not 
something I'd fancy on a gravel road.


I could have sworn there was a good Wikipedia page on compacted road 
surfaces but I cannot find it now or anything similar, perhaps called 
something else. It is a deliberate technique that goes back to Roman 
times, (perhaps there are some in Waga Waga :-) ).


Mike

On 2021-02-23 07:22, Josh Marshall wrote:


The approved OSM tag for surface=gravel
 refers to
railway ballast, not the fine crushed rock or natural surface that
usually occurs on unpaved roads in Australia. However we call the
fine unpaved surface "gravel" in common parlance, and many unpaved
roads that don't constitute gravel as described in the OSM wiki
have been tagged as gravel here, erroneously depending on your
point of view.


This is a matter of interest to me too. I spend a substantial amount 
of time running+riding on fire trails in NSW (all highway=track), and 
the surface type is useful and indeed used in a number of the route 
planners I use. I have changed a few roads back to 'unpaved' from 
'gravel' due to the rule of following the description in the surface= 
guidelines rather than the name.


My question then however, is exactly what to tag the tracks beyond 
"unpaved".


There are definitely sections that are somewhat regularly graded and 
appear to have extra aggregate/fine gravel added. From the surface= 
wiki, these most closely align with surface=compacted. But fine_gravel 
is potentially an option too. Many of these are 2wd accessible when it 
is dry. (Typically smoothness=bad.)


There are also others, usually less travelled, which are bare rock, 
clay, dirt, sand, whatever was there. Is it best just to leave these 
as surface=unpaved, and add a smoothness=very_bad or horrible tag? 
None of the surface= tags really seem to apply.



On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 at 16:45, Little Maps > wrote:


Hi Brian and co, in Victoria and southern NSW where I've edited a
lot of roads, highway=track is nearly totally confined to dirt
roads in forested areas, as described in the Aus tagging
guidelines, viz: " highway=track Gravel fire trails, forest
drives, 4WD trails and similar roads. Gravel roads connecting
towns etc. should be tagged as appropriate (secondary, tertiary or
unclassified), along with the surface=unpaved or more specific
surface=* tag."

In your US-chat someone wrote, "...in the USA, "most" roads that
"most" people encounter (around here, in my experience, YMMV...)
are surface=paved. Gravel or dirt roads are certainly found, but
they are less and less common." By contrast, in regional
Australia, most small roads are unpaved/dirt/gravel.

In SE Australia, public roads in agricultural areas that are
unpaved/dirt/gravel/etc are usually tagged as highway=unclassified
(or tertiary etc), not highway=track. There are some exceptions in
some small regions (for example in the Rutherglen area in NE
Victoria) where really poor, rough 'double track' tracks on public
road easements have systematically been tagged with highway=track
rather than highway=unclassified. See here for example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-36.1424/146.3683
.
However, this is not the norm in SE Australia and across the
border in southern NSW, this type of road is nearly always tagged
as unclassified, as it is elsewhere in Victoria. In SE Australia,
my experience is that tracks are tagged in the more traditional
way, and not as has been done in the USA.

If I could ask you a related question, what do you US mappers call
"gravel"? The approved OSM tag for surface=gravel
 refers to
railway ballast, not the fine crushed rock or natural surface that
usually occurs on 

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

[Michael Collinson]

FYI, here's the schema I personally use in Sweden, where heavy use is 
made of ramped staircases, though not thankfully on major cycle routes. 
My objective is to allow routers to intelligently route for both 
sport/club/large group riding and happy meandering or commute:


bicycle=yes only on very shallow low incline steps where it is is safe 
and practical to cycle an ordinary bike - not common but does happen. 
Sometimes on shallow slopes a gravelled or informal path to one side 
also exists.


where there is a ramp:
ramp=yes
bicycle=dismount   (here I am tagging on practicality rather than 
legalities, Sweden is much more relaxed than UK)
ramp:stroller=yes   where it is a double ramp, (a forgotten transport 
demographic)


on short or low-incline flights of steps where an alternate route would 
be much longer:

bicycle=carry (informal/experimental)

I also strongly encourage step_count=x as that gives a bicycle router 
more quantitative input on whether to route or avoid.


And lastly from unnerving Spanish experience, some sort of hazard 
tagging at the top of steps where a formal cycle route plunges down a 
steep flight of steps around a corner!


Mike

On 2020-12-14 17:34, Jon Pennycook wrote:

resending as I think I sent it from the wrong email address.

However, blue advisory signs about HGVs are tagged as hgv=discouraged, 
not as hgv=yes despite there being a legal right of way for HGVs 
(sometimes, similar signs are shown for all vehicles, eg on fords or 
ORPAs) - see "discouraged" at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation 
 



https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions 
 says 
bicycle=dismount should be used for 'signs saying "Cyclists dismount"'.


Any sensible router should know that most bicycles ought to dismount 
for most steps in the same way they might suggest getting off and 
walking on a short footway. Specifying bicycle=yes on steps may 
override the built-in default (I think it does for CycleStreets).


I would suggest not having a bicycle tag at all on steps in preference 
to bicycle=yes on steps. Ramp:bicycle=yes/no is a useful tag though.


Jon

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 15:31, Jon Pennycook > wrote:


However, blue advisory signs about HGVs are tagged as
hgv=discouraged, not as hgv=yes despite there being a legal right
of way for HGVs (sometimes, similar signs are shown for all
vehicles, eg on fords or ORPAs) - see "discouraged" at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation



https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions

says bicycle=dismount should be used for 'signs saying "Cyclists
dismount"'.

Any sensible router should know that most bicycles ought to
dismount for most steps in the same way they might suggest getting
off and walking on a short footway. Specifying bicycle=yes on
steps may override the built-in default (I think it does for
CycleStreets).

I would suggest not having a bicycle tag at all on steps in
preference to bicycle=yes on steps. Ramp:bicycle=yes/no is a
useful tag though.

Jon

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 11:04, Simon Still mailto:simon.st...@gmail.com>> wrote:




On 13 Dec 2020, at 19:18, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 19:14 David Woolley,
mailto:for...@david-woolley.me.uk>> wrote:

On 13/12/2020 19:05, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
> Also, the steps should have bicycle=dismount, not =yes.
This will allow
> people who can't dismount to go around by the road.

Only if it is illegal to try to cycle up and down the
steps.  Otherwise
it is the duty of the renderer (router) to infer that
this will be
necessary because of the steps.


The sign visible on Mapillary says (white on blue) "Steps
ahead cyclists dismount". That seems pretty clear to me.




White on Blue ‘cyclists dismount’ signs are only advisory.  It
may be foolish to cycle down (or up) the steps but it’s not
illegal.


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



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


___

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

[Michael Collinson]

Perhaps there should be a access/foot=open_access tag?

Paths across open access areas aren't really "permissive". First, you 
usually have some rights to wander off the path/make your own. Second, 
there is (always?) some sort of regulatory/public right involved, it 
isn't just dependent on the largesse of a landowner.


In my area of Yorkshire, there are a number of open access areas where 
unofficial paths have evolved over recent years. I have mapped these as 
foot=yes, but that misses the extra right-to-roam dimension.


Mike

On 2020-07-11 12:57, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Sat, 2020-07-11 at 11:51 +0100, Nick wrote:

That would be great, bearing in mind access rights differ (e.g.
Scotland
and England).

Not just England, Wales too.

Phil (trigpoint)


A really interesting point regarding temporary land-use (forestry,
farming etc.) restrictions - ideal if it was dynamic to ensure that
it
is always updated (otherwise users woiuld ignore). It would
certainly
help land managers and users. Imagine if this was in place for Covid
restrictions.

Nick

On 11/07/2020 11:37, Dan S wrote:

Is there anyone here who is competent to write some kind of summary
guidance on the wiki? Ideally one reflective of the approximate
consensus? It would be super helpful

Dan

Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 10:16 schreef Nick Whitelegg
:

.. to follow that up, a good example where I have used
foot=permissive en-masse is the New Forest. It's an unusual case
in that there are no rights of way (except, to guarantee access I
suspect, crossings over railways) but all paths are implicitly
open to the public. However there is no explicit 'This is a
permissive path' notice.

Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to
forestry operations.

Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg 
Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11
To: Talk GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common


I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in
the countryside, or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas
with public access, which are not rights of way but which
nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 'Private' or
'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the
landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public
use.

I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain
'highway=footway' to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It
might have public or permissive use. It might be private. At the
moment we don't know'.

I tend to use:
designation for rights of way;
foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive
paths;
foot=yes for urban paths;
access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out'
sign.

Nick



From: Adam Snape 
Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20
To: Talk GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway,
foot=yes as an error just because foot access is implied by
default. Whilst there might be the tiniest bit of redundancy I
can't see any particular reason to remove it and, indeed, there
might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to
an implied value.

OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat
for the end user that a way might be closed. I only add it where
a route is explicitly stated to be permissive on the ground, is
actually known or likely to be shut from time to time, or is
clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and housing
estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and
about as likely to be closed as the nearby highways.

Kind regards,

Adam
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

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


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512

[Michael Collinson]

On 2020-07-11 07:47, Steve Doerr wrote:


On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
So, it seems that Fairfield [Road] isn't known to either OS or 
Google. It is shown (in abbreviated form) on streetmap.co.uk, but at 
that zoom level, in London, that's based on the Bartholomew A-Z maps 
rather than OS.


For what it's worth, I also found it in a street atlas published by 
Geographia. I don't know if that's the same company as A-Z. I also 
don't know the date of the street atlas and neither do I know how old 
a street atlas (non-OS) would have to be in order to be able to copy a 
name from it.


It is just possible (sight unseen) that it is an Easter Egg. When I 
headed the License Working Group we had an ironic case in Israel where a 
contributor had asked local residents what an unsigned back street was 
called and they told him they knew it as "Pearl Street", which he 
promptly mapped. A local atlas company then got angry that we were 
"copying their data" citing the their made-up Pearl Street as proof. 
Fiction can become fact.


Mike


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN & USRN Tagging

[Michael Collinson]

Which makes it difficult to know or guess what the  a tag relates to 
without research, especially if used wrongly or without consultation.  
Tags should be self-descriptive to the extent possible. Sorry, 
parochialism just gets up my nose! :-) Definite thumbs up up to using an 
ISO country code if nationally specific. Encourages good practice for all.


Mike

On 2020-07-03 17:47, Mike Baggaley wrote:

I note that ref:usrn was added to the Key:ref wiki in May 2017 and I can see no 
real reason to add GB into the key, especially if it is upper case. There are 
lots of examples of other country specific tags which do not include a country 
code on that page, in fact I can't see a single one that does include a country 
code.

Regards,
Mike


Agree with ref:GB:uprn and ref:GB:usrn.


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


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

Re: [talk-au] What do you prefer for Barmah-Millewa: swamp or wood?

[Michael Collinson]

Hi Ian,

Summary: For me wood is physical tree-cover and wetland is the condition 
of the ground and they are complimentary rather than exclusive.


In Sweden, I map both natural=wood and natural=wetland as separate 
polygons, with a common border or overlap as appropriate. There is is 
very easy from aerial imagery as the trees show distinctive colour and 
texture, spot checked in more easily accessible locations from field 
observation of the ground below (a very important thing to do IMHO). 
Here is a random example: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/59.5708/18.3099


In Australia, I am interested indirectly through work in refining the 
Murray River as it flows north of Rutherglen (VIC). I have found that 
much harder so haven't yet started any systematic tree/wetland mapping, 
instead focusing on the fascinating network of ox box lakes and 
channels. That's partly because of the much greater cyclicity in wetness 
that you allude to making wetland harder to spot and demarcate on aerial 
imagery. And partly that I don't have a local field eye, (I am a 
city-slicker based in Melbourne when in Australia). I am therefore 
tempted to focus on wood mapping from the arm chair and leave the 
wetland mapping as a more long term issue needing a reasonable degree of 
local observation/knowledge.


Hope that helps, these are just my personal thoughts and I look forward 
to hearing from others.


Mike


On 2020-05-12 09:37, Little Maps wrote:
Hello everyone, I don’t know if there is any right / wrong answer to 
this question, hence I’m keen to know your preferences...


I’m mapping wetlands and vegetation along the Murray River upstream of 
Yarrawonga, and am now mapping in Millewa forest. Millewa (in NSW) and 
Barmah forest (in Vic) support large red gum forests which flood 
regularly. Some areas flood annually, others less frequently. It 
depends on how much water flows down the Murray and which stream 
regulators in the forests are opened or closed.


My question is: would it be better to map this as a forest (i.e. 
natural=wood) or as a ‘swamp’, which OSM defines as ‘an area of 
waterlogged forest, with dense vegetation’, tagged as natural=wetland, 
wetland=swamp, seasonal=yes. I’ve read the OSM wiki pages on both options.


I’ve made a first stab at the area
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/-35.8026/145.1484
and have mapped all but the extremes as swamp as this indicates that 
the area floods regularly, which natural:wood does not show. However 
most other areas on the river I’ve come across are mapped as 
natural:wood with relatively small inliers for treeless wetlands and 
some treed swamps.


It’s a quick job to change from wetland:swamp to natural:wood and vice 
versa and I don’t hold any strong preferences myself. If the general 
consensus is that the area would be better called a wood (i.e. forest) 
rather than a seasonal wetland I’ll change it immediately.
(I haven’t mapped Barmah forest in Vic, as that was already mapped as 
natural:wood but much of Barmah actually floods even more frequently 
than Millewa).


Thanks very much for your advice. Best wishes 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: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] nomoj de internaciaj objektoj / nazwy obiektów międzynarodowych / names of international objects

[Michael Collinson]

On 2020-01-07 18:27, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

6 Jan 2020, 16:35 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

On 6. Jan 2020, at 07:29, Maarten Deen  wrote:

Baltic Sea to be the "Baltic Sea" or for South America to
be "South
America" - this is an example of English imperialism.

This "imperialism" idea of yours is just your idea. It is not
something that is widely felt.

regarding imperialism, I think it’s hard to reject the reasoning
that English is in widespread use because of imperialism.

Yes, but using it for a pragmatic reasons
for an international communication is
usually not imperialism.

I can try to communicate with group of  people
from different countries in Polish,
Latin, Sindarin or Esperanto.

But except rare cases using English is likely
to result in more efficient communication.


Totally agree with Mateusz. English is the current trading language. It 
has been Farsi and other languages in the past. It will probably 
Mandarin Chinese/simplified hanji in the future. But right now it is 
English.


I think the whole debate misses the point. The OSM database is 
language-agnostic right now. The https://www.openstreetmap.org slippy 
map was intended to A map show-casing the database. But it has turned 
into THE map.


A potential solution is to offer centralised support for other lingual 
(and culture, which is not always the same thing) maps. That of course 
is a much easier thing to say rather than do as it requires time and 
money resource, but it puzzles me why 15 years into the project we only 
have 4 layers on our main site.



Mike


Note that we do have some great projects in the wealthier economies such 
as https://openstreetmap.se/ https://openstreetmap.jp 
https://www.openstreetmap.de/  ... Why aren't these integrated in some 
way into our main site !?


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?

[Michael Collinson]

I suggest this is "referencing" and, while it does not mention the word, 
is covered in the Legal FAQ 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#Can_I_use_OSM_data_and_OpenStreetMap-derived_maps_to_verify_my_own_data_without_triggering_share-alike.3F


I think I originally wrote this. Perhaps the LWG would consider if there 
is reasonable consensus and add machine data training as a third example.


Here is a thought experiment to test it:

1) If you notice something interesting in Google Streetview or on an 
in-copyright map and copy it into OpenStreetMap, that is a no-no.  But 
if you go to the location and verify it for yourself, perhaps taking 
your own photos, that is OK. You have used the third-party resources as 
a reference. However, you have then done your own original research and 
based your OpenStreetMap contribution on that.


2) Several years ago, the South African government mapping directorate, 
(who have been very friendly and cooperative with us), wanted to monitor 
OSM for changes, perhaps using machine algorithms. They could then send 
a mapping resources to just those places and remap them. This saves 
enormous amounts of budget in frequently resurveying the entire country 
or large parts of it. Was that OK given that not all their re-survey 
might find its way into open data sets? The LWG at time considered this 
was OK, because of the referencing principle that, while it 
"helped/aided/assisted", it did not involve copying/extracting our data.


3) So, I suggest that it is a logical extension that machine data 
training (and perhaps back testing too?) certainly "helps/aids/assists" 
but does NOT involve  copying our data - then it is referencing rather 
than deriving. As one early thread responder suggested, this is a grey 
area. But my strong feeling is that a liberal rather than restrictive 
interpretation is more helpful to us in growing or map and user base 
than not.


Mike


On 2019-11-15 10:29, stevea wrote:

I don't know.  I've expressed my opinion(s) on the matter, and believe the LWG should 
chime in with "an" (the?) answer.

SteveA
California


On Nov 14, 2019, at 3:27 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
sent from a phone


On 15. Nov 2019, at 00:19, stevea  wrote:

But the "ultimate test" of "can the new work be made without OSM data?" remains a good 
one, in my opinion, because then, the author can be told, "well, then, go do so, please, otherwise offer 
us attribution of some sort" (whether legally required, or not).


if you distribute a dataset and say: all roads but not those in OpenStreetMap, 
isn’t this already attribution? The question is whether you’d want to force 
them to distribute under ODbL rather than MIT (and maybe what the downstream 
users have to attribute).

Cheers Martin


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


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

Re: [talk-au] Melbourne Missing Maps/OSM rep?

[Michael Collinson]

Hi Vitva,

If you don't get any other volunteers, I'll be happy to come along and 
answer questions/talk ad hoc but not prepare a talk. I'm not familiar 
with Missing Maps but have previously served on the OSM Foundation board.


Cheers,

Mike

Michael Collinson

On 2019-11-08 13:13, Vilppola, Ritva wrote:


Hi Team,

WSP is holding a Missing Maps Mapathon next Thursday 5-8pm and we’re 
just wondering if there is anyone in Melbourne available to rep for 
OSM/Missing Maps for the evening?


We will also be getting in a speaker from MSF to attend so it would be 
great to have someone from OSM promote what it’s all about and ways 
people can get involved locally!


Cheers,

*Ritva**Vilppola*
Sustainability Consultant


<http://www.wsp.com/>

T: +7 3535 1518

ritva.vilpp...@wsp.com

WSP Australia Pty Limited
900 Ann Street, Level 12
Fortitude Valley
4006  Australia

*wsp.com <http://www.wsp.com>*












NOTICE: This communication and any attachments ("this message") may 
contain information which is privileged, confidential, proprietary or 
otherwise subject to restricted disclosure under applicable law. This 
message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any 
unauthorized use, disclosure, viewing, copying, alteration, 
dissemination or distribution of, or reliance on, this message is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, or 
you are not an authorized or intended recipient, please notify the 
sender immediately by replying to this message, delete this message 
and all copies from your e-mail system and destroy any printed copies.




-LAEmHhHzdJzBlTWfa4Hgs7pbKl

___
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] Residential Poolside Building

[Michael Collinson]

I usually mark all residential buildings, including the main house or 
strata building, as building=residential.  I feel it useful but safe. I 
usually map in Sweden where planning regulations encourage a plethora of 
out-buildings whose use is difficult to judge from imagery: garages, 
spare rooms, wood-sheds, saunas, children's play rooms, yada yada. When 
I am unsure if a building is actually part of a residential plot, then I 
go for building=yes and can check them out on visits.


Mike

On 2019-08-12 11:46, 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.


Thanks, Ben.

___
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] Announcing the Tabang-AI initiative

[Michael Collinson]

I see that Maning has already replied, but I would like to emphasise 
that the Philippine OSM community is a very mature example of informal 
but cohesive collaborative work at a national and regional level with a 
long history of working with other organisations, such as universities 
and local government. Good luck with the initiative.


Mike

On 2019-08-12 11:07, Peter Barth wrote:

Hi Eugene,

Eugene Alvin Villar schrieb:

Unfortunately, I cannot provide you with a link since we communicated with
Facebook's OSM team privately. This is completely our own initiative and
was not initiated from Facebook's side.

who is this "we"/"our", how many people were directly involved in this
communication?

I am a bit worried about your definition of "local community". If this
initiative was driven by the local community, as you say, why is it only
recently announced on the talk-ph mailing list?

Also, for everyone, especially the local community to follow up, you
could just put the direct messages to the wiki for documentation.

Thanks,
Peda


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


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

Re: [talk-au] Copying address from business website?

[Michael Collinson]

A simple test is: Am I helping their business? If it is the venue 
business itself, then yes you are. If you take from a listing site - 
where their value is the list itself, then no you are not, you are 
potentially acting to its detriment.


FYI, your till receipts are another good source.

Mike

On 2019-07-22 07:19, Andrew Harvey wrote:
This has come up a few times on the mailing lists, and the advise 
usually given is it's okay to source a few facts here and there like 
the address or contact number, but just don't start taking a whole 
database of venues and copy that database.


On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 13:06, Kim Oldfield > wrote:


Is it acceptable to copy a street address (and other contact details)
from a business's webpage?

For example in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/72452124 (what
changed is easier to see at
https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/705884944 ) I
added the
street address as listed on their website.

If this isn't acceptable, what is an acceptable way of getting an
address if it is not obvious during a site survey?

Regards,
Kim

___
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] Proposed mechanical edit - addition of office=diplomatic to amenity=embassy with country=*

[Michael Collinson]

Sounds logical given the new tagging. I find no faults with the 
office=diplomatic page, kudos to Lyx for putting it together, very 
thorough. Embassies are (or should be) a 100% subset of 
office=diplomatic. I think you are wise in not suggesting mass addition 
of  diplomatic=embassy, I also have come across instances in the past 
where they are actually consulates. The only thing I can think of is 
whether there are still any cases where the location is actually an 
ambassadorial residence, (I am uncomfortable with having them there, my 
wife is an ambassador) ... but I think the most sensible thing is to 
deal with them on a case-by-case after putting in place this more 
rigourous tagging schema.


Mike

On 2019-06-18 03:21, Warin wrote:
Following the successful proposal of introducing office=diplomatic to 
eventually replace the amenity=embassy (which is used to not only tag 
embassies but other diplomatic service) I am proposing to add the 
approved tag office=diplomatic to all instances that have both the tag 
amenity=embassy with the tag country=*.



By only targeting features with both tag i hope to avoid those things 
that have been incorrectly tagged amenity=embassy (I found 2 that look 
to be brothels!).



Any thoughts?


- references

Tag https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:office%3Ddiplomatic

Proposal for tag 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/office%3Ddiplomatic




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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] max_age=toddler? | Re: Playground age limits

[Michael Collinson]

My thoughts also.

The description tag is very underused , IMHO. Specialist tags are 
undoubtedly extremely useful, they are precise, (should be) unambiguous 
and machine-read-friendly, but they do need to gain traction to be 
useful and are unfriendly when trying to convey fuzzy information, as 
seems to be the case here. And of course both can be used together when 
doing something new.


Mike

On 2019-06-05 01:35, Warin wrote:
Rather than enter text into a value where a number is expected .. why 
not use the description tag?

Description=For supervised younger children.
Description=For unsupervised older children.

??

On 05/06/19 03:51, SK53 wrote:
It might be germane to this discussion to consider minheight & 
maxheight as possible values. Certainly in ski resorts it is not 
uncommon to see minimum heights for certain chair lifts (typically 
1.25m) and I think I've seen similar on amusement park rides. Height 
is more likely to be a determining factor, even if not explicitly signed.


Jerry

On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 18:34, Philip Barnes > wrote:


On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 16:49 +0100, Martin Wynne wrote:
> > What about `max_age=toddler`? (i.e. the oldest you can be is "a
> > toddler"), likewise `min_age=young_child` for the "older"
one? (Is
> > that
> > the best term?) Yes it's not a numeric age, but it's better than
> > nothing?
>
> Thanks Rory.
>
> I wondered about that. If a tag expects a numeric value, is it
ok to
> enter text?
>
> Or should I invent a new tag, such as maybe age_range=toddler?
>
> Is "toddler" too UK-specific? Does everyone understand it to mean
> the
> same thing? Is "infant" younger or older than "toddler"?
>
> For the older children, I wondered about "school-age", although of
> course there are also infant schools for toddlers.
>
The playgrounds around here have a specific age on the signs, can't
remember off the top of my head what it is, but it is a lot older
than
toddlers. If it stops raining I will go and have a look at the local
one. It will be something between 8 and 12.

The other area has no age limits and it would be wrong for us to
assume
one, each child is different and they will work out for
themselves (or
with parental guidance) when they are ready. There will certainly
be a
huge crossover.

Phil (trigpoint)





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

Re: [Talk-GB] sidewalks

[Michael Collinson]

On 2019-06-01 13:26, Andy Townsend wrote:


On 01/06/2019 11:11, Jez Nicholson wrote:
Brighton has also just gained a sidewalk 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JAn which i'm not overly impressed 
withor am I being a Luddite?



I personally wouldn't map sidewalks in a dense UK city like that 
(though some people do, with the intention of micromapping all the 
dropped kerbs etc.).  It's perhaps worth mentioning that at least some 
of the sidewalk edits there are by someone who has tended to 
contribute well-meaning but not entirely accurate edits from afar - it 
took me lots of additional surveys of Sutton in Ashfield* to verify 
that many of their previous "roads" simply weren't.


At first glance quite a lot of joins seem to be missing, and some 
shops were located between the sidewalk and the road (which you've 
just fixed).  Maybe if you're going to add a certain level of detail, 
you can't just ignore everything else on the map, although it's pretty 
common to do updates in stages - when mapping rural areas I'll often 
do streams first (armchair), then roads and paths (survey) then extra 
detail such as field boundaries, gates, stiles etc. (a mix of both).


Best Regards,

Andy

* you could therefore perhaps describe it as "successful armchair 
mapping" :)


I certainly concur that sidewalk mapping is not for the armchair. I 
tried, then going out to "just verify" and found that I was hopelessly 
inaccurate. It defeats the point, to get a highly accurate localised 
network for folks who might depend on it.


Mike


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

Re: [Talk-GB] sidewalks

[Michael Collinson]

I too was very anti at first. Reykavik was the first time I saw it on a 
systematic basis, and I thought it made a map I did aesthetically 
dreadful. But a small tweak, rendering sidewalk-tagged footways as a 
very unobtrusive narrow line fixed that.


I now map them zealously for three reasons:

1) I think it is the only way we can, (and IMHO should), seriously 
support wheelchair routing.


2) It is really useful for creating "safe" routes, especially for 
children. As an example, a normal footway that "ends" at a busy main 
road. Does it really mean that you have to walk along the road itself or 
attempt to cross right there? Or, does it mean that in reality it ends 
at a nice pavement/sidewalk that takes you to a formal crossing further 
down? (And for serious routing it is also worth mapping and tagging 
footway=crossing as well).


3) Well, not so important but it really p***s me off wasting time OSM 
walking to a huge complex road interchange only to find that the only 
way across is on the other side and have back-track to some footbridge 
or other. Here is a work-in-progress example in Melbourne: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.82641/144.94721 There is 
actually only one way to get across safely north-south if on bicycle and 
possibly for foot also. Addition of the "sidewalk" network would be very 
helpful.


Mike

On 2019-06-01 12:27, Dan S wrote:

I noticed a "sidewalk" here too in Brighton:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/684610225

I'm ambivalent. Both of these examples are pavements that are fully
adjacent (continguous) to their roads, and by default I'd prefer not
to map them separately. I guess the long one that you refer to does
sometimes rise above the road, and even has steps down at at least one
point, so perhaps worth being a separate feature?

Dan

Op za 1 jun. 2019 om 11:12 schreef Jez Nicholson :

Brighton has also just gained a sidewalk https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JAn which 
i'm not overly impressed withor am I being a Luddite?

Regards,
   Jez
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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


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

[Talk-GB] How would tag or name this wall crossing?

[Michael Collinson]

What do you call the type of wall crossing the that consists of two 
stone pillars placed close to each other (usually in a drystone wall) to 
leave a gap wide enough for humans and sheep dogs to squeeze through but 
not cattle or fully-grown sheep? Has anyone one got a barrier= tag for 
them?  Just got back from Middlesmoor in Nidderdale where there are ton 
of them. They are typically not raised, so not a stile, and typically no 
gate, just a gap.


Mike


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Your thoughts on osm.org

[Michael Collinson]

In the spirit of a thought experiment:

PRESENTATION

A small thumbnail version of the current map and then a focus on links 
to map sites that the community feels are stable and a proper show-case: 
national maps, specialist maps (e.g. openseamap), routing services 
(perhaps with an emphasis on non-motor vehicle routing), the estoric and 
unusual (for illustrative example: https://www.ukiyo-emap.com/.  I.e we 
use our data in interesting and unusual ways (and do much more than 
Google!).


And how about tailoring/emphasising content according to the geoip?

COLLECTION

Perhaps some new services where the focus is on very easy to use 
addition of specific target data such as addresses. These could come and 
go depending on need and what individual folks are doing as projects.


When HOT has an emergency response going, a section highlighting the 
need and point to the task manager.



/Mike

On 2019-03-13 03:58, Martijn van Exel wrote:

Hi all,

Here’s something I ask myself from time to time and would like to hear other 
people’s thoughts about.

Imagine the openstreetmap.org home page, but without the map.
What would the home page be about instead? What would be on it?

Thanks for sharing,
Martijn
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


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

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

[Michael Collinson]

+1 to that. Looking at the eastern side imagery again, I'd make a 
general comment that will help elsewhere: There really should be a node 
about where the pedestrian crossing is and pushing the road slightly 
north. This would bring it closer the traffic engineer's intention, 
which is that the Liverpool Road meets the Burwood Road at right angles. 
And in this case, lessen the angle with with the western extension.


Digressing but when playing around with routing software, I noticed that 
a lot of us map in slight oblique side roads and tracks meeting the main 
road at the same angle, whereas if we look closely the actual junction 
is actually at or a closer to a right angle. This has quite an impact 
for the routing algo to work out what instruction to give.


Mike


On 2019-01-31 10:02, Ian Sergeant wrote:

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

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

[Michael Collinson]

Hi Dion,

I'd say a bit of both.

The junction is topologically correct but looking at the aerial imagery 
and the node that you circled, 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1691043684 , then it could be moved 
very slightly north and a bit more aggressively west to lessen the 
change of direction and better fit the actual physical situation. You 
could also map in the pedestrian crossing and close the gap further.


OSMAnd may also need some tweaking. I helped test a commercial routing 
product and know that these situations are difficult to get right. At 
the most simple, OSMAnd should measure the deviation from directly 
straight on (0 degrees) and assign anything up to, say 8 as "straight 
on", to around 45 degrees as "bear left" and anything more as "turn 
left". The may still not get it right. There are a couple more 
sophisticated things it could do: 1) Note that you are going from/to the 
same road name/classification and dynamically broaden the "straight on" 
angle test or even drop the navigation instruction entirely; 2) look 
ahead to the next node or two and create some kind of smoothed average 
angle, which will again help push the instruction to "straight on".


Mike

On 2019-01-31 09:54, 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

Re: [talk-au] Naming Bus Stops for interchanges in Sydney

[Michael Collinson]

In Sweden, I have seen the "F" going into the ref tag. Just a thought, I 
don't recall how it affects rendering in common schemes. Con: Clash with 
a more rigorous ref num giving by the transport authority, "40459" or 
such. Another (complementary) practice is to put just "F" as the name - 
which has the secondary benefit of being more likely to render out in a 
crowded space. The other detail perhaps being better suited to the 
corresponding bus_station node/area/relation.


Else, +1 from me, the proposal seems useful to me as a smart refinement 
of local practice.


Mike

On 2019-01-22 10:26, Warin wrote:

Are there anydissenters?
I'll give it a week.
Any feed back from other places In Australia?
On 21/01/19 20:00, cleary wrote:

As a regular user of public transport, I agree.


On Mon, Jan 21, 2019, at 4:39 PM, Warin wrote:

Hi,


At present the names of bus stops goes something like

name=Strathfield Station, Albert Rd (Stand F).


The web transport trip planers direct you to Stand F, yet this is not
very visiblein OSM renderings as that information is last.


Would it not be best to have the name put the more detailed information
first and the generalproximity information last, much like an address?

Such as

name=Stand F, Albert Rd, Strathfield Station


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-GB] Network tag on railway stations

[Michael Collinson]

Lester's comments look logical from a general perspective: 1 network 
(National Rail), 1+ operators (Merseyrail, Northern, ...). I'd expand a 
bit by saying the it IS possible to have both multiple networks and 
operators at the same transport point (rail/bus station/platform). I 
have local Swedish bus stops with 3+ networks: Stockholm SL 
bus/ferry/subway system, Uppsala UL bus system, private long distance 
networks and then specific operators such as Nobina and Arriva for, at 
least, specific routes with the Stockholm network. Fun.


Mike

On 2018-11-17 10:09, Lester Caine wrote:

On 17/11/2018 07:12, SK53 wrote:
I've just come across a large number of instances of network=Nation 
Rail on stations. Clearly this is a mistake, presumably National Rail 
is intended.


As the station concerned is heavily branded with Merseyrail my first 
instinct was to change the tag to this, but then I wondered if 
National Rail is more useful. Today a network=Merseyrail would be 
more useful to me because I have a day rover for that network.


I wonder what others think, and can we clean up the erroneous name?


Merseyrail is the operator rather than the network. The network is 
owned and managed by Network Rail. National Rail is simply a  club of 
operating companies and includes both Network Rail and Merseyrail. So 
every station should have an operator=xxx and network=Network Rail, 
but they should also have some tag to the other train operators using 
the network through the station if more than 'National Railway' member 
is using it. So Ormskirk Station 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/86878104#map=19/53.56928/-2.88114) 
for example needs an operator=merseyrail and *I* would prefer 
network=Network Rail. The line north should be tagged 
operator=Northern which would at least associate that fact with the 
station, but other stations may have more than one train operator 
using the track. Network Rail and National Rail is probably 
interchangable in the public mind, but freight services use the track 
and is not covered by National Rail, but it's unlike that stations 
like Ormskirk would have that problem ;)


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - https://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - https://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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


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

Re: [talk-au] State names

[Michael Collinson]

I assume we are specifically talking about addr:state 
 ? If so the 
connotation is on the state as part of a postal address rather than as a 
place per se. Therefore I suggest using capitalised abbreviation and 
that the document Warin quotes is authoritative. The wiki page also 
notes that US states are similarly treated.


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

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



Randomly looking at Queensland as place=state, I see that ref=QLD is 
already set as well as short_name, so there is a link that can be used 
in computational processing.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316595

And thinking on it, perhaps there are no other active uses? I used to 
use is_in a lot, but I don't think it is in widespread use any more.


Mike



On 2018-06-24 08:43, Warin wrote:

On 24/06/18 16:20, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

G'day

The latest (?) upgrade to iD reformatted the address fields to suit 
Oz addresses & also introduced a State field to be entered.


Question & policy decision needed here please :-)

Queensland / Qld / QLD?

How should we be entering our State names?


Well the 'rules' for names say no abbreviations.

Much as we commonly use the abbreviations... for me the abbreviation 
is Qld.
But Australia Post wants capitals .. I suppose they are easier for the 
machines to read them?
See page 24 (26 on the PDF reader) on 
https://auspost.com.au/content/dam/auspost_corp/media/documents/australia-post-addressing-standards-1999.pdf


There you  go, an 'all ways' bet. :)
 I'd go no abbreviation.

___
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-GB] UK Quarterly Project: Post Offices

[Michael Collinson]

At the risk of being pedantic, but would a "network" tag, similar to bus 
routes, not be more appropriate?


Here in Sweden, the post office system is now Post Nord, network=Post 
Nord, but post offices are frequently inside and operated by 
supermarkets, e.g. operator=ICA. These outlets often handle DHL and 
other services that might also be considered as postal networks, 
network=Post Nord;DHL


Mike


On 2018-05-03 11:15, Brian Prangle wrote:

Hi Robert

If an operator tag is added to post_office tags then your comparison 
tool would be OK


Regards

Brian

On 3 May 2018 at 10:08, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
> wrote:


On 2 May 2018 at 19:08, David Woolley > wrote:
> On 02/05/18 18:52, ael wrote:
>>
>> I am confused:-)  How should a Royal mail local delivery office be
>> tagged? It seems that it is not amenity=post_office. I notice that
>> I have used post_depot once some time ago, but that doesn't
seem to be
>> in the wiki (or in the presets for josm). Yet I am sure that I
got it
>> from somewhere. Not that it seems very natural.
>
> I'm fairly sure this came up a couple of months ago and the
answer was
> amenity=post_depot; operator=Royal Mail.  It's not, in
principle, different
> from Hermes or TNT.

That's certainly what I'd use. I think there's a good case for tagging
customer-facing shop-like outlets of courier firms as
amenity=post_office since they're places from which you can send
stuff. But for the large warehouse-style sorting/distribution centres
I think something else is needed. amenity=post_depot seems a good
choice to me. It has over 400 uses worldwide, of which over 300 are in
the UK.

The legitimate use of amenity=post_office for non-Post Office Ltd
branches creates a slight issue for my comparison tool. I've got some
heuristics to account for some sets of objects based on name,
operator, and brand tagging. See:
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postoffice/osm-unmatched.html#non-pol


Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker


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





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


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

Re: [talk-au] Morton Bay National Park should have it's ID numbers under ref=

[Michael Collinson]

I also agree. Putting other info into a name is not good practice. 
Separation allows map renderer and search functionality to decide what 
to do rather than being forced into something.


I personally like to tag in a generic way as possible and therefore 
would use the "ref" tag as my choice. However other folks around the 
world like to preserve/present info about who/what is actually doing the 
reference index so you might want to consider something like (I am 
making this up):


npsr_qld:ref = MNP05

Mike


On 2018-05-03 06:01, Joel H. wrote:

Hello, I'm just noticing around Moreton Bay Marine Park. Many
nature_reserves are currently formatted as follows:

name= Honeymoon Bay (MNP05)

Shouldn't this be:

name= Honeymoon Bay

ref= MNP05

?


-Joel



___
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 have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Michael Collinson]

I am the Michael Collinson mentioned by Simon, (hello Simon, it has been 
a while!). I still lurk on this list and after a long gap will be 
spending time in Australia each year. I am in Melbourne at the moment 
and look forward to meeting mappers here on my hopefully less busy visit 
later this year.



On 2018-03-12 22:57, Simon Poole wrote:

Am 12.03.2018 um 11:47 schrieb Jonathon Rossi:
Sorry Simon, I really didn't intend to make things more complicated. 
I just wanted to ensure someone else doesn't get caught in the future 
after thinking I was doing the right thing, and no one else has done 
this each time this has come up in the past.
Jonathon the effort is clearly appreciated. At the time the issue was 
rather hotly debated and (as I wasn't really involved at the time) we 
would likely need to ask Michael Collinson for the historic information. 


I have hesitated to get involved in this discussion as my knowledge is 
now several years out of date, particularly as regards CC 4.0. However, 
I can make some comments from a historical perspective ...


In summary, I 100% agree with Simon that while there may be issues with 
CC 4.0, earlier dataset incorporation is a "done deal" and history. We 
can clearly show with a paper trail that we have acted properly and in 
good faith. The only thing that I would suggest: Various Australian 
government organisations have been very helpful to us, and much earlier 
than most. As a courtesy, I feel we should add a line to our high-level 
page https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright, (Simon?)


In more detail ...

I pinpointed a number of datasets published on the data.gov.au website 
under a CC-BY 2.5 license that had already been or could be incorporated 
into OSM, (not CC-SA-BY and not CC 4.0, CC 4.0 did not exist then). 
CC-BY 2.5 is completely compatible with our license except the 
completely impractical provision, (for multi-sourced open data), that 
all contributors be attributed equally - imagine attributing 4m 
contributors on each map made from our data.


I made successful contact with the good folks at data.gov.au with the 
form that I have copied below. The upshot was a series of about 20 
emails between Sept and Nov 2011. They were very helpful and said, yep, 
fine to keep the data and attribute them at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution (now 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#data.gov.au). They 
requested a number of changes to the exact wording and I have verified 
that it is still there.


Since paper trail is very important, I am happy to forward the whole set 
of emails to anyone who requests them - if you want to put them in a 
public place, great.


The most relevant email is this one from 2011-09-21:

 Start -
Hi Michael,

Thank you for contacting us.

We are happy to provide you with permission that end users of 
OpenStreetMap do not have to attribute all contributors equally, however 
within your wiki we would need links directly to each dataset you are 
using from data.gov.au.  Data.gov.au provides datasets from all three 
tiers of government which involved a number of different legal 
entities.  Providing a link to the record enables correct attribution of 
the data.  This also helps us to demonstrate to agencies how their 
information is being used positively and, hopefully, will encourage more 
open data with can be beneficial to services such as yours.


Please let us know when this alteration is made so we can promote it 
within Australian Government.


Could we also get you to change the reference to our catalogue from 
data.australia.gov.au to data.gov.au.


Thank you and please contact us if you require any further clarification.

Regards,
data.gov.au team.
 End -

Hope that helps,
Michael


Your Name (optional)    

Michael Collinson

Email (optional)



mich...@osmfoundation.org

Topic (required)



Request to continue using geographic datasets

Message (required)



Hi,

Thank you for making geographic data available under an open license.

As chairman of the OpenStreetMap Foundation's License Working Group, I 
am writing to ask specific permission to continue incorporating a small 
number of your geographic coordinate datasets in our OpenStreetMap 
global geo-dataset. I previously wrote to Commonwealth Copyright 
Administration, Attorney General’s Department as per earlier 
instructions on your website, but did not receive an answer.


The datasets in question are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 
Australia (CC-BY). We changing our own license away from CC-BY-SA 2.0 
license since we were advised by Creative Commons that such a license is 
not suitable for highly factual data. We respect the IP rights of others 
and are concerned that with a different license we may not meet your 
needs. We feel that without specific permission to continue, we should 
remove your data.


In summary, we comply with all your

Re: [OSM-talk] How to teach novices about optimal changeset size?

[Michael Collinson]

Hi Micah,

I think you came up with a good answer to your conundrum in an earlier 
post in this thread: Don't explain what an optimal changeset IS, explain 
what it is NOT:


Something like:

"It helps other contributors understand your edits if you group what you 
are doing in a local area into one changeset. For example, if you are 
creating the outlines of 20 buildings, group them into one changeset. On 
the other hand, if you are adding 3 POIs, (points of interest),  that 
are 1000 km apart in different countries, then it is more useful to put 
them into 3 changesets. Of course, if you are creating the outlines of 
1,000 buildings in your town, you do not have to do them all at once!


If you worried about losing your data, our data editor software allows 
you to make incremental saves to the OSM server as you go along. iD does 
this automatically. Potlatch and JOSM have buttons that allow you to 
save partial work into a changeset and then keep adding to it until you 
are done."


[This could probably be improved for readability by non-native English 
speakers. And the editor text should be fact checked, I am a die-hard 
Potlatch user.]



Mike

(first post for a long, long time)


On 1/17/18 4:13 PM, Micah Brzozowski wrote:
Certainly I am not intending to change the community and require every 
mapper to comply. If you're an experienced mapper, you're fine.


I mean new users, who are not yet integrated with the community. Their 
work should be checked thoroughly (in Achavi, osmcha...). All novices 
make mistakes, after all. Better to give them good habits. By 
extension, smaller number of changeset will lead to less recycling of 
same changeset comments.


I made this thread because I found it difficult to convey what is best 
practice in short form in changeset comments.


Maybe I should simplify things when explaining to them? No need to 
tell all the conventions, just what is a good start - but hoping it 
won't backfire ;)


17.01.2018 3:35 PM "Imre Samu" > napisał(a):


>  one changeset per building, repeated 20 times

my typical use case:   House numbering on the street: push the
numbers & forget & go to the next house    ( fast feedback loop
vs. Delayed gratification  )
- sometimes the mobil app is crashing, and I don't want to go back
100m to re-enter - the last 5-10 numbers


> Obviously this makes them PITA to review quickly in Achavi or
whatever tool you use.

imho: it is easier to group the changeset on the reviewer side : 
by user + by hour   ( group by user, hour )   than change the
community.

Imre





2018-01-17 15:13 GMT+01:00 Michał Brzozowski >:

Certainly not:
- one changeset per building, repeated 20 times
- one changeset for 3 POIs that are 1000 km apart in different
countries

These are real world examples. In the latter Achavi can often
refuse to run.

That's also why I asked ;-) It's not that easy to formulate
the answer what is reasonable to include in a changeset.

Michał

17.01.2018 2:54 PM "Tobias Zwick" > napisał(a):

So, what is the optimal changeset size, and why?

Tobias

On 17/01/2018 14:26, Michał Brzozowski wrote:
> Many new users have a habit of e.g. sending one or few
objects per
> changeset, resulting in a dozen or even more changesets
per day.
> Obviously this makes them PITA to review quickly in
Achavi or whatever
> tool you use.
>
> This habit is probably caused by non-knowledge of how
auto-save works in
> iD (which makes the work reasonably secure), as well as
just not knowing
> better thus forming their own judgement.
>
> How should we teach about optimal changeset size? This
is quite tricky -
> how we would define it?
>
> Can the iD nudge users towards better practice? (Linking
to Good
> changeset comments wiki page would be useful as well)
>
> Michał
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

>


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

Re: [Talk-dk] Er OpenStreetMap blevet kommercielt ??

[Michael Collinson]

(I hope the list does not mind me writing in English)

In my view, the issue in discussion is one of tagging best practice not 
"kommercielt misbrug" (as per Jörgen). In general I agree with Lars. Our 
license, FAQs and contributor terms [1], (I am one of the original 
architects), tries to very strictly follow the generally agreed 
definition of "Open Data" at http://opendefinition.org/od/2.0/en/ - so 
we have no "no commercial use clause" as this would violate clause 2.1.6 
"Non-discrimination" and we actively encourage wide, unexpected and 
varied use. I also emphasize Michel's point that we are a database not a 
map - if we want a map with no shops, then we simply make a map with no 
shops. I certainly regard deleting shops - the hard work of your fellow 
mappers - as data vandalism.  Hard disk space is cheap.


However, Julian raised an interesting question about what IS kommercielt 
misbrug and this is why I write.  I came up with these tests:


1) "Share alike" is not obeyed.  In this case, it appears that the 
reverse is true - the only argument is whether the metadata is "real" 
and whether it has been entered in the best way.  It is very possible 
that the company wants its customers to be able to orientate themselves 
on their site using OpenStreetMap - if so that helps promote 
OpenStreetMap as a useful tool, so I, personally, find that good (but I 
understand that you may disagree!) ... and if that saves them money 
drawing their own map, so what?


2) OSM data is deleted for commercial advantage,  e.g. delete your 
competitor's locations and/or metadata information.


3) Data is added that is deliberately false or misleading for commercial 
advantage.  For example, I have come across travel agencies tagged as 
"tourism information offices" (so more folks go there) and airline 
operator offices/check-in desks marked as "airports", (prominence on map 
and searching).  When I find these, I usually assume misunderstanding of 
tags / over-enthusiasm by individual employees. I therefore edit rather 
than delete.


4) Tags are added that are (marketing bullshit) opinions rather than 
verifiable facts. For example:


description="Sells 156 flavours of ice-cream" - Hmm, OK
description="Best ice-cream in Stockholm!!" - NO!

Happy mapping,
Mike

Michael Collinson


[1] 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Licence/Contributor_Terms


On 2016-12-15 15:42, Julian Hollingbery wrote:

Jeg er interesseret i at høre definitionen på "kommercielt misbrug", da jeg 
ikke umiddelbart kan se noget om dette på http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright. 
Korriger mig endelig hvis jeg overser noget relevant.

- Er al kommerciel brug af OSM klassificeret som misbrug?
- Skal det være til ulempe for andre for at det er misbrug?
- Er det tilstrækkeligt at data anses for "unødvendigt" for at et "bidrag" kan 
anses for misbrug?
- I hvilken grad skal data fra OSM være essentiel for en indtægt før brugen, 
evt. misbrugen, er kommerciel?
- Hvor direkte skal en indtægt kunne tilskrives brugen af OSM (data eller 
systemer) for at den er kommerciel?

Mvh
/julian

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: talk-dk-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
[mailto:talk-dk-requ...@openstreetmap.org]
Sendt: 15. december 2016 15:27
Til: talk-dk@openstreetmap.org
Emne: Sammendrag af Talk-dk, Vol 90, Udgave 1

Send meddelelser der skal distribueres til Talk-dk til:
talk-dk@openstreetmap.org

Gå ind på:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk
for at til- eller framelde dig listen via World Wide Web

Alternativt kan du sende en e-mail til
talk-dk-requ...@openstreetmap.org
med ordet 'help' i emnefeltet eller som indhold.

Du kan kontakte den (de) ansvarlige person(er) for listen på
talk-dk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

Når du svarer på e-mail til listen, bedes du venligst ændre emnefeltet sådan at det 
er lidt mere beskrivende end bare "Re:
Indhold af Talk-dk sammendrag..."


Dagens emner:

1. Er OpenStreetMap blevet kommercielt ?? (s...@bukhmark.dk)
2. Re: Er OpenStreetMap blevet kommercielt ?? (Lars Christensen)
3. Re: Er OpenStreetMap blevet kommercielt ?? (Torben Brendstrup)
4. Re: Er OpenStreetMap blevet kommercielt ?? (Uffe Kousgaard)
5. Re: Er OpenStreetMap blevet kommercielt ?? (Lars Christensen)


--

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 14:47:36 +0100
From: <s...@bukhmark.dk>
To: OpenStreetMap <talk-dk@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: [Talk-dk] Er OpenStreetMap blevet kommercielt ??
Message-ID: <mailman.34570.1481812014.13974.talk...@openstreetmap.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Sig mig lige, skal vi virkelig finde os i dette kommercielle misbrug ??

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/54.87387/10.01483

Husene er mærkede

Re: [OSM-talk] Updated Privacy Policy

[Michael Collinson]

Nice work. Thank you to all involved - Mike


On 28/09/16 12:05, Simon Poole wrote:

The updated privacy policy that was in work since late 2015 has now been
published and is available here:
http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_Policy

The changes in detail can be viewed here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Privacy_Policy=revision=1350102=1253512

One of the reasons for this taking so long were the necessary code
changes with respect to the gravatar handling. Previously, starting
October 2012, gravatars were turned on for everybody regardless of if
they had actually created one with gravatar.com. We now check on initial
sign up and every time you change your e-mail address in the OSM account
if a gravatar exists and only enable the display if that is the case.

Currently a script is working through the OSM database and executing the
above test for existing accounts, it is roughly 2/3 through at this
point in time and will take another couple of weeks to complete. You
will notice a change if you previously hadn't turned gravatars off or
uploaded a custom image in that the default gravatar generated by
gravatar.com for your e-mail address is no longer displayed. If you are
not concerned about the privacy issues for you and people viewing your
profile you can get the old behaviour by simply turning gravatar support
back on again.

Simon




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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Strange location reading

[Michael Collinson]

On 28/09/16 09:59, Warin wrote:

On 28-Sep-16 04:44 PM, Oleksiy Muzalyev wrote:

On 27.09.16 21:51, John Eldredge wrote:
This past weekend, I made a long road trip. At one point, while in a 
highway rest stop, I checked Google Maps to see how far I had come. 
To my surprise, it showed me at a different rest stop, about 200 
miles from my actual location. I suspect that my phone couldn't get 
a good GPS reading, and was relying on the WiFi ID from the rest 
area office. The other rest area was probably using the same SSID.


I didn't think to launch OSMand for comparison, but I suspect it 
would have given me the same bogus results, as the choice of whether 
to use WiFi, cell tower, GPS, or a combination, to determine your 
location is set in the system settings, not inside the mapping 
applications.


GPS signal is not influenced by clouds, rain, and snow. The GPS 
signal frequency of about 1575mhz was chosen expressly because it is 
a "window" in the weather as far as signal propagation is concerned 
[1]. However a coating of water, snow, or ice on a smartphone or on a 
car may block GPS signal. A coating of water, even a fairly thin one 
is NOT the same as raindrops.



So if one is outside and a device is dry, the GPS reading should be 
correct no matter what is the actual weather. Otherwise it makes 
sense to restart the device, or change it if an incorrect GPS 
location reading persists.


John .. could you have the GPS function on the phone turned off? I 
usually have mine turned off to save battery power .. for use as a 
phone. There is a GPS Status app that I use to check various sensors 
.. including what the GPS is doing, suggest you use it .. that is an 
android app ... apple should have something similar.


Do these rest stops have cafes that are part of a chain? They might have 
moved a wifi access point and your app is reporting a non-satellite 
position based on that. I have seen that happen.


Mike


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

Re: [OSM-talk] What3words

[Michael Collinson]

On 13/07/16 12:44, Dave F wrote:

On 13/07/2016 10:03, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
If written/spoken language is the barrier, maybe we should try 
something more cross-cultural, like signwriting language. 
http://signbank.org/iswa/cat_1.html what3hands anybody? 


How about musical notation? We could sing our parcels to their 
destinations. ;-)


Dave F.


Hmm, it is so U+266D around here.

Mike

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

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL

[Michael Collinson]

This is really good news and thank you Rob for flagging it.  Thanks also 
to the unknown folks at OS who have been working on this ... it follows 
through on a promise made to me in 2010 that they would look at.


As cautioned by Rob, do wait until 
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/licensing/using-creating-data-with-os-products/os-opendata.html 
updates before jumping into CodePoint data with abandon ... it is from a 
not very open friendly third party and the OGL does allow exemptions for 
that.


I believe also that this will be good news for ?English Heritage, 
(sorry, I live in Sweden),  data users as it removes an ambiguity over 
which of their data is covered by OGL and which by the now retired OS 
OpenData license.


On the change from OGL 2 to OGL 3, I am a bit less enthusiastic. I sat 
down with a large cup of coffee, compared them line by line and made the 
notes below.  The thing to highlight is the change to the You 
definition which does possibly shift some of concern about the OS 
Opendata license into the OGL itself. The usual caveat: IANAL.


Mike

The non-trivial changes between OGL 2 and OGL 3 are as follows:

Insertion:

You must, where you do any of the above:  acknowledge the source of the 
Information by including *or linking to* any attribution statement 
specified by the Information Provider(s) and, where possible, provide a 
link to this licence; 


This is good news.

Additional wording:

If you are using Information from several Information Providers and 
listing multiple attributions is not practical in your product or 
application, you may include a URI or hyperlink to a resource that 
contains the required attribution statements.


This is good news, it follows practise that we have set up in OpenStreetMap.

'You',*'you' and 'your'* means the natural or legal person, or body of 
persons corporate or incorporate, acquiring rights *in the Information 
(whether the Information is obtained directly from the Licensor or 
otherwise)* under this licence.


This could potentially imply that users of OpenStreetMap data for the 
UK, for example to make a map, might have to additionally attribute the 
OS, (or other bodies). Just being paranoid here but I think it is worth 
following up.  On the other hand in both OGL 2 and OGL 3 is this 
explicit statement:


These terms are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution 
License 4.0 and the Open Data Commons Attribution License


The wording of the latter is at http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1-0/

Since the ODBL and Attribution License share common ancestry on 
attribution drafting, then quite likely we are compatible too by 
extension.  But it needs some one to sit down and compare both licenses. 
Apologies but I lack time these days.




On 18/02/2015 19:41, Owen Boswarva wrote:
(I should clarify that by compatible I meant forward-compatible 
rather than interoperable. OGL data is suitable as an input to a OdBL 
dataset, but not vice versa.)


-- Owen (@owenboswarva)


On 18 February 2015 at 18:04, Jo Walsh metaz...@fastmail.net 
mailto:metaz...@fastmail.net wrote:


I asked @owenboswarva on Twitter who is an active voice whom i
trust on open government data issues, and he said this:
IMO the only significant difference is v3 explicitly permits
re-users to list multiple attributions via a URI or link.
...the differences are mostly just tidier syntax. If you are happy
v2 is compatible with OdBL (IMO it is) then v3 is also.
zx
--
Jo Walsh
metaz...@fastmail.net mailto:metaz...@fastmail.net
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015, at 12:04 AM, Rob Nickerson wrote:

On 17 February 2015 at 23:57, Matthijs Melissen
i...@matthijsmelissen.nl mailto:i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote:


I could imagine that OGL-3 has imported OS ODL's clause on
sublicensing that caused incompatibility with ODbL, which
would make
OGL-3 incompatible with ODbL.Do we have confirmation that
this is not
the case, i.e. that OGL-3 and ODbL are compatible?

-- Matthijs

All the OGL versions are online. A comparison of v2 and v3 shows
nothing to worry me. Hopefully Robert W will chip in as he's
clued up on all this.
Version 3:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/
Version 2:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/
_
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




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

Re: [OSM-talk] bridge vs tunnel

[Michael Collinson]

On 26/12/2014 22:46, Russ Nelson wrote:

I think I've codified my rule for not-at-grade railway-highway
interactions: if you could remove it with a crane, overhead is a
bridge. If you need a backhoe, underneath is a tunnel.

At least, that's the rule I plan to follow in the future. I've noticed
a few places where I didn't follow that rule, and it looks funny.

Thanks, neat rule.  I will also try applying it to two bugbears of mine: 
streams under roads/railways and bicycle/footways under roads.


Mike

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Working Group news

[Michael Collinson]

Hi thanks to all for responding and in particular to the offers of help 
from Luis, Thomas and Diane.


I use Luis' email below to give more detail about our activities. See 
in-line.


It is also now my strong personal opinion that we should now engage a 
paid part-time General Counsel but that needs discussion and OSMF 
consensus. We are currently completely volunteer, so it is a big step


On 19/11/2014 00:57, Luis Villa wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com 
mailto:penor...@mac.com wrote:


On 11/18/2014 10:11 AM, Luis Villa wrote:

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Michael Collinson
m...@ayeltd.biz mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:

I would also like to highlight that we also now welcome
associate members who can help us occassionally or want to
work on a specific topic that fires you up. This involves no
specific formalities nor duties. 



Hi, Mike, others-
Is there a formal description somewhere of the
roles/responsibilities of the WG? That would help me evaluate to
what extent (if at all) I can participate in WG activities.

The scope of the LWG is listed at
http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group

Also, here is our 2013+ Action Plan which was formally submitted to the 
board and so represents our formal scope document:


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D3KwSM_BO7KkcbVADQVVn7eFwkD-RNauMwidhhlVPsI/pub

and for, completeness, draft 2014 Action Plan:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qRH5-LtzXiLhFFoo4iDu8mKfIUv1dhLYTwRZxBgNhJ8/pub



Thanks, Paul. I hope you and the rest of the group don't mind me 
asking some more questions.



https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BWn372ow_1tnTdQja76mthS8V-ZQ5PCL_RWLR1CBzkw/pub
has some of the work we'd like to take on in the near future.


Interesting. How often does the group meet, in practice? Is there also 
a fair bit of email between meetings, or...?


We've progressively wound down from 2 meetings a week(!) to one per 
month, which is about right.  The current gap in frequency is, I hope, 
transient. We have a low volume of emails in between on strategic 
discussion and have also been experimenting with circular resolutions.  
We are also getting an increasing amounts of license enqurires along the 
lines of I intend to XYZ, is it OK to use your data.


It mentions referrals to outside counsel - is that still WSGR or is it 
someone else?
Yes, WSGR.  We occassionally ask for, and get pro bono advice, on 
specific issues.


I note quite a few non-licensing topics—DMCA, Facebook, etc. Are those 
common or is this unusually timed?
Not very common.  I wanted to keep our name as License Working Group to 
emphasize our strategic direction and nature. Our primary task is  the 
promotion of open geospatial data through practical, coherent and clear 
licensing. But we are a catch-all for anything considered legal. I am 
also keen on the area of risk mitigation, so conducting a DMCA review in 
conjunction with our Data Working Group was an important but finite 
activity. One other thing we've been involved in is policy documents, 
for example outlining our general position to diplomats on issues such 
as geographic name clashes and disputed borders ... we create a final 
draft that goes to the board for endorsement.


We haven't worked out a precise framework for the scope of
individual associate members - it's not expected that all
associate members would participate in all parts of the LWG's work.

If associate members not having a vote would allow people to help
who would otherwise be in a conflict of interest, that could be
done too.


How often are votes actually held? Or is it mostly consensus-based anyway?
Except for our circular resolutions experiments where it is practical, I 
believe we have never actually had or needed a vote! My general policy 
has been that we are deliberately a group of people with disparate 
personal views, on for example what type of license we should have, and 
that if we do not have unamimous agreement, or at least assent, then we 
have not reached the right solution.


Does the WG have formal legal obligations as a committee of the board 
(or otherwise) or is it informal/advisory? (To explain that another 
way: in some organizations, groups like the LWG are board committees, 
and so certain formal requirements apply to their members — duties of 
good faith, attendance, voting rules, etc. In some orgs, they are 
essentially purely advisory so have no formal legal obligations.)
Informal/advisory. It would be good to go beyond our scope document 
above to formally define that ... something we could use help on!


Thanks-
Luis

--
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810

/This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have 
received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the 
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia

[OSM-legal-talk] License Working Group news

[Michael Collinson]

The License Working Group is undermanned and has only met twice this 
year, most recently on 28th October. [1]


This is due in great part to my lack of time, enthusiasm and attention 
in calling meetings.  I am therefore stepping down as below and welcome 
volunteers to join as full members and indeed, subject to the agreement 
of other LWG members and board endorsement, take over the chair role.


I would also like to highlight that we also now welcome associate 
members who can help us occassionally or want to work on a specific 
topic that fires you up. This involves no specific formalities nor 
duties.   It has been brought to my attention that this might therefore 
suit legal practioners who would otherwise have a conflict of interest.  
We would certainly welcome involvement from real lawyers!


Lastly, Satoshi Iida, an extremely active member of the OSM Japan 
community has asked to participate in LWG and I welcome him 
enthusiastically. It is important to broaden our scope beyond Western 
Europe/US thinking.


Mike


[1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes

=== Slightly edited copy of email sent to LWG ==

Dear LWG,  and CC Board for their information,

I feel that I do not, and will be unable to give, LWG the time and 
attention it needs.  I have also been in the position for at least 6 
years and it is time for a new and more enthusiastic face.   I am 
therefore formally resigning as Chair and invite the LWG to consider a 
replacement.  I would prefer that this was not a member of the current 
board, and therein lies a problem.  I am asking Simon now his current 
status, but apart from him, all other current members are also board 
members.  I have also one piece of good news in that Satoshi Iida, an 
extremely active member of the OSM Japan community has asked to 
participate and I welcome him enthusiastically.


I regret adding even more to the current board's starting load, but 
think it best to just face facts. I am therefore happy to stay in a 
caretaker role until that person is in place, but emphasise that this 
will be less than ideal.


The issues that LWG should ideally be dealing with are:

 * Assisting end-users by developing clarificatory community guidelines
   for providing OSM-based data services (rather than maps) in a mixed
   data environment.
 * License compatibility with CC 4 and the general issue of license
   harmonisation.
 * Diligently answering now frequent license enquiries.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Unelected OSMF advisers

[Michael Collinson]

On 17/11/2014 15:41, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
I am a little concerned that the (already overwhelming) task of fixing 
OSMF, which has been entrusted to a board of seven good people, is 
being made still harder by people in mysterious unelected roles 
offering their advice.


I know of at least two: Mike Collinson is chair of the (AIUI moribund) 
'Management Team'. Steve Coast is 'chairman emeritus' - I'm not sure 
whether Simon Poole has also been offered this title. I believe (but 
don't know) there may be others who receive copies of, and can send, 
management emails but aren't elected in any way.
Steve and I are the only persons receiving board CCs. Steve as Chaiman 
Emeritus and I as Management Team chair.  Neither are mysterious, but 
they are unelected so I respectfully take Richard's point. We are also 
invited to attend board meetings.




Two requests:

First, for the sake of openness, it would be good to see these 
relationships documented on the OSMF website.


I have now documented the Management Team relationship: 
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Management_Team#Tasks


For the Chairman Emeritus role, there is not is not a page on the 
website and, yes, it would be a good idea to have one. I would prefer to 
wait until after Thursday's meeting. Meanwhile, the general relationship 
is documented here:


https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2012/08/16/board-grants-project-founder-the-title-of-chairman-emeritus/


Second, while the new board decides on its direction, a period of 
self-imposed silence by these people would be considerate. Frederik, 
Kathleen and Paul have been newly elected to do a difficult job. Their 
work will be made all the more difficult by a cacophony of advice from 
those without a mandate.


This isn't personal - I like Mike very much, while I think it's fairly 
comprehensively documented that Steve and I don't get on - but it 
seems, to me, common decency that if you ask someone to do a job, you 
give them the time and space to do it.
For transparency, I have attended about one year of board meetings now I 
think (it is minuted). I took the approach that I should simply listen 
and pick up items that the MT could handle. I was however encouraged to 
take a more participatory role provided that I do not take part in 
voting. On board email, I answer questions that are asked and 
occassionally make reports or specific requests from the Management Team 
or License Working Group.  Else, the value is that I am generally aware 
of issues and do not need to be briefed. I cannot make comment on board 
meeting or email detail, but I do not think it breaching confidentiality 
to say that Steve's participation is overwhelming passive ... he makes 
his engagement through public, open channels to my knowledge.


During the approximately the past three weeks, and only then, I have 
certainly been aggressive in giving advice ... and asking it.  Yes, it 
is possible that I have over-stepped bounds.  I feel that it is also 
common decency that if you ask someone to do a job, then you should 
provide briefing and also get their opinions in order to support them. I 
have therefore had telephone conversations with 3 board members and may 
do with a 4th. I have sent two emails of definitely unsolicited advice, 
one 2014-10-27 and one today.  I have requested that the Management Team 
be put on the Thursday board meeting agenda and published a document 
that may have prompted Richard's mailing. I feel it silly that the board 
should not be briefed on an issue that they might, if they want, decide 
is a major cause of this whole hoo-ha.  A board member then commented, 
(but made no specific request), that the document made little 
recommendation on what the board could actually do. I took that as an 
invitation and am doing a second pass through the document, (which I 
shall now stop).  Good, bad? Well, now I really don't know. On Thursday, 
I shall make a short preamble, offer to quit and then let the board take 
it from there. Whatever they decide,  I wish them luck in a difficult 
but not insurmountable phase.


I hope that better meets your concerns? Likewise I like Richard and 
greatly respect his opinions.


Mike



Richard


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



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

[OSM-talk] Moderator statement. Please read before posting

[Michael Collinson]

Rule 1: Have Fun!

The OSM project depends on folks participating because we want to and 
because, measured in our own terms, we have fun. Whoever we are. 
Whatever we do.


Crowdsourcing depends on as many people as possible being involved and 
engaged. For us, that means women and men, professors and school 
children, folks from literally every country in the world, non-native 
and native English speakers.  All are on this list. Repeat: All are on 
this list.  We welcome you.  We hope you will stay and read ... and may 
be get into posting too.  We are not doing a very good job at that, are we?


So, Steve's better map thread. Let's end it.  Rational, courteous 
presentation and discussion of visions is of vital importance, 
particularly on this international list. So, if there are positive 
things you want to pick up as specific new threads, please go ahead ... 
but be guided by my advice below.


Lastly, and I know at least one of the principal players has signed up 
for this. A truly great free MOOC course is starting again tomorrow, 3rd 
November.  If you want to be more effective in forming opinion in 
OpenStreetMap to the point that things actually happen, sign up. At 
minimum, focus on watching the first and last videos in the course.  The 
course is much more general than the title suggests.


*Inspiring Leadership through Emotional Intelligence**
**https://www.coursera.org/course/lead-ei* (English with English, 
Chinese (Simplified), Russian, Turkish, Ukrainian subtitles).


Mike

*Mike's personal checklist for dealing with stormy weather*

I have evolved this after many years on this list and our occasional 
storms.  I am aiming this at the active Thinkers within our community 
whose input I respect and encourage:


o Think of your whole audience (above) and how to engage them.  Most of 
your audience will never actually reply to you.  [Although every now and 
again you will get a really nice offlist message. They always make my day.]


o Engage positively, the academic buzz-word is Positive Attractors ... 
watch the first course videos.  After all, you want to persuade people 
that You Are Right.  That, whether you like it or not, is done 
emotionally as well as logically.


o When there is a storm. Post less (or may be not at all), not more.  
I am a native English-speaker and scan-reader (= I can read very 
quickly), but not even I can keep up with the current thread, so I miss 
interesting and thought-provoking things  ... so what about everyone 
else?  Wait a day, structure what you want to say strategically over two 
or three well placed mailings.  (If you follow the totality of *all* my 
postings to all lists over the last two weeks, you will see I am doing 
exactly this.  And I will win eventually!)


o Separate personalities from their arguments. If you want say You Are 
Wrong, it is perfectly possible to say this without direct personal 
attack. Yep, some people will violate this and upset you, just ignore it.


o Separate people's character from their ideas.  ... Oh, I have already 
said that.  :-)


o Lastly. A positive argument, crisis, storm, whatever, has two phases.  
The first can be unpleasant if we are not all 100% emotionally and 
socially very intelligent, which alas we are not. Airing dirty washing 
(English idiom = talking publicly about things that were previously 
private).  Violent disagreements. Healthy, but highly adversarial 
debate. And so on.  It is only positive if there is a second closure 
phase, that involves calm reflection, consensus-seeking, taking other 
people's views into account ... and deciding on a course of action that 
you may not be 100% happy with, but a large number of people are ... And 
we actually do something!  It really annoys how little we consciously 
move on to the that ultra-important phase 2!





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

Re: [OSM-talk] Postponing elections, or other alternatives (Was: Modus operandi of the board)

[Michael Collinson]

I thank Christoph and Kathleen for obliquely raising an issue ... which 
I'd crudely put as politics versus bureaucracy. It is a very important 
one and touches back on the topic of modus operandi of the OSMF board. 
I, perhaps in a minority, regard the entire OSMF set-up as volunteer 
bureaucrats ... we are primarily helping protecting and growing a 
resource, the OSM database, that is not ours.  And, as I learnt during 
the license change process, consensus-seeking is an e-x-t-r-e-m-e-l-y 
important part of the bureaucracy role.


So, Christoph, yes, I like to see what positions candidates take, it 
helps me decide who will be the best bureaucrat and thus who I will 
personally vote for. And Kathleen, yes, board members should be both 
seeking and forming consensus. And if one starts that as a candidate, 
all the better. Just remember that consensus is not always the loudest 
voices!


Mike

On 28/10/2014 11:50, Kathleen Danielson wrote:

Christoph,

If you are concerned that something might seem harsh, perhaps you 
shouldn't say it. I'm fairly certain you could have expressed your 
point without telling me that I am opportunistically doing whatever 
the majority wants.


What I am doing, in fact, is gathering information. I am working to 
see if there is consensus to be built. I am asking if this is 
something that others would like to see pursued. I think that people 
like Richard have made the case for disbanding the board beautifully, 
and I don't think that I would have much to add. In fact, since 
Richard specifically called me out as a part of the new generation of 
leaders, it would seem rather self-serving for me to fiercely campaign 
for it. I do have my own opinions about what I think we should do. 
I've expressed some of them on these lists. I see a lot of merit in 
the idea of restarting the board with a fresh mandate, but it's 
complicated now that we have 3 seats to elect, rather than 2-- perhaps 
we don't need to take such an extreme measure anymore. However, the 
fact that the 3rd seat only opened up a few hours before the window to 
announce candidacy closed makes this even more complicated, because I 
feel confident that with more time it would have changed the field of 
candidates. Finally, I would like to see an election held again soon 
with a larger voting base, because the events of the past two week or 
so have certainly made more people interested in voting who had never 
been members before (like you, perhaps).


This is all quite complex. I am far less interested in being elected 
to the board than I am interested in helping the OSM community. I 
decided to run because of the trainwreck that we saw unfolding last 
week on this mailing list. I only had another day or two to decide if 
I was going to run, and that was the only thing I could think to do to 
help. I spent the last year on the OSM-US board, so I certainly have 
the credentials for it. This project is important. I can help. If the 
membership agrees that I can help by being a member of the board, they 
will elect me in. Great. If not, great-- I'll probably have lower 
blood pressure as a result. Still, I'm not going to stop trying to 
help this community, because it is a project and a group of people 
that I believe in.


This email isn't a part of my election campaign. It's just me, 
asking my peers what they want, because maybe I am in a position to do 
something.





On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Christoph Hormann 
chris_horm...@gmx.de mailto:chris_horm...@gmx.de wrote:


On Tuesday 28 October 2014, Kathleen Danielson wrote:

 I'm curious about whether the membership is interested in us
pursuing
 some kind of reboot. We've only heard a few voices on the topic,
 which has made me reluctant to work on organizing anything that
might
 go against the membership's wishes.

This is more or less why i added these questions to

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Foundation/AGM14/Election_to_Board

to encourange everyone - members and candidates - to make up their
mind.

To be frank - if you expect the OSMF members to have an opinion on the
matter you should as an OSMF member yourself also have an opinion.
People who have a clear stance on this will probably want to vote for
someone who shares their opinion, not for someone who - i am sorry if
this seems harsh - opportunistically will do whatever the majority
wants.

I fully understand if you or other candidates think you cannot (yet)
form a qualified opinion on this but then i think you can't expect
this
from the membership either.

Personally i would want to vote for someone who clearly states her/his
support for a restart since i find the accounts of Richard, Frederik
and others pretty convincing and supported by the observable facts
about the OSMF work. I am well aware this would also involve the risk
of the results being even worse than now (as for 

Re: [OSM-talk] The Working Groups need you!

[Michael Collinson]

The work around is that you express interest and the chair of the 
relevant working group invites you. We'd like the chair of each working 
group to be an OSMF member but there is no hard and fast rule beyond 
that.  It is basically up to the chair.


Certainly as License Working Group chair, I would welcome anyone 
interested in problem solving in a collective atmosphere ... either as 
long-term member or to work on some particular issue or project that 
motivates you.


I am also nominally Management Team chair. I would also personally love 
to get folks involved without having to be attached to a particular 
working group or taking on a long-term committment. For example, and I 
hope I am not treading on his toes, Dermot McNally is tasked with coming 
up with a workable system for running our up-coming board election to 
STV for the first time. He is looking at using OpaVote for the polling 
and may be OpenSTV for validation. He may need help, drop him or me line.


From my memory, (which can be suspect), Clifford, I think you may be 
referring to the Future now aka Strategic Working Group? We felt that to 
be a bit of an exception due to the nature of the remit.


Mike


On 27/10/2014 18:10, Clifford Snow wrote:


The answer is yes you need to be a member of the foundation. At least 
it was when we were attempting to create a new group.


This for create problems for those that the annual dues are 
unaffordable. A work around would be nice.


Clifford

On Oct 27, 2014 9:33 AM, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl 
mailto:i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote:


On 27 Oct 2014 16:16, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com
mailto:penor...@mac.com wrote:

 With the recent interest in the OSMF, I'm hoping to capitalize
on this and boost working group participation.

Hi Paul,

As I'm too lazy to look up the regulations, could you tell me
whether working group members are required to be member of the
foundation?

Kind regards,
Matthijs


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



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


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

[OSM-legal-talk] Google awarded patent on automatic correction of road geometry from imagery

[Michael Collinson]

This comes to me via Simon Poole, so the OSMF board is aware.

http://apb.directionsmag.com/entry/google-patent-updating-map-data-using-satellite-imagery/402398?utm_source=dlvr.itutm_medium=tumblr
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFp=1u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.htmlr=1f=Gl=50d=PALLRefSrch=yesQuery=PN/8731305

The invention claimed is a A computer-implemented method so I am not 
sure scan-reading the patent whether that includes humans looking at 
digital imagery and making db corrections via computer. If so, then 
obviously (our) prior art is going to blow this apart. If not, then 
anyone working on automated road detection algorithms should be aware.


Interestingly, if you scroll down through the patent itself, you'll see 
that they specifically mention correcting US TIGER data.


Mike

*Abstract*

Map data are overlaid on satellite imagery. A road segment within the 
map data is identified, and the satellite imagery indicates that the 
road segment is at a different geographic position than a geographic 
position indicated by the map data. The endpoints of the road segment in 
the map data are aligned with the corresponding positions of the 
endpoints in the satellite imagery. A road template is applied at an 
endpoint of the road segment in the satellite imagery, and the angle of 
the road template that matches the angle of the road segment indicated 
by the satellite imagery is determined by optimizing a cost function. 
The road template is iteratively shifted along the road segment in the 
satellite imagery. The geographic position of the road segment within 
the map data is updated responsive to the positions and angles of the 
road template.



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

[Talk-GB] Animated map of the development of London

[Michael Collinson]

Not OpenStreetMap, but even as a Yorkshireman devoid of sentiment for 
those areas down south I found this interesting to watch:


http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/may/15/the-evolution-of-london-the-citys-near-2000-year-history-mapped

Mike

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

[Talk-GB] Animated map of the development of London

[Michael Collinson]

Not OpenStreetMap, but even as a Yorkshireman I found this interesting 
to watch:


http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/may/15/the-evolution-of-london-the-citys-near-2000-year-history-mapped

Mike

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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis updated with May 2014 OS Locator data

[Michael Collinson]

On 15/05/2014 09:27, Steven Horner wrote:


Personally I like Marc's suggestion of using the 2 street names 
separated by a hyphen. This allows both names to be rendered. Then 
identifying each street with left and right tags. How do you chose 
which is which if the road runs East to West?


I'm amazed this doesn't crop up constantly, any old terraced streets 
with a road separating them would have the issue. I can think of about 
a dozen streets within 1 mile of me where this is the case.


C19th Terraces are interesting ... and confusing.  I've studied a few in 
my home town of Otley. Generally I've found that when the developer, 
usually a factory owner,  put both the street and the building in, then 
Danefield Terrace is typically the name of the street. But if they put 
the buildings up later, then the name refers to the building, for 
example Elm Terrace, East Busk Lane ... even though it has a street sign 
and local folks will refer to it just as Elm Terrace. So I put the 
Terrace name on the building.  And, by the way, it will often have an 
alley around the back referred to as Back of Elm Terrace.  And yes there 
is one case where the street sign makers just gave up and put both 
names. Ramsey Terrace/Wharfe Street. There is a terrace on the left and 
detached houses and an old school on the right. I've not found enough 
historic information or talked to folks living there to determine 
whether it is a double name street or Wharfe Street with a terrace down 
one side.


The point in rambling/writing is that I suspect these were all 
non-issues, nobody cared, until the advent of digital computers and the 
need to assign things precisely ... even though the reality is that they 
are not precise. Nineteenth century OS surveyors clearly dodge the 
issue. A beck or wood will have one name on one part and another name on 
another, but no attempt to decide a boundary.  So, like it or not we are 
not just collecting names of things, in some instances we (and public 
bodies faced with the same issue) are actually transfer naming things.  
In the case of public bodies, there can then be a clash between the 
logical assignment of a name and what local people feel something is 
called.  Perhaps many double named streets actually don't have a name at 
all 'cos if you live there it isn't important. But I am venturing into 
Tim Water's realm. Fun though, even though this does not help Steven in 
the slightest. Sorry!


Mike

PS I cannot resist one more interesting example. If you map in the north 
of England, you will be no doubt putting names like Heber Gill on 
streams. But I believe, perhaps someone more knowledgeable can confirm, 
that gill does not refer to the water at all, but a stretch of steep 
narrow valley that the stream passes through in part of its journey.


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

[OSM-legal-talk] Community Guidelines - Horizontal Cuts better text

[Michael Collinson]

Thanks to all have responded specifically or generally on our community 
guidelines draft. I have been able to make a number of small changes 
which tighten and clarify without changing intent.


I have made one large edit by replacing my original horizontal cuts text 
with some that I believe is better [1]. We (LWG) want to make it very 
clear that if a map is made with different layers, folks can't just 
arrange the layers artificially to weasel out of data share-alike 
obligations. I think the new text says that very clearly and in a manner 
better matching the concepts of derivative and collective database data 
sources. However, it does come from a suggestion by a commercial 
company, so for transparency I declare that and invite any comments.


If there are no controversies by the end of the week, we'll begin the 
next step [2] which is for the Foundation to endorse the text as being a 
reasonable community consensus and transfer it to the osmfoundation.org. 
As a check-and-balance, that endorsement will be done by the board not 
by the License Working Group.



Mike

[1] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Horizontal_Layers_-_Guideline
[2] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Community_Guidelines/How_We_Create_Community_Guidelines


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM France BANO project... openaddresses in France

[Michael Collinson]

On 16/05/2014 12:36, Simon Poole wrote:

It is likely that the LWG will be providing a clarification on the
matter at hand soon (Paul has been doing some work on this over the last
couple of weeks).
We are now putting the finishing touches to that and I hope that I'll be 
able to release it within the next two days provided that we all accept 
it. I will respond further to this thread then.


I will therefore informally comment:

1) Jean-Marc says, As it stands now, there is nothing that prevents 
anyone from contributing ODbL-licensed data into an ODbL-licensed 
database. Yep. And we designed the contributor terms with that in mind.


2) There is one small issue to aware of: It is possible to have an ODbL 
data with a different contents license. For example a database of freely 
shareable photos can have a contents license that says, but if you want 
to use a photo in published media, then a license fee applies.  
Unlikely for geodata, but be aware. The default contents license for 
ODbL is: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/1.0/


3) As with any other import, it is possible that the data would have to 
be removed if our OSM successors decided to change our license. It is my 
*personal opinion* that is is up to national or local OSM communities, 
as appropriate, to decide that is best for them on the Import yes or 
no? question.  I *personally* don't like to see imports of anything 
that is not either public domain-like or has a simple one level 
attribution clause. But on the other hand, I see a major reason for a 
future OpenStreetMap wanting to drop share-alike is that the entire open 
geodata community is dropping it ... so may be a gamble worth taking.


Mike

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

[OSM-legal-talk] Creative Commons license question

[Michael Collinson]

This is a pure CC question.

An organisation is making a short film/video which will be released 
CC-BY.  They want to show (fleetingly) OSM map tiles ... which are 
CC-BY-SA- 2.0.  Can they do that?


[And if anyone in the UK wants to help them by creating tiles from 
scratch under a CC-BY license, let me know and I'll pass on.  It does 
seem to be in a good cause. But the core question is still a good one to 
answer.]


Mike
License Working Group

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Guideline review: Substantial

[Michael Collinson]

Luis,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, I hope you don't mind 
that I've referenced the mail link on the page for resource reading!



On 30/04/2014 00:10, Luis Villa wrote:
I think it is pretty clear that this rule is only for OSM/ODBL, but it 
wouldn't hurt to make that more explicit. (It *has* to be only about 
OSM, because you can't judge whether something is substantial without 
knowing about the nature of the database (quantitative) and how the 
data was obtained (qualitative).)

Good point and done on the general Community Guideline page.


Few other comments:

  * It might be helpful to link to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_features when talking about
Features, assuming those are the same concept, which I admit I'm
still not 100% sure about?
  * It might be helpful to explain better why the page is focused on
insubstantial rather than substantial.
  * The village/town distinction doesn't seem very helpful to me. If
the goal really is to push out commercial projects, very few
commercial projects are going to be viable at the town level - the
vast majority will be national level, with a few exceptions for
London/Paris/NY-level cities. So saying you can use towns would
still block out most commercial use while perhaps allowing some
small governments to do useful things. But I may be
misunderstanding the goal here?
  * I find This definition aims to:...Build a case for the
qualitative interpretation of Substantial to be slightly
confusing - I /think/ that what is meant is something like This
guideline attempts to clarify what uses would constitute a
substantial qualitative use of OSM data (perhaps implying that
many important uses are not going to be quantitatively
substantial?), but I'm really not sure. I would clarify or remove
that.

I've done some rewording to the summary which I hope addresses these. 
I've not added a link to the map features page, they are not (really) 
the same concept. A Feature is how an ordinary map viewing individual 
would see things: a single road (even if broken into different segments 
for speed limits), a lake, a pub (even if tagged with multitudinous 
detail on the beer and ATM machines). A general note to all: these 
guidelines are directed at folks who are not familiar with OSM, so need 
to worded accordingly using simple, hopeful translatable, wording and 
sentences.


 *

Hope this is helpful-


Indeed!

Mike

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

[OSM-legal-talk] Community Guidelines (was Re: Attribution)

[Michael Collinson]

On 28/04/2014 23:27, Mikel wrote:

Further I note there was 0 (zero) response to the proposed updated community 
guidelines that
go a long way in clarifying a number of the grey areas, indicating that the 
whole upset is not
about fixing real issues.

Simon, first i've heard about this. Can you point to where it's posted please, 
and also, explain the process by which they were created, proposed, and 
approved? Thanks


Mikel and all,

Here is one of the emails:

https://www.mail-archive.com/talk@openstreetmap.org/msg49397.html

And the process and main page are here:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Community_Guidelines/How_We_Create_Community_Guidelines
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Community_Guidelines

We'd like to get some closure on some of the longer lived items as well 
as better publicise the whole process, so I am about to go to the main 
list.  Any discussion or input however small in the rather calmer waters 
of this list first is greatly welcome.  The more polished the guidelines 
are, the better.


We also have a number of issues that are very immature in terms of 
constructing a useful guideline.  What we have been lacking, with some 
notable exceptions, is data users prepared to give a real use case that 
they can share in a reasonable level of detail.  Being able to deal with 
concrete rather than myriad hypothetical cases makes progress much 
faster. If you are user or potential user of OSM data, do share 
real-world issues here. Or, contact us at le...@osmfoundation.org. We 
can handle commercial-in-confidence provided that the end result is 
shareable publicly and applies to all equally within the parameters of 
our license.


Mike
License Working Group


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

[OSM-legal-talk] The edges of share-alike on data Re: Attribution

[Michael Collinson]

I've renamed the subject because it has gone way off topic, but I wanted 
to come back on Tobias' comment because it struck a chord and I would 
like to share a personal research topic. I am curious to evolve the idea 
further to see if there is any positive value.


Open data is a different animal to software source code and 
highly-creative works and I suspect it will a few more years yet until 
we understand it all fully.


I personally see this unwanted data  is an underlying theme under many 
of the issues the LWG has been looking at under the Community Guidelines 
process :-


Geocoding: So I have to share a patient's medical record because it is 
geocoded against OSM?


Dynamic Data: So if I use OpenStreetMap car park location data, I have 
to share the real-time occupancy data?


Algorithmic transformations: So I thought of this clever idea to 
pre-format OSM data for fast loading into my game. Now I have to share 
my that or my algorithm?


General maps: I want to use OSM to show locations of restaurants on my 
restaurant review site. Now I have to share the reviews?


And so on.   Now many of these issues may be resolved, and in some case 
have been resolved, in other ways which remain within the scope of the 
current ODbL version. But a very simple way of dealing with everything 
in one go is to say:


*The OpenStreetMap project collects long-lived geospatial data as a set 
of intelligently or machine-made physical observations only.* [Wording 
needs improving!]


And then to say:

*And share-alike only applies to what we collect.*

Again, it just a research topic. I see it as benefiting the 
OpenStreetMap project enormously but at the same time potentially 
debasing the whole concept of share-alike for the wider open data 
community ... perhaps those restaurant reviews should be shared?


Mike



On 30/04/2014 23:35, Tobias Knerr wrote:

On 30.04.2014 19:37, Rob Myers wrote:

On 30/04/14 03:18 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote:

But we have to judge a license based on its actual effects, not the
original intention. What annoys me, for example, is when we require
people to publish data that we wouldn't even want if they offered it.

The users of the data may want it. The license exists to benefit them,
not (just) OSM.

If the actual effects worked against this then yes there would be a problem.

I think there is quite a bit of data that will, with high likelihood,
never be of use to anyone. That's especially true for byproducts of the
creation of a produced work.

But your argument about also shows that there are mappers who ask for a
lot more than just giving data back when you fix things. Thus it would
be foolish for a data consumer to assume they only have to follow that
spirit, as much as I wish that was enough.

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



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

[OSM-talk] Community Guidelines needs your review

[Michael Collinson]

Hi all,

We've been running under the written-for-data ODbL license for well over 
a year now thanks to the good folks at Open Knowledge Foundation and 
their Open Data Commons project.


The ODbL is written for data in general and still needs some 
interpretation when applied specifically to our geospatial data project. 
So, 5 years ago, we set up a project called Community Guidelines to 
share with end users of OpenStreetMap data how we as a contributing 
community understand things, what our intentions are and what we are 
happy/not happy with.


It is very important that you personally can participate if you want to.

There is more detail in this earlier legal-talk mail 
https://www.mail-archive.com/talk@openstreetmap.org/msg49397.html, but 
the main points are:


1) The front page is at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Community_Guidelines


2) The process for developing a Community Guideline from a set of ideas 
to a formal policy is described at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Community_Guidelines/How_We_Create_Community_Guidelines


3) If you did not know about them, we appreciate hearing any comments 
that you want to make.


4) We'd like to formalise these guidelines, do you object?

What does Substantial mean?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline

When is my project a Produced Work?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline
 


Trivial Transformations
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline

5) These have been accepted community practise almost since the 
beginning of the project but have never been written down and we have 
had questions about them. Now they have.  Does the write-up seem 
reasonable to you?


Regional Cuts
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Regional_Cuts_-_Guideline

Horizontal layers
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Horizontal_Layers_-_Guideline

General comments welcome on this list. Detailed comments to legal-talk, on the 
wiki (there is a Discussion section below each guideline) or to 
le...@osmfoundation.org.

Mike

Michael Collinson
Chair, OpenStreetMap Foundation License Working Group









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

Re: [OSM-talk] How to handle copyright status of notes information.

[Michael Collinson]

On 03/05/2014 17:26, colliar wrote:

How do you handle the copyright status on information from notes ?

I often find useful information like opening_hours and new openings of
shops/amenities in notes but how do I know if the anonymous user did add
this information from survey or legal sources ?

cu colliar
That's an interesting question.  My first reaction would be to accept it 
as made in good faith provided that there was nothing obvious like a 
huge list in a systematic format.


The OpenStreetMap Foundation have signed up the the US Digital Millenium 
Copyright Act and so have a fairly painless procedure to report and 
remove individual items should they creep through.


If anyone working on the notes software and screens is reading this, I 
suggest changing the sentence (Please don't enter personal information 
here.) to (Please don't enter personal information or information from 
copyrighted maps or directory listings here.)


Mike

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using Google Street View to perform virtual survey

[Michael Collinson]

I think the License Working Group would echo exactly what Jonathan says.

While it does not solve the problem of being able to map where there are 
no mappers, may I also seize the opportunity to promote John McKerrell's 
excellent OpenStreetView?  It is a great under-exploited tool!


http://openstreetview.org/
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Openstreetview

Single photo and bulk upload works well. I am slowly adding my 
collection of 40,000+ OSM survey photos in the hope that other mappers 
will be able squeeze out even more map detail. You can choose from a 
variety of licenses for the actual photo, but the photo metadata is CC0.


Mike


On 07/04/2014 17:16, jonathan wrote:
This is obviously a legal grey area and until it ends up in court I 
suspect it will remain a grey area.


However, I feel what IS black and white is that if we were to 
officially use Google StreetView or any non-open source to build our 
data then we should expect a lawsuit from Google or any other owner of 
said service/medium/technology.  Also, we should remember that their 
legal budget will be much bigger than ours.


In my opinion, we can only have one stance and that is such services 
are not available for us to use as a source for our database.


We should, however, approach Google et al and ask them if they 
prohibit such use, I'm sure they'll say that we can't use it, but at 
least we'll know.


To use any such service without express permission risks EVERYTHING, 
we would be leaving a door open for Google et al to file against us in 
the future and OSM could just descend into a legal black hole. Google 
would love that!


We MUST be whiter than white.  The Open in OpenStreetMap is a 
responsibility as well as a right and to protect that right we must 
act responsibly.


Jonathan
http://bigfatfrog67.me
On 05/04/2014 16:50, Paulo Carvalho wrote:

Dear fellow mappers,

   Let me present myself to you.  I'm a OSM mapper from the Brazil 
community and a question rose there which caused a split in the group 
regarding Google Street View to perform virtual surveys, such as 
taking notes of house numbers and plotting them in the maps.


   After reading 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#2a._Can_I_trace_data_from_Google_Maps.2FNokia_Maps.2F3F 
, I was pondering about the impossibility of copyright and licenses 
apply to facts and reality (not regarding philosophical aspects).


   Google Street View photos depict reality or facts, thus I could 
use them to observe reality and derive interpretations which would be 
genuine creative work.  It would be illegal to use the images in 
Mapillary, for instance, but the facts depicted by the images are not 
property of Google.


   Your thoughts, please

Paulo Carvalho


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




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


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

[OSM-legal-talk] Community Guideline - Regional Cuts

[Michael Collinson]

Going back several years, Flickr started using OpenStreetMap as a base 
map for some but not all cities around the world. As a community, we 
were happy with that. But it does mean that we are saying the you 
publish a global map and have parts of it coming from OpenStreetMap 
without triggering share-alike on the rest. We have been asked about the 
Does and Don'ts.  As a reality-check, I would therefore like us to have 
a guideline that protects the principles behind share-alike and 
encourages use of OpenStreetMap within large-scale or global electronic 
maps.


Here is the proposed wording:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Regional_Cuts_-_Guideline

I have three questions for you:

1) Is it basically OK with you personally? (Reality check!)

2) What is the smallest size we should allow? If it done at a continent 
level, I think no one would see a problem. But if we go to a smaller 
size, then there comes a point where map makers clearly avoid any 
responsibility to help improve our data by taking a village here, a 
village there where OSM is best and using other non-public data 
elsewhere.  A win-win is to say OK you use our data but we want you to 
take some good, some bad so that you have an incentive to help fill in 
the bad.  One option would be to limit to whole countries, whatever 
size.  Another, which I personally favour, is cities/greater 
metropolitan areas.  See more on the wiki page.


3) Are you OK with the wording allowing adjustment of roads, railways 
etc across boundaries without triggering share-alike? There seems to be 
no public value(?). See wiki page for more discussion.


Mike

Michael Collinson
License Working Group

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

[OSM-legal-talk] Community Guidelines needs your review

[Michael Collinson]

I have now almost finished a major revamp of the Community Guideline 
pages at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Community_Guidelines. 
I now ask for a few eyeballs to review the pages so that they represent 
a community consensus rather than what Michael Collinson thinks.


I  revamped the format of each guideline for clarity and harmony. The 
actual guideline itself is now confined to a single section The Guideline.


I added wording to the Trivial Transformation guideline from 2012 
email on this mailing list.


I added a new guideline Regional Cuts for something we have allowed 
but never formally codified.


I added a new guideline Horizontal Layers. We believe legally ODbL is 
actually pretty clear on this, but it is difficult to understand for 
practical use of geodata.


My key questions to you are:

1) The following guidelines have existed for a long time with no 
significant change or challenge,  the age test. Do you have any 
objections to bumping them to the next step, formal endorsement by the 
Foundation?


o Substantial
o Produced Work
o Trivial Transformations (strictly speaking the text is new on the wiki 
but has been around since 2012 on this list)


2) Do these new guidelines seem reasonable to you?

o Regional Cuts
o Horizontal layers

3) There are two new open issues in the Regional Cuts 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Regional_Cuts_-_Guideline 
. Do you have any opinion?  I will write a separate posting about them 
to make it easier.


4) Can you think of better, more obvious, names for any of the guidelines?

Mike

Michael Collinson
License Working Group







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

Re: [OSM-talk] How to Tag Closed Airport

[Michael Collinson]

One thing to consider is adding some sort of subsidiary tags, such as 
suggested, add closed to the name, but leave the main aeroway tagged for 
a few years. If an airport suddenly disappears from normal map rendering 
there is a natural assumption by map users that OpenStreetMap is in 
error.  I have no strong views on the correctness of that, but it is 
pragmatic.


http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/86784991  Stockholm-Barkarby flygplats 
(Nedlagd)


Mike


On 26/01/2014 07:49, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:

I favor disused=yes, perhaps with access=no and a note=.
The wiki page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disused would favor
disused:aeroway=aerodrome
 -Byce

Notes 1) Were there an objectnote:en= feature meant for display in
map clients, this would be a good addition also.

Note 2) While not relevant here, the OSM lifecycle tags are missing a
number of steps: broken when last observed is
the lifecycle stage I most frequently want to map.  There's also
under construction but not finished when last observed.

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




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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping Gallipoli

[Michael Collinson]

Hi Warin,

First,  wonderful idea,  my grandad fought there with the 2nd AIF and being 
able to relate dry names in books to actual places is very satisfying ... 
whether just looking at the map or making an actual visit.

I think it well worth approaching Australian War Memorial. As OpenStreetMap can 
be used by commercial entities we cannot use NC licensed data. But as we 
ourselves are non-commercial and you are trying to do something for common good 
without reward, you may well get a sympathetic response. In a similar vein, I 
was able to get permission from the Smithsonian to add volcanos from their 
global index. 

I also agree that asking the Turkish community shows tact and courtesy and will 
perpetuate the regard that the fighting men of both sides had for each other. I 
suggest using name:en so that Turkish names can be used as default.

Best wishes for 2014 to all Australian mappers,
Mike

 Original message 
From Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com 
Date: 2014/01/02  21:29  (GMT-05:00) 
To talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject [talk-au] Mapping Gallipoli 
 
Hi,

I've taken the trouble of mapping the present memorials (and their associated 
roads, paths .. in some cases adjacent paths so people don't take the wrong 
ones) at Gallipoli, Turkey. A few were maped in the south (mainly British, 
about 4), one road was GPS sourced. I've tried to get them all (OZ, NZ and 
Turkish mainly), there maybe a few left (at least 2 I think) but I've not found 
them with bing. 

The Question? 
Should I now map the named ridges, gullies etc that were used by 'us' (and/or 
named by 'us') in the action? I'd be using info from the official Australian 
history (avalible as pdfs ... and that has copyright exclusions under Creative 
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Australia (CC BY-NC 3.0 AU) license. Oh 
... rats ... no it doesn't - on another page  The Australian War Memorial 
holds copyright for the text, maps and photographs contained in the Official 
Histories. Reproduction is allowed for private use only. For commercial 
reproduction, the permission of the Memorial must be obtained. 
So that is 2 questions .. or 3 


 Should it be mapped?  (I'm looking at chapter 24 page 546/7 if your intrested. 
link http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/first_world_war/ think you'd want volume 
2) 
Would the turks object? I should ask them .. 
 Getting permission from the Australian War Memorial? 


PS ..
I'm now dowloading the 'Gallipoli Mission'.. I've had the WW1 history for some 
time .. and yes I've read it .. 

http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/first_world_war/AWMOHWW1/Supplementary/GallipoliMission/
 
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[Talk-GB] Moderator Comments - Was Re: UK Food Hygiene Rating System

[Michael Collinson]

OK guys, time to end this thread. Not sure if I am an official moderator 
on this particular list, but wading in.


We Brits are supposed to be ladies and gentlemen every one, so let's act 
like that on our own list.  May I ask all concerned to take a read 
through 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_Code_of_Conduct_%28Draft%29


I'd like to emphasise a couple of things:

First, robust rational debate is fine but when being critical please 
bend over backwards to be constructive, help not hinder and think 
about personal impact. The impersonal medium of email can make things 
appear much harsher than perhaps we really mean.


Second, a broad observation in response to a matter I was contacted 
about off-line:  we all have our personal projects that may not be so 
important to others but collectively have made OSM what is is over time. 
Please don't knock 'em. Ignore if you must, help if you can.


Cheers and Happy Mapping,
Mike



On 29/10/2013 12:37, Dave F. wrote:
The only person being rude is sk53 by attempting to hi-jack a thread 
with an irrelevant post on a completely different subject. His 
rudeness is only reinforced by his inaccurate comments which he is 
unwilling to justify.


It's disappointing that many people within OSM like sk53 are too weak 
to take criticism or so arrogant as to believe they are above it 
(There was one user who's arrogance led him to believe he was entitled 
to tell users to close down their twitter accounts!). My criticisms 
were explained, justified  on topic (to his post), not ad-hominem.


Dave F.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD

[Michael Collinson]

On 28/10/2013 19:28, SomeoneElse wrote:
series, Mapbox Satellite or Mapquest Open Aerial, and if anyone's 
using NPE, Bartholomew 1/2 inch or OS 1 inch as backgrounds they 
probably shouldn't be using iD to do it (if for no other reason due to 
alignment issues).  Am I maligning these sources and is there actually 
a valid reason why someone might want to trace from, say, NPE when 
more recent better aligned data is now available?


NPE was great in its day, and a big thank you  to all involved in 
providing it, it was a fantastic help in getting a rural map of 
Wharfedale up.


Now, for OSM mapping per se, I never use it. Bing for GPS adjusted 
tracing and the OS 25K layers are almost completely a superset when it 
comes to looking for names, such as farm houses. As posters later in 
this thread point out, there is still some separate value for historic 
use, a number of mineral lines, for example, appear on NPE but not on 
either of the 25K layers due to survey dates. I have no strong views, 
but there may be value in removing it from editing OSM per se.  I really 
wish that person who traced all those streams (me) hadn't because the 
alignment is terrible and a lot of the footpaths are way off even if 
they actually exist now.


Mike


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Geological Data

[Michael Collinson]

It is an area that interests me too, explicitly surface expression of 
geology, (outcrops and faults mostly) and geomorphology (interesting 
drumlins, meander loops, landslips, ...).


My personal conclusion is that by all means do low-key experimentation 
but that any systematic mapping is better off for all in a separate but 
compatible database a la Open Historical Map ... and a lot easy to 
implement than the historic map.


Like Jerry I still have all my old field books and hand-drawn OS ?1:5000 
overlays.  Do students still do it like that? If so, one thing that 
intrigues me as a project is to set up a system whereby students could 
map digitally into an OSM-friendly system so that progressively all 
those little squares build up a comprehensive outcrop map of all the 
UK.  There is probably all sorts of small stuff here and there buried in 
student assignments that was missed by the pros. Collated together it 
might also provide a seriously useful academic resource.


I already map historic mining activity in northern Yorkshire and Co. 
Durham directly into OSM as it is something that can be systematically 
migrated to another resource when the time comes. Motivated by 
Jonathan's posting, I have just done a knowledge dump [1] .  I would 
greatly welcome other joining me elsewhere the country.  I map from NPE, 
OS25K, Bing imagery and local knowledge.  Bing imagery is fascinating in 
moorland areas.  See [2] for example of a place I have stayed at several 
times completely unaware that the close proximity is riddled with old, 
probably lead, mine shafts.


Mike

[1] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom/Historic_Mining_Activity


[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/54.15584/-2.01688 Buckden, 
Wharfedale example of mine shaft identification using Bing imagery.



On 11/10/2013 00:25, SK53 wrote:

I had a very brief chat with someone at SotM touching on this.

I don't think the 1inch:10 mile data is at all useful in OSM: it's too 
generalised and would result in huge awkward to maintain polygons. 
However in many places the field geology is much more detailed and is 
both at a scale compatible with OSM and there is potential for adding 
lots of detail. This is particularly true in the Classic Areas: 
Matlock, Arran, Craven etc. I'm sure I'm not alone in having some old 
field notebooks (including laboriously drawn maps traced from OS  
Geological Survey) with masses of such detail.


Probably the place to start is in finding a way to map classic 
exposures (many will be protected as SSSIs). I know I've added a small 
cliff (quarry) face which is the southernmost exposure of Magnesian 
Limestone, but I don't know if I added any geology related tags at the 
time.


Faults may be another feature suitable for mapping in the short term: 
in the coal measures many of these will be adequately mapped on 
out-of-copyright geology maps (I would think virtually all the 1 inch 
maps ought to be OOC by now).


A related topic is old mines  quarries. There is a substantial 
literature  community interested in the industrial archaeology of 
mining. In many places the impact on the landscape  artefacts are 
still (all too) present. Adding information about the geology 
alongside the archaeology would make mapping much more informative 
(see things like the Manganese mines of Merionethshire 
http://www.davel.f2s.com/hendrecoed/Merioneth-Manganese/ or 
Dolaucothi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolaucothi_Gold_Mines).


There are also aspects of geology (and possibly soils) which are of 
interest to naturalists. Apart from broad things like lime-rich soils, 
one often comes across fine detail: the thing which occurs to me are 
gley soils in alluvial deposits. These locations are usually not 
quarried in gravel pits and therefore have their original vegetation.


Enough ideas, if you want to waste a couple of hours the Borehole 
Database on the IGS site is absolutely fascinating!


Jerry



On 10 October 2013 22:32, Jonathan bigfatfro...@gmail.com 
mailto:bigfatfro...@gmail.com wrote:


Hi,

I was wondering whether anybody had discussed importing geological
data into OSM before.  We map surface details about the land cover
and underground use if it's man-made so why not geological data?

The BGS have a load of data at
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/opengeoscience/downloads.html.

So was wondering what people thought about it?

Jonathan

-- 
http://bigfatfrog67.me



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




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


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Wiki Mapia Mass Upload

[Michael Collinson]

Thanks.  I have now written to their contact email address asking them 
to comply with our license or remove the data. I will report back on 
what transpires.


Mike

Michael Collinson
License Working Group


On 15/09/2013 16:54, Walter Nordmann wrote:

got some:
New from  18. August 2013:
http://wikimapia.org/28575157/de/Hummelsbütteler-Kirchenweg-15
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/171350548/history

And another new one with an error at the upper right corner
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/2423349643

from the german forum:
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=362179#p362179


Regards
walter





-
[url=http://osm.wno-edv-service.de/residentials] Missing Residentials Map 
1.17[/url] [url=http://osm.wno-edv-service.de/plz] Postcode Map 2.0.2[/url]
--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Wiki-Mapia-Mass-Upload-tp5777641p5777659.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK Open Gov License

[Michael Collinson]

On 11/10/2013 00:41, Jonathan wrote:
Can someone advise me on whether the UK Open Government License allows 
for us to use it as a source in OSM?


http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/


Hi Jonathan and all,

Basically, yes, no problem.  Make sure that any material is indeed under 
the UK Open Government License and not the Ordnance Survey bastardised 
version. Then, look for any attribution wording and add to 
OpenStreetMap's attribution page: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution .


In more detail: This is version two of the license.  The OpenStreetMap 
Foundation License Working Group looked at the original version [1] and 
felt that it was compatible with incorporating data into the 
OpenStreetMap geodata database provided that attribution provisions are 
complied with as above.  I have now carefully compared the two and see 
nothing that makes me change that opinion ... it would be good if 
another pair of eyes did the same as a double-check. If anything it is 
slightly less restrictive with the removal of some wording about Data 
Protection Act 1998 and the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC 
Directive) Regulations 2003.



Please note that these are layman's opinions.  I am not a lawyer and 
neither I nor the LWG can offer any formal legal opinion.


Mike

Michael Collinson

[1] 
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/1/


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

[OSM-legal-talk] About Boxes ... attributing OpenStreetMap

[Michael Collinson]

Hi all,

There has been community discussion about refining the Legal FAQ on the 
issue of what is reasonable attribution for certain specific media 
cases. I have created a Community Guideline wiki page [1]. This is not 
about being legal but what you personally think is reasonable for what 
you contribute and what best promotes OpenStreetMap. So please do not 
hesitate to pitch in. Based on feedback received, the LWG will amend the 
Legal FAQ.


And in more detail 

The conversation was specifically about About Boxes but the LWG thinks 
it is generalisable to other cases where it is arguably difficult to 
place a full (text) attribution physically right on or next to a map.


The LWG takes the position that  the LWG itself should be neutral per se 
but that OpenStreetMap in general has responsibilities to propose 
answers. We are the dominant open geospatial data project and probably 
the global leader as a live open data project exploring the specific 
legal issues of open data as distinct from highly creative works and 
software [2]. The LWG therefore encourages the community  to consider 
specific guidelines for specific types of media. This will help not only 
ODbL license users but also potentially CC4 as well.


May I therefore request anyone interested to take a look over our 
existing guidelines [3], look at the basic questions I have posed [1] 
and tell us what you think, either there (preferred), to this list or to 
le...@osmfoundation.org.


I'll eventually review the past list mailings and add in the comments 
already received unless someone beats me to it, hint, hint.



Mike
OpenStreetMap Foundation License Working Group

[1] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Community_Guidelines/Attribution_For_Different_Media_Types 



[2] 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fIvuygF4pZd_PfBbxg-acAP9c_lA37_sTEkdvccIoXk/pub 
July Minutes, see Item 6


[3] http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License#Where_to_put_it.3F What 
the current Legal FAQ has to say


[4] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Community_Guidelines/How_We_Create_Community_Guidelines 
FYI, new doc.






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

Re: [talk-ph] Waterways in NCR and surrounding provinces

[Michael Collinson]

I do a lot of waterway mapping where I do not know initially which way the 
river flows and wanted a way marking them when verified. I came up with 
experimentally marking them with oneway=yes ... Seems logical to extend that 
with oneway=no for tidal estuaries?

Mike

On 12 Sep 2013, at 03:22, rem zamora pompy...@gmail.com wrote:

 Good idea Jim.
 
 However it got me thinking also... in the case of Pasig river, the flow of 
 the water depends on the time and tide of the day. Sometimes water flows 
 inward from the bay to Laguna lake but there are times also that the water 
 flows from the lake to the ocean (which is what seems to be natural to me, 
 all water flows toward the ocean).
 
 Just a thought. This is the same case also in Malabon and some parts of 
 Bulacan also :)
 
 On Sep 12, 2013 9:42 AM, Jim Morgan j...@datalude.com wrote:
 On Thursday, 12 September, 2013 09:31 AM, maning sambale wrote:
 In some cases, we had to switch the way direction to follow the the
 convention [0] that the direction of the way should be downstream
 Hah, I'd never really thought of this before. I guess a lot of times I start 
 tracing from the sea backwards inland, so I've probably got this wrong a few 
 times.
 
 It started me thinking though. If you were able to get the elevation data for 
 the start point and end point of a waterway, you could probably work out the 
 direction of flow from that, and apply it automagically.
 
 So what about canals? :-)
 
 Jim
 
 ___
 talk-ph mailing list
 talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
 ___
 talk-ph mailing list
 talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping Archaeology

[Michael Collinson]

Hi Brian,

Open Historical Map has a sporadically active mailing list 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo historic which your mate might 
like to join to get a feel for what is going on. It is very early stage 
stuff though.


I map surface expression of historic mining activity in the north of 
England but have not got around to the research and care needed to start 
looking below the soil. My inclination, (perhaps not enthusiastically 
shared by all!), has always been to test the barriers inside the main 
OpenStreetMap databaset to try new things out and get other folk's 
reaction by doing something concrete. I.e. Just Do It.  Therefore, I 
personally very much welcome archeaological mapping experiments in the 
main database with the proviso that if it becomes widespread, some sort 
of migration to an ancilliary dataset would almost certainly have to 
happen. Open Historical Map being the likely candidate.


Simply because I have the floor, I also predict ancilliary datasets, the 
technical support for them and the ability to mix and match with the the 
main database, to be a coming OSM Big Thing.  Our main database, and our 
understanding of it, is beginning to mature in terms of structure, 
maintenance and what should and should not be in it. So time to start 
exploring the edges.  There is a whole rich field: historic, ecological 
and biological, geologic and geomorphologic, alternative coastlines, 
boundaries, immutable authorative datasets, internal building mapping, 
complex public transport interchanges, personal/school projects ... 
yada, yada.  Oh but there were 34 hours in each day!


Mike

On 31/08/2013 20:54, sk53.osm wrote:
Open Historical Map is a sandbox environment and has only been around 
for a few months. It's far too early to write it off.


A more reliable link is probably hosm.gwhat.com 
http://hosm.gwhat.com, but Jeff Meyer has been having problems with 
the servers recently, and it doesn't seem to up atm.


Jerry


On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Brian Savidge a_sn...@hotmail.com 
mailto:a_sn...@hotmail.com wrote:


The openhistoricalmap is completely blank for me (both in Internet
Explorer and Chrome), so I guess it hasn't taken off.

It seems a shame not to add the data into OSM in some way assuming
the group finds something.  Do you know of any examples of areas
where groups of Archaeologists (like Time Team) have added
information into OSM?






Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 09:04:45 +0100
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping Archaeology
From: ste...@stevenhorner.com mailto:ste...@stevenhorner.com
To: a_sn...@hotmail.com mailto:a_sn...@hotmail.com
CC: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org


Was it http://www.openhistoricalmap.org you were thinking of?

On 31 Aug 2013 07:15, Brian Savidge a_sn...@hotmail.com
mailto:a_sn...@hotmail.com wrote:

Hi
A friend of mine belongs to a local Archaeology group and they
are going to do some surveying shortly using a variety of
methods including ground penetrating radar.  I thought it
would be nice if somehow the results get put onto Open Street
Map.

Are buried walls and landscape features suitable for recording
on Open Street Map perhaps at level -1?  I have a feeling I
saw something a while ago about a parallel open streetmap that
was intended for archaeology and recording things that are no
longer visible, but I have lost the link and can't find any
references to the site.

Any thoughts on the matter?






___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging Banquetting Halls (neither hotels, not community centres)

[Michael Collinson]

On 23/08/2013 12:07, OpenStreetmap HADW wrote:

On 22 August 2013 10:03, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:


website=xxx - which will give the details (if we could access them from the
map)

I'm not sure if I can quote the website in this case as Google may
have a database copyright on it.  I generally only quote websites if
they are advertised on the geographic site itself.  In this case, the
building was strangely anonymous, other than the name and the car
parking arrangements.



The bottom line is do we add the fine detail? ... places like Lumley are a

My feeling is that the query/rendering tools can throw away excess
detail, but cannot generate detail that is not there.  I think the
limit has to be set by when a reasonably intelligent person cannot
distinguish between two categories (which is not to say that in the
grey world in which we live, many if not most things will fall close
to borderlines).
Agreed. Our eating place is a grey blurry categorisation is a good 
example that works well and internationally:   fast_food  cafe  
restaurant with the fine detail, and what that means in different part 
of the world, left to specific precise detail tags, such cuisine.  
Waterways is probably another one. Great for initial identification and 
general classification, but if you want to use it a canoeist or angler, 
more arcane/precise info is needed.


[whips Mr. Pedantic hat on, for I am in that mood today.]

Thinking on those lines, and applying it to the non-GB countries that I 
map in, I suggest that :


1) the main topic of conversation is an Event hall, as suggested: A 
(most likely single) building with its dominant function being a (most 
likely single) large space with flat area that can host meals, dances, 
presentations, entertainment and other ad hoc events.  May have 
ancilliary facilities such as side rooms, toilets, kitchen, stage. May  
be publicly or privately run.


2) An Event centre or Conference centre being typically a larger 
enterprise with a group of facilities including one or more of: large 
event spaces, meeting rooms, dining facilities, accommodation. May also 
have small sport/relaxation facilities, park land. Accommodation is NOT 
usually offered for ordinary visitors or drive by. [Lots of these in 
Sweden, hence my interest.]


3) A hotel, as we already use it, conversely may have all the features 
of an event centre but a major function is to provide accommodation to 
ordinary and drive-by visitors.


Mike



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

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData Licence update (WAS: Finding Unmapped public rights of way)

[Michael Collinson]

On 30/07/2013 11:49, o...@k3v.eu wrote:

Robert,

On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:57:13 +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote:

...

OSM takes a conservative line on copyright and licensing issues...

I agree with Rob 100% on this, it is pretty obvious that the Government
intends for this data to be freely usable by businesses and projects
like OSM. This has been covered to death a number of times in the past.

There is a lot of external data in OSM that requires attribution. The way
the project handles that seems to work pretty well regardless of what
the amateur lawyers may say.

It is very hard to imagine the circumstances where OSM would face any
issues from using these datasets and if that were to occur then the
data can be removed as has happened when other data sources have been
challenged in the past.

If you don't want to use this data in OSM then don't use it but you are
not the arbiter deciding what others may do.


I would add to this that as Robert W is quite right that OSM takes a 
conservative line on copyright and licensing issues, the Licensing 
Working Group formally made the Ordnance Survey aware of our (then) 
intended use under ODbL and explicitly pointed out where there where 
potential incompatibilities.  The upshot was that the OS kindly made a 
formal declaration that they had no objections to such use for all 
OpenData product where they have complete IP control, i.e. everything 
except CodePoint data. Since that time, the OpenStreetMap Foundation, as 
formal publishers of the database, have had no communication from the OS 
rescinding that for future releases of OpenData. In other words, if the 
Man Says Yes, then the Man Says Yes.


Now, the potential incompatibility with the OS OpenData License per se 
has never been removed. This means that there are problems for the OSM 
community and the general public in these *other* areas:


- Use of OS OpenData other than that described above, i.e. CodePoint. [I 
personally feel that the real problem all along is the Royal Mail and 
their apparent decision to hijack post code and address databases paid 
for with public resources into the private sector. Chris Hill has been 
working here but the LWG informally feels that the response he got is 
deliberately vague and obfuscatory.]


- Confusing use of the OS OpenData License instead of the Open 
Government License on other datasets. As I recall that is datasets from 
English Heritage.


A number of individuals have been working on these and other issues, at 
least Robert Whitaker, Rob Nickerson and Chris Hill. I apologise to them 
that the LWG has not been in a position due to lack of manpower to give 
support despite requests to do so. I therefore suggest the following:


We (all) take a simple unified stance that:

1) The Open Government License, OGL, was deliberately brought into being 
to provide a consistent, harmonious platform for releasing open 
government-funded and government-owned data. The OS OpenData License is 
clearly at odds with this and should be retired completely. Anything 
currently under the OS license should re-published under OGL at the 
earliest opportunity.


2) There is a set of other key datasets which we believe need to be 
unequivocally published under OGL for the public good:


- PROW data, however provided.
- Royal Mail address database, (I am shaky on the details on 
this, Robert Barr is the man to talk to).

   - Others you may identify.

I, and I believe all other LWG members, will be at SOTM 2013 in 
Birmingham.  I suggest that we all meet up then.  If possible, I'd like 
to make points 1 and 2 as a formal LWG/OSMF submission to ODUG before 
then.  However, I want to be sure that I get all my facts straight, and 
lack of time to read everything up is what is stopping me right now.  
Any comments/support greatly welcomed.


Mike
LWG








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

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData Licence update (WAS: Finding Unmapped public rights of way)

[Michael Collinson]

And it has been suggested I give a succinct summary of my own verbosity:

LWG view on use of data in OSM under OS OpenData License:

Yes: OS OpenData product except CodePoint

No:  CodePoint (a Royal Mail response to Chris Hill needs further 
investigation)


You need to formally ask:  Any other dataset published under the OS 
OpenData License by other organisations, such as English Heritage, (or 
by OS if any).


Mike


On 30/07/2013 15:58, Michael Collinson wrote:

On 30/07/2013 11:49, o...@k3v.eu wrote:

Robert,

On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:57:13 +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote:

...

OSM takes a conservative line on copyright and licensing issues...

I agree with Rob 100% on this, it is pretty obvious that the Government
intends for this data to be freely usable by businesses and projects
like OSM. This has been covered to death a number of times in the past.

There is a lot of external data in OSM that requires attribution. The 
way

the project handles that seems to work pretty well regardless of what
the amateur lawyers may say.

It is very hard to imagine the circumstances where OSM would face any
issues from using these datasets and if that were to occur then the
data can be removed as has happened when other data sources have been
challenged in the past.

If you don't want to use this data in OSM then don't use it but you are
not the arbiter deciding what others may do.


I would add to this that as Robert W is quite right that OSM takes a 
conservative line on copyright and licensing issues, the Licensing 
Working Group formally made the Ordnance Survey aware of our (then) 
intended use under ODbL and explicitly pointed out where there where 
potential incompatibilities.  The upshot was that the OS kindly made a 
formal declaration that they had no objections to such use for all 
OpenData product where they have complete IP control, i.e. everything 
except CodePoint data. Since that time, the OpenStreetMap Foundation, 
as formal publishers of the database, have had no communication from 
the OS rescinding that for future releases of OpenData. In other 
words, if the Man Says Yes, then the Man Says Yes.


Now, the potential incompatibility with the OS OpenData License per se 
has never been removed. This means that there are problems for the OSM 
community and the general public in these *other* areas:


- Use of OS OpenData other than that described above, i.e. CodePoint. 
[I personally feel that the real problem all along is the Royal Mail 
and their apparent decision to hijack post code and address databases 
paid for with public resources into the private sector. Chris Hill has 
been working here but the LWG informally feels that the response he 
got is deliberately vague and obfuscatory.]


- Confusing use of the OS OpenData License instead of the Open 
Government License on other datasets. As I recall that is datasets 
from English Heritage.


A number of individuals have been working on these and other issues, 
at least Robert Whitaker, Rob Nickerson and Chris Hill. I apologise to 
them that the LWG has not been in a position due to lack of manpower 
to give support despite requests to do so. I therefore suggest the 
following:


We (all) take a simple unified stance that:

1) The Open Government License, OGL, was deliberately brought into 
being to provide a consistent, harmonious platform for releasing open 
government-funded and government-owned data. The OS OpenData License 
is clearly at odds with this and should be retired completely. 
Anything currently under the OS license should re-published under OGL 
at the earliest opportunity.


2) There is a set of other key datasets which we believe need to be 
unequivocally published under OGL for the public good:


- PROW data, however provided.
- Royal Mail address database, (I am shaky on the details on 
this, Robert Barr is the man to talk to).

   - Others you may identify.

I, and I believe all other LWG members, will be at SOTM 2013 in 
Birmingham.  I suggest that we all meet up then.  If possible, I'd 
like to make points 1 and 2 as a formal LWG/OSMF submission to ODUG 
before then.  However, I want to be sure that I get all my facts 
straight, and lack of time to read everything up is what is stopping 
me right now.  Any comments/support greatly welcomed.


Mike
LWG








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





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

[OSM-legal-talk] Information for officials and diplomats of countries and entities with disputed territories

[Michael Collinson]

Simon,

Oliver, Dermot and I have give a finally look over the document and are 
happy to now send it to the board as our formal proposal. However, as 
Chair I would really prefer a formal quorate, 4, for such things and ask 
you to indicate yes or no by email before I send it.


https://docs.google.com/a/osmfoundation.org/document/d/1uQ0hpkFxqdNf7aPMk_5PaHFZojxULMcWXxLJRbYq4oE/edit

The draft is of the last meeting + your changes + we went through and 
considered and clarified what each OpenStreetMap meant.  As an 
interesting aside, it defines OpenStreetMap without qualification to 
be the database itself rather than any human entity ... may be a useful 
legal construct in the future.


I also intend forwarding it to the Japanese community since treatment of 
disputed-island naming is an issue there as it ties the hands of the 
national mapping agency on how cooperative they can be with us. If I get 
any substantial feedback, I will forward to board.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Working Group 2013

[Michael Collinson]

Hi Kate,

Good point, (I am back in Stockholm).  The current time of the meeting 
is purely for the convenience of existing LWG members ... after work for 
Europeans (majority) and morning for the Americas. I would like to feel 
our way to including folks who want to work on specific issues and will 
timing on the agenda.


Mike

On 19/01/2013 02:19, Kate Chapman wrote:

Hi Michael,

The meeting time is 1am in Jakarta and even later in other parts of
Asia (though I think you are in the Philippines at the moment and are
well aware).

Anyway, are there plans to rotate the meeting at some point?

I often perform advocacy within governments and the United Nations and
there are definitely issues I would like to discuss and have more
clarity.

Best,

-Kate

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:

The LWG will hold its first post-license change meeting provisionally
Tuesday 22nd January at 18:00 GMT/UTC.

I would like to draw your attention to the following:

We'll be discussing our future role and any input on that, preferably to
this list, is most welcome.  We've started putting together a remit document
here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D3KwSM_BO7KkcbVADQVVn7eFwkD-RNauMwidhhlVPsI/pub

We welcome new members and diverse views. If you are interested in opening
up geospatial data and imagery for anyone to use, please join us.  You can
contact me at my email address if you want more details or you can join us
for one meeting to see if you like it.

If you cannot or do not want to join us long term but have a particular
issue that is important to you and it is in the best interests of OSM, we
can make it a project and you can join us for one meeting or a few weeks. In
the UK, example projects might be freeing up postcodes or public right of
way route definitions.  Do you have important issues in your country? Are
you an organisation that is finding OSM data difficult to use for legal
reasons?

Mike

Michael Collinson
Chair, License Working Group

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

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



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