Re: [talk-au] Maranda or Maranoa Road

[nwastra nwastra]

Thanks Bob, it viewed fine in the Mapillary app. I’ve edit the map to Maranoa 
Road now.


> On 11 Dec 2023, at 3:36 pm, Bob Cameron  wrote:
> 
> Hi Nev
> 
> The Mapillary imagery at the eastern end at Carnarvon Hwy;
> 
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/bob3bob3?lat=-27.124729889167=149.06543468617=17%5B%5D=bob3bob3=2018-12-01=894202007803486=photo=0.7498372203522408=0.5576487643887181=2.5378590078328984
> 
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/bob3bob3?lat=-27.124956401538=149.06555451822=17%5B%5D=bob3bob3=2018-12-01=536970883983415=photo=0.5062349898034363=0.4869555951651467=0
> 
> The Mapillary interface is far more usable than the tiny OSM-ID window,
> 
> Says Maranoa. Maranoa is also the name of a large Qld river and LGA centred 
> on Roma.
> 
> Pls tell me if the above links work or not. It may get messed up with my 
> login name..
> 
> Cheers
> 
> On 11/12/23 14:02, Nev W wrote:
>> Thanks Graeme. Will correct it soon.
>> Nev
>> 
>>> On 11 Dec 2023, at 12:49 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick  
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Qld Geocoder says Maranoa
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] Putting streams into OSM

[nwastra nwastra]

I should add that I have only used the Surface Hydrology Lines from GeoScience 
Aust dataset for Qld catchments and as the data is drawn for many different 
sources across the country the perenniality may be not always be included. 

> On 26 May 2023, at 4:39 pm, nwastra  wrote:
> 
> The Surface Hydrology Lines covering all of Australia from GeoScience Aust is 
> available for use in osm and has a perenniality column
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources
> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 


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

Re: [talk-au] Putting streams into OSM

[nwastra]

The Surface Hydrology Lines covering all of Australia from GeoScience Aust is available for use in osm and has a perenniality columnAustralian Data Sourceswiki.openstreetmap.orgOn 26 May 2023, at 2:57 pm, Tom Brennan  wrote:DCS Base and Topo don't distinguish between perennial and non-perennialThat information is available in the NSW Water Theme data eg:https://portal.spatial.nsw.gov.au/portal/home/item.html?id=7b0e959effd749c788d304a4179abf8aThat data is licensed under CC BY 4, which I think we have permission to use. (I haven't used it, but if allowed, it would make sense rather than tracing individual lines).Though I'd be a bit dubious about some of the things that are classified perennial vs non-perennial. It looks algorithmic, and not entirely internally consistent! Pretty sure I could write a better algorithm.cheersTomCanyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoningBushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.comOn 26/05/2023 7:56 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 22:26, Tom Brennan > wrote:    I'm looking at adding missing stream data in national parks around    Sydney.    However, how much value is there in bringing in all of the stream data    in say the DCS Base Map vs just the named streams?    I can see for example, the value in bringing in named streams. But    there    are huge numbers of smaller (unnamed) streams.It's not a bad idea, as it would let anybody needing water in the bush, know that there's a creek over there, & also let you know that if you go this way, you may get wet feet! :-)But, do DCS Base & Topo differentiate between permanent & intermittent creeks?ThanksGraeme___Talk-au mailing listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] power=edge_server

[nwastra]

Thanks for replies. I have sent an osm personal message to 设计在先 and if I get no 
reply, I will contact the supervisor.
Nev


> On 3 Nov 2022, at 9:10 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 at 06:04, Michael James  wrote:
>> This dataset is not any sort of computing system, they have copied the ACMA 
>> mobile network tower information and called it research.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> This is of course going to be a licensing issue.
>> 
> 
> But from the Github mentioned above
> 
> " Acknowledgements The Australian Communications and Media Authority for the 
> radio base station dataset" 
> 
> Maybe they did get permission to use it?
> 
> 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] Place name as name=Scarborough, Queensland, Australia

[nwastra]

I expect the best solution for now is to revert the name to Scarborough and add 
the is_in tag

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:is_in
I thought it was depreciated but seems to be useful in this case

> On 21 Sep 2022, at 8:53 pm, Nev W  wrote:
> 
> ___ 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] suspicious edits in Victoria need reverting?

[nwastra nwastra]

Hi
there is some recent mapping around southern Victoria and the greater Melbourne 
area that seem to be incorrect and need reverting but I am not familiar enough 
with the area to be sure.
The new roads seem fictitious but could be proposed approximate new routes I 
suppose.
Could mappers more familiar with the area have a look at these edits.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/eggsbenedict/history#map=8/-37.981/146.195
The two with road comments are of most concern.

https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=124295896
https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=124296506

Thanks, Nev
 

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

Re: [talk-au] Multiple web sites linked to car yard

[nwastra]

Thanks Paul.

> On 28 Jul 2022, at 5:50 pm, Paul Norman  wrote:
> 
> On 2022-07-28 12:29 a.m., nwastra wrote:
>> This mapper has added about a dozen similar businesses to the same car 
>> wrecker yard.
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/freecarpickup/history#map=19/-33.93048/150.99878
>> I assume this is ok as they are linked to the same physical location.
> 
> It's not okay - judging by the imagery and online results, there's only one 
> company physically there that does business under multiple names. OSM is a 
> map of the world, not a general business directory. There's clearly a 
> scrap_yard there, so I've cleaned up the duplicates and left the one that was 
> originally mapped. I'll leave a changeset comment on one of the mapper's 
> changesets.
> 
> 

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

[talk-au] Multiple web sites linked to car yard

[nwastra]

This mapper has added about a dozen similar businesses to the same car wrecker 
yard.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/freecarpickup/history#map=19/-33.93048/150.99878
I assume this is ok as they are linked to the same physical location. 

I find it a bit unusual and thought you may be interested.


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

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

[nwastra nwastra]

Mapbox has a helpful page on the present day preference of squared intersection 
mapping instead of the older X mapped method.
I guess this has evolved over time due to clearer and higher resolution imagery.
https://labs.mapbox.com/mapping/mapping-for-navigation/modeling-intersections-for-map-navigation/

> On 5 Mar 2022, at 1:53 pm, Dian Ågesson  wrote:
> 
> and where right hand turn lanes are mapped as an X rather than a box.

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

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

[nwastra]

Here is the osm location

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-31.9881/115.9857

> On 4 Mar 2022, at 9:59 pm, ianst...@iinet.net.au wrote:
> 
> 
> This query was triggered by the following comment in another thread, but I’ll 
> start a new thread so as not to distract the original.
>  
> “  ’Don't split ways if there is no physical separation’ is one of the core 
> tenets of highway mapping in OSM.”
>  
> My query is about how to correctly map an intersection in Perth while abiding 
> by the above.  I will try to describe the situation as best I can without 
> being able to resort to a sketch:
>  
> - there is a junction between 2 major highways in Perth (Roe & Tonkin 
> Highways)
> - there is a slip road off one (Roe heading west) that merges with the 2 
> lanes of the other (Tonkin heading south)
> - from the merge point there are 3 lanes (the slip lane + the 2 through lanes)
> - from the merge point, there is no physical barrier down to the traffic 
> lights at the next intersection (Hale Rd - which is quite close – hundreds of 
> metres)
> - however there is a solid white line between the slip lane and the 2 
> continuing lanes – right to the next intersection
> - this means you cannot legally come off the slip lane and turn right at the 
> next intersection (Hale Rd) because you cannot legally cross the solid white 
> line
>  
> This has currently been mapped “as normal”, ie 1 slip lane joining a 2 lane 
> road, becoming 3 lanes after the merge point.
>  
> Other than maintaining the slip road as a separate way right to the next 
> intersection (with a no right turn), how else would this be mapped so people 
> coming off the slip road cannot turn right at the next intersection?
>  
> Ian
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Help - Node relocation

[nwastra nwastra]

Hi
You just need to wait longer for the render of the OSM to catch up with your 
edit.
Try refreshing your browser or try the Tor browser which which is unlikely to 
be caching the OSM tiles in the area.
The node is deleted at the old address and there are two nodes for the business 
at the new address.

(resent to talk-au)

> On 18 Feb 2022, at 1:51 pm, Lisa  > wrote:
> 
> I can see that the new node is located correctly at Wilson Street but the 
> original node is still showing as well at 191 Mount Street?
> When I go into edit mode it is not showing at the Mount Street address? 
> How can I remove the original node as it is no longer valid, they do not 
> operate at the old address?

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

Re: [talk-au] Help - Node relocation

[nwastra nwastra]

Hi
please check if the two nodes for the business are still valid or needed.
One has a note as follows which was added in 2021…. note=Administration, no 
childcare takes place here

(resent to talk-au)

> On 18 Feb 2022, at 2:20 pm, nwastra nwastra  <mailto:nwas...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> and there are two nodes for the business at the new address.

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

[talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[nwastra nwastra]

For info and with some regard to recent discussion of US Trails Working Group…

I noticed a lot of paths being deleted by this user as requested by a National 
Park Ranger.

I commented with some suggestions and received the following reply in 
comments...

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116520175 

https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=116519029
https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=116520175

I am inclined to leave to others to consider.
I would rather they be left in the OSM and tagged in a different way for 
various reasons but I expect we have little choice but to accept the NPWS 
decision.  

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

[talk-au] Dedicated Indigenous Protected Areas 2020 dataset available for OSM

[nwastra nwastra]

This import is complete now, apart from checking for OSMI errors in the next 
few days. 
I will review some I the island boundaries of the sea country IPAs in the 
future with a view to aligning more accurately to the land mass via satellite 
imagery.
NevW


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

Re: [talk-au] Dedicated Indigenous Protected Areas 2020 dataset available for OSM

[nwastra nwastra]

Thanks Stéphane
I have added my contact details to 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/Australian_Dedicated_Indigenous_Protected_Areas_2020
 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/Australian_Dedicated_Indigenous_Protected_Areas_2020>
NevW

> On 29 Dec 2021, at 11:53 pm, Stéphane Guillou 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Nev
> 
> That's great, thank you for doing this work!
> 
> Just one note: I think you omitted to include your details as the main point 
> of contact for this import on the wiki.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> On 25/12/21 7:08 pm, nwastra nwastra wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> further progress  on: 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-November/015338.html 
>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-November/015338.html>
>> 
>> I have completed the import info required but not posted to the import page 
>> as only a couple of IPAs add to the OSM plus the sea country for a few 
>> others.
>> Here is the link on the import catalogue 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/Australian_Dedicated_Indigenous_Protected_Areas_2020
>>  
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/Australian_Dedicated_Indigenous_Protected_Areas_2020>
>> and on the Australian data catalogue 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue 
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue> 
>> 
>> I have added the Ngururrpa Indigenous Protected Area in WA  
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/115353172#map=8/-21.516/127.501 
>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/115353172#map=8/-21.516/127.501>
>> 
>> and will add remainder in the next weeks.
>> 
>> Please let me know if you think something is amiss.
>> 
>> Nev W
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au 
>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au>
> -- 
> Stéphane Guillou
> http://stragu.gitlab.io/ <http://stragu.gitlab.io/>
> 
> You can encrypt our communications by using OpenPGP. My public key 4E211060 
> is available on the keys.gnupg.net server.
> 
> Other ways to interact with me are listed on my contact page: 
> http://stragu.gitlab.io/contact/ 
> <http://stragu.gitlab.io/contact/>___
> 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] Dedicated Indigenous Protected Areas 2020 dataset available for OSM

[nwastra nwastra]

Hi

further progress  on: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-November/015338.html 


I have completed the import info required but not posted to the import page as 
only a couple of IPAs add to the OSM plus the sea country for a few others.
Here is the link on the import catalogue 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/Australian_Dedicated_Indigenous_Protected_Areas_2020
 

and on the Australian data catalogue 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue 
 

I have added the Ngururrpa Indigenous Protected Area in WA  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/115353172#map=8/-21.516/127.501 


and will add remainder in the next weeks.

Please let me know if you think something is amiss.

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

[talk-au] Dedicated Indigenous Protected Areas 2020 dataset available for OSM

[nwastra nwastra]

Hi
the Commonwealth of Australia Department of Agriculture, Water and the 
Environment  has made the Dedicated Indigenous 
Protected Areas 2020 

 dataset available to the OpenStreetMap community.
This is listed on the Australian Data Catalogue 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue 
and on the Contributors page 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Australia 

I will update the link to the waiver when I am granted upload rights, probably 
in a few days.

The custodian informed me in regard to this data … 
"There is already the CAPAD data in OSM, so there will be overlap with the IPA 
data. The difference is that CAPAD is produced biannually, whereas the IPA data 
is maintained with new dedications. There are currently two terrestrial IPAs 
that are in the Dedicated IPA data that are not in CAPAD, as they were 
dedicated after June 30 2020. The other difference is that marine or ‘sea 
country’ IPAs are not included in CAPAD marine dataset.”

I will try to inform the imports and this mailing list with a method to 
transform the data into a form suitable for merging BY INDIVIDUAL AREA with 
suitably agreed tags in to the OpenStreetMap as I am able over the coming weeks.

I am of the opinion that because we are only adding two extra IPAs and the 
marine parts to the existing IPAs, it is probably not necessary to go through 
the imports mailing list as we would follow the same procedure as that was used 
with CAPAD will a minor change to the source. 

But I am happy to follow the normal imports procedure if you feel that is 
preferred.

Regards
Nev Wedding (nevw)


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

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[nwastra nwastra]

Hi
as you have been discussing reverting changesets, I thought I should mention 
that Ilya Zverev’s Simple Reverter seems to be out of action at present   
https://github.com/Zverik/simple-revert/issues/19 
 
This discussion regarding 'Cycling on Victorian paths' has been to use the JOSM 
reverter which should be more suitable for the task.
Nev


> On 13 Oct 2021, at 3:52 pm, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> 
> I guess there would be nearly 0% chance that you would be able to cleanly 
> revert without dealing with conflicts. It can get complicated when conflicts 
> are detected by the JOSM reverter, you need to both know about the OSM data 
> model well (nodes, ways, relations, tags), know about the data you're 
> reverting and an understanding of the area you're working in so you can 
> decide how to handle the conflict and what final state you like.
> 
> Tony since you know the data and area well, did you want to work on this 
> together with me? I can help out with any technical roadblocks, maybe on a 
> screen share?
> 
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 16:32,  > wrote:
> While I'm normally all for "you made the mess, you clean it up", this might
> be something better tackled by someone with extensive experience in
> reverting multiple changesets?
> 
> Have we got any experts in that?
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: stevea mailto:stevea...@softworkers.com>> 
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 October 2021 14:13
> To: fors...@ozonline.com.au 
> Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List  >
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths
> 
> I did my best to help Sebastian, but near the point where we got the first
> launch of JOSM (he DID install Java, he DID have to move the .jar file to
> his Applications folder, he apparently was NOT using a capital A in
> Applications...) he suddenly went "radio silent" on me and didn't answer any
> more email ping-pongs.
> 
> I had all primed my next email how to install a reverter, but didn't send
> that because it seems he remained in a low gear, and running a JOSM reverter
> is for those who are, um, "in a higher gear."
> 
> Good luck getting your data in shape, there, mates.
> 
> SteveA
> (where it is getting to be bedtime Tuesday night)
> 
> > On Oct 12, 2021, at 9:06 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > Adam
> > 
> >> Spotting these
> >> and knowing how far back to revert to might be tricky I guess?
> >> eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/47771844/history 
> >> 
> > 
> > Yes. I have never been involved in a reversion so complex and it worries
> me too. I presume they should be reverted in reverse date order, ie most
> recent first. And acting in a timely manner is important, before others do
> edits on the same objects.
> > 
> > Taking your example, the first reversion is important and the following
> two swapping between path and footway make little difference.
> > 
> > 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 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] FYI Public Records VIC - Map Warper

[nwastra]

Hi
For info there is a map warper (or georeferencer) plugin for QGIS.
Here is a tutorial
https://www.qgistutorials.com/en/docs/3/georeferencing_basics.html


> On 7 Sep 2021, at 5:02 pm, Adam Horan  wrote:
> 
> "what is it actually doing?"
> 
> You use it to correct/align old maps to modern maps. This enables browsing 
> and overlays of old maps onto modern eg 
> https://mapwarper.prov.vic.gov.au/maps/10890#Preview_Rectified_Map_tab 
> There's a WMS layer produced that can be shown in JOSM and others, see 
> https://mapwarper.prov.vic.gov.au/maps/10890#Export_tab . I've no idea on the 
> legals/copyright involved in utilising the information on these maps in OSM 
> (even if data was still relevant all these years later)
> 
> 
> 
>> On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 15:36, Graeme Fitzpatrick  
>> wrote:
>> Interesting, but what is it actually doing?
>> 
>> Is that "correcting" the original maps to align with OSM?
>> 
>> I'm afraid to say that they have a lot to learn about explanatory videos, or 
>> was it only me that was silent, & kept dropping in & out of focus!
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Graeme
>> 
>> 
>>> On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 14:59, Adam Horan  wrote:
>>> As a group of people interested in Australia, Maps, crowdsourcing and open 
>>> data, I'm going to assume you'll also be interested in Map Warper. It's an 
>>> online tool allowing alignment and rectification of old (any really) maps 
>>> to reality. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/MapWarper
>>> 
>>> I've been playing with the version hosted for Public Records Office Vic at 
>>> https://mapwarper.prov.vic.gov.au/ 
>>> There's 12091 old maps and plans on the site, some have been rectified, and 
>>> some await rectification.
>>> 
>>> I've been finding looking at these old maps absolutely fascinating. You can 
>>> see which roads have moved or not, towns that were planned to be much 
>>> larger and have shrunk, roads that have returned to tracks, or disappeared, 
>>> original (Aboriginal sounding) place names that have been retained or lost. 
>>> You can also appreciate the skill and accuracy of the surveyors of 100+ 
>>> years ago, there are coastlines and rivers mapped in more detail here than 
>>> in OSM.
>>> 
>>> Usability is a bit average, but the content is interesting.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Adam
>>> ___
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Strange friend request?

[nwastra]

My young lady with long dark hair is wearing sunnies but not the dress you 
describe.
nevw

> On 29 Aug 2021, at 11:23 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> My "friend" is Megan Ritchie.
> 
> Did you get a photo included on the friend message?
> 
> If so, it's not of a young lady wearing sunglasses & a red & white, 
> polka-dotted top is it? :-)
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Graeme
> 
> 
>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2021 at 11:12, nwastra  wrote:
>> I have also been added as a friend by user ‘Debra_Devries’ but on going to 
>> the link which seems legitimate, the user does not exist.
>> Maybe my new friend has to do some edits before coming in to existence for 
>> the link?
>> Thanks,
>> nevw
>> 
>>> On 29 Aug 2021, at 9:51 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Bit of a weird thing to ask about ...
>>> 
>>> Open up the e-mail this morning & there's an OSM message (which certainly 
>>> appears legit?) to say that "this person" has added me as a friend.
>>> 
>>> That's nice, but it appears to be a real name that I don't know, & when I 
>>> go to look at their user page, it says that that user doesn't exist?
>>> 
>>> Anybody seen this before?
>>> 
>>> & if it possibly is a scam of some sort (?) who should I report it to? 
>>> 
>>> 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

[talk-au] Strange friend request?

[nwastra]

I have also been added as a friend by user ‘Debra_Devries’ but on going to the 
link which seems legitimate, the user does not exist.
Maybe my new friend has to do some edits before coming in to existence for the 
link?
Thanks,
nevw

> On 29 Aug 2021, at 9:51 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> Bit of a weird thing to ask about ...
> 
> Open up the e-mail this morning & there's an OSM message (which certainly 
> appears legit?) to say that "this person" has added me as a friend.
> 
> That's nice, but it appears to be a real name that I don't know, & when I go 
> to look at their user page, it says that that user doesn't exist?
> 
> Anybody seen this before?
> 
> & if it possibly is a scam of some sort (?) who should I report it to? 
> 
> 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

[talk-au] Dribl - attribution missing?

[nwastra]

I checked the Ararat image and using two fingers to squeeze the image I see 
HERE copyright plus PSMA reference.




> On 18 Apr 2021, at 10:10 pm, Sebastian Spiess  wrote:
> 
> I checked Boondah Reserve,
> here the spotty buildings made it stand out as likely OSM to me. A commercial 
> supplier of maps would either have them all or none I think.
> 
> Happy to hear other opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> Am 2021-04-18 21:59, schrieb Stéphane Guillou:
>> Hi Sebastian
>> I checked the Aarat Reserve location and it does look very different
>> to OSM data, in my opinion: different building shapes, different area
>> shape for the reserve, different building locations, less buildings in
>> OSM...
>> Which location were you looking at?
>> Stéphane Guillou
>>> On 18 Apr 2021, at 21:25, Sebastian Spiess  wrote:
>> ___
>> 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] #hotosm-project-9679 #sssifirewater : buildings removal

[nwastra nwastra]

Thanks Phil, I will reinstate the buildings in the next day or so and let you 
know of other issues too.
Cheers, Nev


> On 2 Nov 2020, at 2:03 pm, Phil Wyatt  wrote:
> 
> Hi there nwastra,
>  
> If there are any other deletions with the firewater hashtags please feel free 
> to send me a message and I can clarify. There should not have been any mass 
> deletions!
>  
> I worked with SSSI on this project and it sounds like an overseas validator 
> has made an error in relation to this project. We would like to check on any 
> other issues that you come across.
>  
> Cheers Phil
> (aka tastrax - http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?tastrax 
> <http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?tastrax>)
>  
> From: nwastra nwastra  
> Sent: Monday, 2 November 2020 1:09 PM
> To: talk-au OSM - 
> Subject: [talk-au] #hotosm-project-9679 #sssifirewater : buildings removal
>  
> Hi
> I have noticed that a lot of buildings were removed in this edit and no 
> explanation was given by changeset comment.
> The mapper replied "This was part of the firewater map-a-thon hosted by SSSI 
> hosted last weekend. One of the validators requested for the building 
> polygons to be removed"
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93354729#map=17/-38.52878/143.97447 
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93354729#map=17/-38.52878/143.97447>
> https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=93354729 
> <https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=93354729>
>  
> I am wondering if this is happening in other areas. The project doesn’t 
> appear to map any buildings near the water storages even if next to rural 
> residences.
> I am suspicious that the buildings were considered to be seen to be 
> cluttering up their tanks visibility.
>  
> Is anyone able to confirm if the buildings still exist or were razed by fire 
> or other reason.

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

[talk-au] #hotosm-project-9679 #sssifirewater : buildings removal

[nwastra nwastra]

Hi
I have noticed that a lot of buildings were removed in this edit and no 
explanation was given by changeset comment.
The mapper replied "This was part of the firewater map-a-thon hosted by SSSI 
hosted last weekend. One of the validators requested for the building polygons 
to be removed"
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93354729#map=17/-38.52878/143.97447 

https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=93354729 


I am wondering if this is happening in other areas. The project doesn’t appear 
to map any buildings near the water storages even if next to rural residences.
I am suspicious that the buildings were considered to be seen to be cluttering 
up their tanks visibility.

Is anyone able to confirm if the buildings still exist or were razed by fire or 
other reason.


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

[talk-au] Landgate data

[nwastra nwastra]

Hi
I noticed this edit this morning that is using data obtained from Landgate. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Xebozone/history#map=18/-31.77734/115.95824 

Do we have explicit permission to use their data?

The mapper has mapped the lot boundaries as houses and not the house building 
footprints and the same dataset was used to realign the roads.___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] vine row tagging

[nwastra]

Many vineyards have numbered rows with a tag on the end strainer posts to 
assist direction of workers, etc.
These could be numbered using the addr interpolation scheme and then individual 
rows would not need to be mapped but does need a close survey.

> On 15 Oct 2020, at 3:32 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 14:13, John Bryant  wrote:
>> Looking more broadly, it looks like vine rows haven't been widely mapped 
>> before.
> 
> Do you need to?
> 
> I think it could be automatically assumed that all vineyards have their vines 
> in rows, approx the same distance apart?
> 
> I noticed vine_row_orientation=* : vine row orientation (in degrees)on the 
> wiki page - wouldn't that be sufficient?
> 
>> For vine *rows* (ie. the linear features within the vineyard), we've had 
>> suggestions of natural=tree_row,
> 
> If you were going to put a tree_row on every row of vines, you'd have nothing 
> but a solid mass of them!  
> 
>> denotation=agricultural,
> 
> Sorry, not sure what you mean with this?
> 
>> and crop=grape,
> 
> Marked as being redundant as all vineyards grow grapes! :-)
> 
> 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] Level 15, 16 dirty tiles - Regency to Pym

[nwastra]

Hi Alex
It takes some time for tiles at all zoom levels to be rendered but the database 
is updated immediately.
The standard layer at osm.org will be updated before the other layers.

> On 27 Aug 2020, at 12:14 pm, Alex Sims  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>  
> I’ve been having a bit of fun doing on the ground mapping to fix routing and 
> South Road (a major road) in Adelaide reconfiguring towards an expressway. 
> Having worked out that my vehicle GPS “snaps” to roads and then using 
> OSMTracker for Android to fix that, its straightforward to fix and I’ve at 
> least got the road geometry right.
>  
> However at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-34.8752/138.5698 the old 
> tiles are still in part there. I’ve tried marking the tiles as “dirty” e.g. 
> https://tile.openstreetmap.org/16/57994/39548.png/dirty but level 15 and 16 
> are still looking strange. Any clues? All the other zooms look fine along 
> with any maps generated.
>  
> 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

[OSM-talk] Status of Who Did It?

[nwastra]

I have been using  Latest OSM Edits per Tile by Pascal Neis for my local area 
while whodidit is down https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-tiles

> On 27 Jul 2020, at 11:28 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via talk 
>  wrote:
> 
> See
> https://github.com/simon04/whodidit
> linked on top of the page,
> https://github.com/simon04/whodidit/issues/47
> indicates that problem was reported to the author
> 
> 27 Jul 2020, 14:57 by snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com:
> Hello
> 
> I wondering what is the current state of the Who Did It service? I've
> been using this service https://simon04.dev.openstreetmap.org/whodidit/
> for some time and it's been quite helpful. But now I only get "No
> input file specified." when I try to get an RSS link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> 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

Re: [OSM-talk] river - stream

[nwastra]

I am not very familiar with the iD editor but I notice that where a stream and 
highway cross, what boxes and dropdowns are offered depends what you have 
selected.
If you have the stream selected you will be offered tunnel/culvert/layer/etc as 
options.
If you have the highway selected you will be offered bridge/tunnel/ford/etc.

Is this the reason you are not seeing the options you expect?


> On 8 Jun 2020, at 10:49 pm, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk  
> wrote:
> 
> i guss what i am saying, add a tunnel is wrong, when the road is on the 
> bridge, and the drop down box
>  
> says culvert. again i am only seeing the ID map.
>  
> i just tried it, it only says add a tunnel, then river is under bridge. 
> 
>  
> Monday, June 8, 2020 7:00 AM -05:00 from Mateusz Konieczny via talk 
> :
>  
> Is there anything wrong with that?
>  
>  
> Jun 8, 2020, 13:57 by talk@openstreetmap.org:
> in the ID editor, if you draw a stream - river  line, and it crosses a road, 
> you get a warning, with the suggestion
>  
> add a bridge or tunnel. 
>  
> Monday, June 8, 2020 5:13 AM -05:00 from Martin Koppenhoefer 
> :
>  
> Am Sa., 6. Juni 2020 um 18:02 Uhr schrieb Dave F via talk 
> :
> Do you have an example?
>  
>  
>  
> A simple example for a tunnel (here subway) on a bridge would be this:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/757824513
> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pont_Morand
>  
>  
>  
> Whether it's a bridge or tunnel is fairly easily defined by determining
> which is taking the load.
> If a tunnel's structure was removed, would whitewater's above it
> collapse? If 'yes' then it's a tunnel.
>  
>  
>  
> what I wrote was that - according to some technical definitions - a tunnel 
> must not have something above it, it may be sufficient that it is closed and 
> long enough. I am not sure if we share these definitions in OSM.
> According to the current wiki, "a tunnel is an underground passage for a road 
> or similar." and also: "tunnel=* is used for roads, railway line, canals etc 
> that run underground (in tunnel). "  This doesn't appear to be exhaustive / 
> complete, tunnels could also run underwater, above ground and potentially in 
> the future even in space, no?
> Many current underwater tunnels are also "underground", as they are often 
> running in a man made structure (embankment like) on the ground or below the 
> water body/river in the ground
>  
>  
>  
> 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
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[talk-au] "Hidden" National Park boundary

[nwastra]

Geez…and a proper link to Protected areas of Queensland dataset 
http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/search.page?q=Protected+areas+of+Queensland
 
<http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/search.page?q=Protected+areas+of+Queensland>
Nev

> On 22 Apr 2019, at 1:26 pm, nwastra  wrote:
> 
> corrected link...
> Looks like plenty of edits in the area by Scott and Fizzie …
> https://simon04.dev.openstreetmap.org/whodidit/?zoom=12=-28.07234=153.43583=BTT
>  
> <https://simon04.dev.openstreetmap.org/whodidit/?zoom=12=-28.07234=153.43583=BTT>
>  
> Nev
>  
> 
> 
>> On 22 Apr 2019, at 1:20 pm, nwastra > <mailto:nwas...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Graeme
>> the boundary of Burleigh Head National Park was last updated using CAPAD 
>> 2016 http://www.environment.gov.au/land/nrs/science/capad/2016 
>> <http://www.environment.gov.au/land/nrs/science/capad/2016> (CAPAD 2018 
>> should be out soon)
>> and the later 2018 download of Protected areas of Queensland 
>> http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/detail.page?fid={07E360E3-A191-4C24-9671-1471362F0B1B}
>>  
>> <http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/detail.page?fid=%7B07E360E3-A191-4C24-9671-1471362F0B1B%7D>
>>  has the same boundary
>> 
>> The latest Protected areas of Queensland dated 14 Mar 2019 is now available 
>> and boundary is unchanged in that dataset too.
>> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue 
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue> 
>> 
>> Burleigh Head National Park boundary 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/104759342#map=16/-28.0950/153.4516 
>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/104759342#map=16/-28.0950/153.4516> 
>> 
>> I wouldn’t adjust the gazetted boundaries to other things like the 
>> shoreline, beaches, rivers, roads, treelines, etc as the next person who 
>> updates the gazetted boundaries with later released data with need to unglue 
>> all those joins to other data before replacing the geometry.
>> 
>> I suggest using JOSM when editing boundary relations.   
>> 
>> Looks like plenty of edits in the area by Scott and Fizzie  
>> https://simon04.dev.openstreetmap.org/whodidit/?zoom=12=-27.19668=152.96101=BTT=-nevw=1
>>  
>> <https://simon04.dev.openstreetmap.org/whodidit/?zoom=12=-27.19668=152.96101=BTT=-nevw=1>
>> 
>> Nev
>> 
>>> On 22 Apr 2019, at 12:10 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick >> <mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Could you please have a look at 
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-28.09588/153.45869 
>>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-28.09588/153.45869>  
>>> 
>>> You can see that the boundary of Burleigh Head National Park is shown as 
>>> being out in the water of Tallebudgera Creek, which may actually be the 
>>> correct boundary?, but doesn't make a lot of sense?
>>> 
>>> I was wondering about adjusting it to follow the shoreline, but when I go 
>>> into edit (iD) I can't "find" the actual Boundary on the map - it just 
>>> doesn't appear to be there?
>>> 
>>> Is it hidden in some way, or am I just not clicking on the right pixel?!
>>> 
>>> Incidentally, over the last few days, I've added detail along the riverbank 
>>> to show the beaches & rock walls, but they're also not showing? Hidden 
>>> "under" the National Park / Nature Reserve perhaps?
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> Graeme
>>> ___
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au 
>>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au>
>> 
> 

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

[talk-au] "Hidden" National Park boundary

[nwastra]

corrected link...
Looks like plenty of edits in the area by Scott and Fizzie …
https://simon04.dev.openstreetmap.org/whodidit/?zoom=12=-28.07234=153.43583=BTT
 
<https://simon04.dev.openstreetmap.org/whodidit/?zoom=12=-28.07234=153.43583=BTT>
 
Nev
 


> On 22 Apr 2019, at 1:20 pm, nwastra  wrote:
> 
> Hi Graeme
> the boundary of Burleigh Head National Park was last updated using CAPAD 2016 
> http://www.environment.gov.au/land/nrs/science/capad/2016 
> <http://www.environment.gov.au/land/nrs/science/capad/2016> (CAPAD 2018 
> should be out soon)
> and the later 2018 download of Protected areas of Queensland 
> http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/detail.page?fid={07E360E3-A191-4C24-9671-1471362F0B1B}
>  
> <http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/detail.page?fid=%7B07E360E3-A191-4C24-9671-1471362F0B1B%7D>
>  has the same boundary
> 
> The latest Protected areas of Queensland dated 14 Mar 2019 is now available 
> and boundary is unchanged in that dataset too.
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue> 
> 
> Burleigh Head National Park boundary 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/104759342#map=16/-28.0950/153.4516 
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/104759342#map=16/-28.0950/153.4516> 
> 
> I wouldn’t adjust the gazetted boundaries to other things like the shoreline, 
> beaches, rivers, roads, treelines, etc as the next person who updates the 
> gazetted boundaries with later released data with need to unglue all those 
> joins to other data before replacing the geometry.
> 
> I suggest using JOSM when editing boundary relations.   
> 
> Looks like plenty of edits in the area by Scott and Fizzie  
> https://simon04.dev.openstreetmap.org/whodidit/?zoom=12=-27.19668=152.96101=BTT=-nevw=1
>  
> <https://simon04.dev.openstreetmap.org/whodidit/?zoom=12=-27.19668=152.96101=BTT=-nevw=1>
> 
> Nev
> 
>> On 22 Apr 2019, at 12:10 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick > <mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Could you please have a look at 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-28.09588/153.45869 
>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-28.09588/153.45869>  
>> 
>> You can see that the boundary of Burleigh Head National Park is shown as 
>> being out in the water of Tallebudgera Creek, which may actually be the 
>> correct boundary?, but doesn't make a lot of sense?
>> 
>> I was wondering about adjusting it to follow the shoreline, but when I go 
>> into edit (iD) I can't "find" the actual Boundary on the map - it just 
>> doesn't appear to be there?
>> 
>> Is it hidden in some way, or am I just not clicking on the right pixel?!
>> 
>> Incidentally, over the last few days, I've added detail along the riverbank 
>> to show the beaches & rock walls, but they're also not showing? Hidden 
>> "under" the National Park / Nature Reserve perhaps?
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Graeme
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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] "Hidden" National Park boundary

[nwastra]

Hi Graeme
the boundary of Burleigh Head National Park was last updated using CAPAD 2016 
http://www.environment.gov.au/land/nrs/science/capad/2016 
 (CAPAD 2018 should 
be out soon)
and the later 2018 download of Protected areas of Queensland 
http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/detail.page?fid={07E360E3-A191-4C24-9671-1471362F0B1B}
 

 has the same boundary

The latest Protected areas of Queensland dated 14 Mar 2019 is now available and 
boundary is unchanged in that dataset too.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue 
 

Burleigh Head National Park boundary 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/104759342#map=16/-28.0950/153.4516 
 

I wouldn’t adjust the gazetted boundaries to other things like the shoreline, 
beaches, rivers, roads, treelines, etc as the next person who updates the 
gazetted boundaries with later released data with need to unglue all those 
joins to other data before replacing the geometry.

I suggest using JOSM when editing boundary relations.   

Looks like plenty of edits in the area by Scott and Fizzie  
https://simon04.dev.openstreetmap.org/whodidit/?zoom=12=-27.19668=152.96101=BTT=-nevw=1
 


Nev

> On 22 Apr 2019, at 12:10 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> Could you please have a look at 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-28.09588/153.45869 
>   
> 
> You can see that the boundary of Burleigh Head National Park is shown as 
> being out in the water of Tallebudgera Creek, which may actually be the 
> correct boundary?, but doesn't make a lot of sense?
> 
> I was wondering about adjusting it to follow the shoreline, but when I go 
> into edit (iD) I can't "find" the actual Boundary on the map - it just 
> doesn't appear to be there?
> 
> Is it hidden in some way, or am I just not clicking on the right pixel?!
> 
> Incidentally, over the last few days, I've added detail along the riverbank 
> to show the beaches & rock walls, but they're also not showing? Hidden 
> "under" the National Park / Nature Reserve perhaps?
> 
> 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

[talk-au] more SEO spam?

[nwastra]

We seem to be getting a lot of business edits in this form lately with only a 
name and description tag, often with address details or just spam in the 
description tag.
As is usual with spam like business edits, they use a throw away email to make 
the edit and you never get a response from any query. 
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=66761372 

I am in favour of deleting them as SEO spam.

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

Re: [talk-au] State Forest boundaries

[nwastra]

My proposal will not work as the notification about the rendering for 
boundary=protected_area 
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=734592#p734592 
<https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=734592#p734592>  
only applies to a few classes of protected areas as I read later info on github.
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3656 
<https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3656>

Very disappointing from my point of view.

nevw

> On 26 Jan 2019, at 5:44 pm, nwastra  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi
> the gazetted State Forest boundaries are not rendered currently on the 
> default map on the OpenStreetMap (OpenStreetMap Carto).
> landuse=forest is considered as forestry use and natural=wood are natural 
> wooded areas not subject to forestry but both are rendered the same.
> 
> When the State Forest is mapped in isolation the boundary of the 
> landuse=forest defines the area but as soon as an area of trees is mapped 
> extending beyond the State Forest boundary, as is expected, then the State 
> Forest boundary is not depicted.
> 
> Tag:boundary=protected_area   
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary=protected_area>
> 
> After looking at the options listed on wiki link above, along with the 
> Nature-protected-areas like national parks (and all the other CAPAD types 
> <http://www.environment.gov.au/land/nrs/science/capad/abbreviations> ), I 
> feel that boundary=protected_area is reasonable tag for the gazetted State 
> Forest boundaries with further classification as Resources-protected-areas.
>  
> I feel the the State Forests are boundaries where tree resources are 
> protected or reserved for future forestry operations and need to be defined 
> by their boundaries on the osm.
> There are strict rules covering these areas and we should be readily able to 
> see them on the map.  
> State Reserve and Timber Reserve in CAPAD don’t capture the State Forests.
> 
> On the Resources-protected-areas 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary=protected_area#Resources-protected-areas>
>  for particular countries I note that the United States has listed State 
> Forest under protect_class 15, this being described at the 
> Resources-protected-area section as …
> 15location condition: floodwater retention area, protection forest, 
> grazing land, … 
> 
> I propose that we also add ’State Forest’ to protect_class 15 on the 
> Resources-protected-area table.
> 
> With the most recent changes toOpenStreetMap Carto this would enable 
> rendering of the State Forest boundaries in the same manner as all the other 
> protected area boundaries.
> 
> Another partial solution would be to render landuse=forest differently than 
> the landcover tags but that is unlikely from my reading of the tagging and 
> rendering groups and if two separately gazetted forestry boundaries shared a 
> border the boundary between the two would not be depicted on the map anyway. 
> 
> Nevw
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 

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

Re: [talk-au] State Forest boundaries

[nwastra]

If a specific protect_class seems seems too uncertain I guess protection_title= 
State Forest would be sufficient.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:protection_title

Nevw

> On 26 Jan 2019, at 5:44 pm, nwastra  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi
> the gazetted State Forest boundaries are not rendered currently on the 
> default map on the OpenStreetMap (OpenStreetMap Carto).
> landuse=forest is considered as forestry use and natural=wood are natural 
> wooded areas not subject to forestry but both are rendered the same.
> 
> When the State Forest is mapped in isolation the boundary of the 
> landuse=forest defines the area but as soon as an area of trees is mapped 
> extending beyond the State Forest boundary, as is expected, then the State 
> Forest boundary is not depicted.
> 
> Tag:boundary=protected_area   
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area
> 
> After looking at the options listed on wiki link above, along with the 
> Nature-protected-areas like national parks (and all the other CAPAD types ), 
> I feel that boundary=protected_area is reasonable tag for the gazetted State 
> Forest boundaries with further classification as Resources-protected-areas.
>  
> I feel the the State Forests are boundaries where tree resources are 
> protected or reserved for future forestry operations and need to be defined 
> by their boundaries on the osm.
> There are strict rules covering these areas and we should be readily able to 
> see them on the map.  
> State Reserve and Timber Reserve in CAPAD don’t capture the State Forests.
> 
> On the Resources-protected-areas for particular countries I note that the 
> United States has listed State Forest under protect_class 15, this being 
> described at the Resources-protected-area section as …
> 15location condition: floodwater retention area, protection forest, 
> grazing land, … 
> 
> I propose that we also add ’State Forest’ to protect_class 15 on the 
> Resources-protected-area table.
> 
> With the most recent changes toOpenStreetMap Carto this would enable 
> rendering of the State Forest boundaries in the same manner as all the other 
> protected area boundaries.
> 
> Another partial solution would be to render landuse=forest differently than 
> the landcover tags but that is unlikely from my reading of the tagging and 
> rendering groups and if two separately gazetted forestry boundaries shared a 
> border the boundary between the two would not be depicted on the map anyway. 
> 
> Nevw
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] State Forest boundaries

[nwastra]

Hi
the gazetted State Forest boundaries are not rendered currently on the default 
map on the OpenStreetMap (OpenStreetMap Carto).
landuse=forest is considered as forestry use and natural=wood are natural 
wooded areas not subject to forestry but both are rendered the same.

When the State Forest is mapped in isolation the boundary of the landuse=forest 
defines the area but as soon as an area of trees is mapped extending beyond the 
State Forest boundary, as is expected, then the State Forest boundary is not 
depicted.

Tag:boundary=protected_area 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area 


After looking at the options listed on wiki link above, along with the 
Nature-protected-areas like national parks (and all the other CAPAD types 
 ), I feel 
that boundary=protected_area is reasonable tag for the gazetted State Forest 
boundaries with further classification as Resources-protected-areas.
 
I feel the the State Forests are boundaries where tree resources are protected 
or reserved for future forestry operations and need to be defined by their 
boundaries on the osm.
There are strict rules covering these areas and we should be readily able to 
see them on the map.  
State Reserve and Timber Reserve in CAPAD don’t capture the State Forests.

On the Resources-protected-areas 

 for particular countries I note that the United States has listed State Forest 
under protect_class 15, this being described at the Resources-protected-area 
section as …
15  location condition: floodwater retention area, protection forest, 
grazing land, … 

I propose that we also add ’State Forest’ to protect_class 15 on the 
Resources-protected-area table.

With the most recent changes toOpenStreetMap Carto this would enable rendering 
of the State Forest boundaries in the same manner as all the other protected 
area boundaries.

Another partial solution would be to render landuse=forest differently than the 
landcover tags but that is unlikely from my reading of the tagging and 
rendering groups and if two separately gazetted forestry boundaries shared a 
border the boundary between the two would not be depicted on the map anyway. 

Nevw
  








 



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

[talk-au] OSM Carto features are missing on the map outside the Europe and in rural places.

[nwastra]

On the OSM Forum > Rendering maps OpenStreetMap Carto (default map on OSM.org) 
kokio mentioned that are discussing currently what features are missing on the 
map outside the Europe and in rural places.
I thought this might be an opportunity for us to raise anything you think is 
relevant from an Australian perspective. 
 
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=734662#p734662 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] problem with the public GPX lines in my JOSM

[nwastra]

Here is a related query from the help site:
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/66689/what-does-unordered-mean-in-visibility-option-for-gps-traces

> On 12 Nov 2018, at 8:11 pm, Tom Hughes  wrote:
> 
> On 12/11/2018 09:58, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
>> I would expect this to come from some privacy setting? Maybe you are not 
>> sharing timestamps in the trace settings on osm.org ?
> 
> Yes a bug was discovered last week which meant that traces that
> were marked as "private" or "public" which are not meant to be
> ordered were in fact being returned in order and several editors
> were taking advantage of that.
> 
> The bug was fixed and as a result data from those traces is
> displaying in a confusing way in JOSM and (until a few hours
> ago) in Potlatch 2.
> 
> Tom
> 
> -- 
> Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
> http://compton.nu/
> 
> ___
> 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] How to get an overview of multiple gpx on OSM map?

[nwastra]

Using gpsvisualizer, you can load a maximum of 10 Mb of unzipped gpx files. 
If you zip these into one file it will be a bit over 1 Mb and can be loaded in 
one go.

> On 4 Nov 2018, at 7:12 am, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> gpsvisualizer.com 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-talk] How to get an overview of multiple gpx on OSM map?

[nwastra]

Ooops, this was sent in error to wrong newsgroup.
sorry


> Hi
> I have used http://www.mygpsfiles.com/app/  
> where you can select a years of gpx tracks and drag and drop on to the map 
> but it only has google, etc maps.
> 
> I just tried JOSM and used the left side open icon select and load 3 years of 
> gpx traces from my hard drive and they displayed fine using an imagery 
> background of OpenCycleMap, OpenTopoMap, OpenStreetMap Carto. It looks great.
> 
>> On 4 Nov 2018, at 12:09 am, _ dikkeknodel > > wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>>  
>> Ever since I moved to Switzerland over a year ago I’ve been both hiking in 
>> the mountains and updating OSM details a lot. Since I hike at least 20 km 
>> every weekend, it must have totaled to about 1200 km by now all across the 
>> country. I would love to get an overview of where I have been so far.
>>  
>> Since I’ve got a GPX file of almost every hike, the data is there. I am now 
>> looking for a nice graphical way to plot all of these files at once on a 
>> nice OSM map, OpenTopoMap as a base layer would be great.
>> I’ve been searching for a while how to arrange this (without much 
>> programming knowledge), but I am kind of lost at the moment.
>>  
>> Does anybody have a hint?
>>  
>> Cheers,
>> dikkeknodel
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> t...@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk 
>> 

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

[OSM-talk] How to get an overview of multiple gpx on OSM map?

[nwastra]

Hi
I have used http://www.mygpsfiles.com/app/  
where you can select a years of gpx tracks and drag and drop on to the map but 
it only has google, etc maps.

I just tried JOSM and used the left side open icon select and load 3 years of 
gpx traces from my hard drive and they displayed fine using an imagery 
background of OpenCycleMap, OpenTopoMap, OpenStreetMap Carto. It looks great.

> 
>> On 4 Nov 2018, at 12:09 am, _ dikkeknodel > > wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>>  
>> Ever since I moved to Switzerland over a year ago I’ve been both hiking in 
>> the mountains and updating OSM details a lot. Since I hike at least 20 km 
>> every weekend, it must have totaled to about 1200 km by now all across the 
>> country. I would love to get an overview of where I have been so far.
>>  
>> Since I’ve got a GPX file of almost every hike, the data is there. I am now 
>> looking for a nice graphical way to plot all of these files at once on a 
>> nice OSM map, OpenTopoMap as a base layer would be great.
>> I’ve been searching for a while how to arrange this (without much 
>> programming knowledge), but I am kind of lost at the moment.
>>  
>> Does anybody have a hint?
>>  
>> Cheers,
>> dikkeknodel
>> ___
>> 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] [OSM-talk] How to get an overview of multiple gpx on OSM map?

[nwastra]

Hi
I have used http://www.mygpsfiles.com/app/  
where you can select a years of gpx tracks and drag and drop on to the map but 
it only has google, etc maps.

I just tried JOSM and used the left side open icon select and load 3 years of 
gpx traces from my hard drive and they displayed fine using an imagery 
background of OpenCycleMap, OpenTopoMap, OpenStreetMap Carto. It looks great.

> On 4 Nov 2018, at 12:09 am, _ dikkeknodel  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
>  
> Ever since I moved to Switzerland over a year ago I’ve been both hiking in 
> the mountains and updating OSM details a lot. Since I hike at least 20 km 
> every weekend, it must have totaled to about 1200 km by now all across the 
> country. I would love to get an overview of where I have been so far.
>  
> Since I’ve got a GPX file of almost every hike, the data is there. I am now 
> looking for a nice graphical way to plot all of these files at once on a nice 
> OSM map, OpenTopoMap as a base layer would be great.
> I’ve been searching for a while how to arrange this (without much programming 
> knowledge), but I am kind of lost at the moment.
>  
> Does anybody have a hint?
>  
> Cheers,
> dikkeknodel
> ___
> talk mailing list
> t...@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk 
> 
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Correcting inland water features

[nwastra]

More specifically...

The watercourses are flagged as perennial or non-perennial or null

*Should all those flagged as non-perennial be tagged as intermittent?

Seems to be too few perennial but as others have mentioned Australian 
watercourses are predominantly intermittent.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Correcting inland water features

[nwastra]

Hi
Regarding GeoScience Australia Surface Hydrology datasets 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Catalogue 
 
https://ecat.ga.gov.au/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search?node=srv#/metadata/1186e898-14b5-812e-e053-10a3070a76f0'
 

  and the polygons and points layers

The watercources are flagged as perennial or not.
Should all non-perennial be tagged as intermittent?

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

Re: [talk-au] Increased precision options for Australia - QZSS, SBAS or Galileo

[nwastra]

There is expected to be improved gps accuracy in a few years time in Australia 
but unsure if usual gps units used by the public will show improved results but 
I expect they will.
http://www.ga.gov.au/news-events/news/latest-news/ceo-statement-on-budget-2018-19

> On 12 Jun 2018, at 12:56 PM, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> 
> If you use RTK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_kinematic 
>  you should get centimeter 
> accuracy, but expect to pay $10k+.
> 
> https://www.swiftnav.com  seems like a cheaper 
> option but not sure if it works in Australia and it not a consumer device, 
> seems they just sell the boards.
>  
> ...once you obtain sub-meter accuracy, keep in mind the whole continent is 
> moving so even if you had no error in your GPS, a node someone entered in OSM 
> in 2007 from GPS would be almost a meter out from someone entering it into 
> OSM today.
> 
> The SBAS trial was only aviable to selected people as part of the trial, does 
> anyone know if it'll will work on regular devices, or will we need to run 
> additional software, for Android, iOS?
> 
> On 12 June 2018 at 12:39, Alex Sims  > wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>  
> 
> I’m really wanting to have better accuracy from GPS for use with 
> Openstreetmap. I can use survey marks and a laser rangefinder, but having a 
> portable GPS would make so much easier to fix errors where objects have been 
> armchair mapped or even GPS mapped with errors up to 3 meters.
> 
>  
> 
> I have tried three approaches
> 
> QZSS – I can see this on my Android mobile phone but it doesn’t seem to be 
> used. It seems as though I need a Japanese market device and even then I’m 
> not sure I’ll get an increase
> Galileo – looks promising but when I’ve tested on supported devices (friends 
> who have recent phones) the accuracy isn’t delivered. Further investigation 
> shows that there aren’t enough satellites in service yet most of the day to 
> give 4 visible. (Using GNSS View http://qzss.go.jp/en/ 
>  English text)
> Lastly the SBAS trial from Geoscience Australia - 
> http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/positioning-navigation/positioning-for-the-future/satellite-based-augmentation-system
>  
> 
>  - nothing magical has happened with any of the consumer grade devices I have 
> access to. Also not sure how to test on an Android device if it is being used.
>  
> 
> Has anyone obtained sub-meter accuracy from any of these approaches, it must 
> be possible?
> 
>  
> 
> Please discuss.
> 
>  
> 
> 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] Queensland Govt Spatial Catalogue

[nwastra]

I’ll say that again in a way that is more readable…
I notice that when selecting some national park multipolygon relations there 
are sometimes areas not included although they are part of the overall boundary 
of the NP. 
Those that I have noticed today are in a separate mp relation and are tagged 
"Special Management Areas” in addition to having the national park’s name.
You need to select both these mp relations to get the true extent of the 
particular National Park. 
I won’t be mapping the Special Management Areas separately in the NP as I 
expect they are temporal in extent and use.

> On 25 May 2018, at 4:05 PM, nwastra <nwas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I notice that when selecting, for example, the D'Aguilar National Park 
> multipolygon there is a part not included and those are tagged "Special 
> Management Area” in addition to having the D'Aguilar National Park name and 
> are in a separate mp relation. 
> You need to select both these relations to get the true extent of the 
> D'Aguilar National Park. This is the case with some other mp relations too I 
> have looked at today.
> I won’t be mapping the Special Management Areas as I expect they are temporal 
> in extent and use.
>  
>> On 25 May 2018, at 1:30 PM, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Keep up the good work Nev. When comparing I did notice the Queensland 
>> Protected Areas data is more current than CAPAD 2016.
>> 
>> On 24 May 2018 at 22:22, nwastra <nwas...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:nwas...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Thanks Andrew
>> I am interested in using that data in Qld.
>> I am currently using Capad 2016 data to update osm in Qld and have done much 
>> in the southeast. When that is done I will proceed with the Qld Protected 
>> Areas data and it will be a big help with forestry boundaries. I am updating 
>> each protected area separately so will be at this for quite a while yet. 
>> Nev
>> 
>> On 24 May 2018, at 9:35 pm, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Surfacing an old thread here as there have been recent developments.
>>> 
>>> The "Protected areas of Queensland - boundaries" dataset from QSpatial[1] 
>>> has been previously imported by QldProtectedAreas[2]. It's CC BY 3.0 AU 
>>> licensed, but the data custodian (Department of Environment and Science) 
>>> has completed the OSMF CC BY waiver[3] clearing the data for use in OSM 
>>> from a licensing perspective. The data custodian only agreed to complete 
>>> the waiver for that specific dataset due to concerns about the data quality 
>>> of other datasets.
>>> 
>>> As far as I'm aware we haven't been able to get the waiver completed by 
>>> other departments who publish their data on QSpatial and we have no 
>>> QSpatial blanket waiver, only this specific dataset.
>>> 
>>> Is anyone interested in updating OSM based on some of the new data from 
>>> this dataset? A quick scan in QGIS there are some differences (mostly due 
>>> to new data published on QSpatial) but mostly it's consistent.
>>> 
>>> To compare the two I,
>>> 
>>> 1. Downloaded queensland.osm.pdf extract from 
>>> http://download.openstreetmap.fr/extracts/oceania/australia/ 
>>> <http://download.openstreetmap.fr/extracts/oceania/australia/>
>>> 2. Extracted protected areas from that file with:
>>> osmium tags-filter --overwrite -o qld-protected-areas.osm.pbf 
>>> queensland.osm.pbf nwr/boundary=protected_area,national_park,state_forest
>>> 
>>> Giving https://tianjara.net/data/QLD_Protected_Areas.geojson 
>>> <https://tianjara.net/data/QLD_Protected_Areas.geojson> from QSpatial and 
>>> https://tianjara.net/data/qld-protected-areas.geojson 
>>> <https://tianjara.net/data/qld-protected-areas.geojson> from OSM which can 
>>> be compared in QGIS or JOSM using the GeoJSON plugin.
>>> 
>>> [1] http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/index.page 
>>> <http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/index.page>
>>> [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/QldProtectedAreas 
>>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/QldProtectedAreas>
>>> [3] 
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:QPWS_ProtectedAreas_CC-BY3.0_OSM_PermissionSigned.pdf
>>>  
>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:QPWS_ProtectedAreas_CC-BY3.0_OSM_PermissionSigned.pdf>
>>> 
>>> On 26 Jan

Re: [talk-au] Queensland Govt Spatial Catalogue

[nwastra]

I notice that when selecting, for example, the D'Aguilar National Park 
multipolygon there is a part not included and those are tagged "Special 
Management Area” in addition to having the D'Aguilar National Park name and are 
in a separate mp relation. 
You need to select both these relations to get the true extent of the D'Aguilar 
National Park. This is the case with some other mp relations too I have looked 
at today.
I won’t be mapping the Special Management Areas as I expect they are temporal 
in extent and use.
 
> On 25 May 2018, at 1:30 PM, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Keep up the good work Nev. When comparing I did notice the Queensland 
> Protected Areas data is more current than CAPAD 2016.
> 
> On 24 May 2018 at 22:22, nwastra <nwas...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:nwas...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Thanks Andrew
> I am interested in using that data in Qld.
> I am currently using Capad 2016 data to update osm in Qld and have done much 
> in the southeast. When that is done I will proceed with the Qld Protected 
> Areas data and it will be a big help with forestry boundaries. I am updating 
> each protected area separately so will be at this for quite a while yet. 
> Nev
> 
> On 24 May 2018, at 9:35 pm, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>> Surfacing an old thread here as there have been recent developments.
>> 
>> The "Protected areas of Queensland - boundaries" dataset from QSpatial[1] 
>> has been previously imported by QldProtectedAreas[2]. It's CC BY 3.0 AU 
>> licensed, but the data custodian (Department of Environment and Science) has 
>> completed the OSMF CC BY waiver[3] clearing the data for use in OSM from a 
>> licensing perspective. The data custodian only agreed to complete the waiver 
>> for that specific dataset due to concerns about the data quality of other 
>> datasets.
>> 
>> As far as I'm aware we haven't been able to get the waiver completed by 
>> other departments who publish their data on QSpatial and we have no QSpatial 
>> blanket waiver, only this specific dataset.
>> 
>> Is anyone interested in updating OSM based on some of the new data from this 
>> dataset? A quick scan in QGIS there are some differences (mostly due to new 
>> data published on QSpatial) but mostly it's consistent.
>> 
>> To compare the two I,
>> 
>> 1. Downloaded queensland.osm.pdf extract from 
>> http://download.openstreetmap.fr/extracts/oceania/australia/ 
>> <http://download.openstreetmap.fr/extracts/oceania/australia/>
>> 2. Extracted protected areas from that file with:
>> osmium tags-filter --overwrite -o qld-protected-areas.osm.pbf 
>> queensland.osm.pbf nwr/boundary=protected_area,national_park,state_forest
>> 
>> Giving https://tianjara.net/data/QLD_Protected_Areas.geojson 
>> <https://tianjara.net/data/QLD_Protected_Areas.geojson> from QSpatial and 
>> https://tianjara.net/data/qld-protected-areas.geojson 
>> <https://tianjara.net/data/qld-protected-areas.geojson> from OSM which can 
>> be compared in QGIS or JOSM using the GeoJSON plugin.
>> 
>> [1] http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/index.page 
>> <http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/index.page>
>> [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/QldProtectedAreas 
>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/QldProtectedAreas>
>> [3] 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:QPWS_ProtectedAreas_CC-BY3.0_OSM_PermissionSigned.pdf
>>  
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:QPWS_ProtectedAreas_CC-BY3.0_OSM_PermissionSigned.pdf>
>> 
>> On 26 January 2016 at 21:35, Nev Wedding <nwas...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:nwas...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Hi
>> I have been browsing the Queensland Spatial Catalogue and noticed the 
>> following
>> 
>> Protected areas of Queensland - boundaries  Published date - 11 
>> Jun 2015
>> http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/search.page?q=%22Protected%20areas%20of%20Queensland%20-%20boundaries%22
>>  
>> <http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/search.page?q=%22Protected%20areas%20of%20Queensland%20-%20boundaries%22>
>> 
>> Nature refuges and coordinated conservation Date published -14 Sep 2012
>> http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/search.page?q=%22Nature%20refuges%20and%20coordinated%20conservation%20areas%22
>>  
>> <http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/search.page?q=%22Nature%20refuges%20and%20coordinated%20conservati

Re: [talk-au] Queensland Govt Spatial Catalogue

[nwastra]

Thanks Andrew
I am interested in using that data in Qld.
I am currently using Capad 2016 data to update osm in Qld and have done much in 
the southeast. When that is done I will proceed with the Qld Protected Areas 
data and it will be a big help with forestry boundaries. I am updating each 
protected area separately so will be at this for quite a while yet. 
Nev

> On 24 May 2018, at 9:35 pm, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> 
> Surfacing an old thread here as there have been recent developments.
> 
> The "Protected areas of Queensland - boundaries" dataset from QSpatial[1] has 
> been previously imported by QldProtectedAreas[2]. It's CC BY 3.0 AU licensed, 
> but the data custodian (Department of Environment and Science) has completed 
> the OSMF CC BY waiver[3] clearing the data for use in OSM from a licensing 
> perspective. The data custodian only agreed to complete the waiver for that 
> specific dataset due to concerns about the data quality of other datasets.
> 
> As far as I'm aware we haven't been able to get the waiver completed by other 
> departments who publish their data on QSpatial and we have no QSpatial 
> blanket waiver, only this specific dataset.
> 
> Is anyone interested in updating OSM based on some of the new data from this 
> dataset? A quick scan in QGIS there are some differences (mostly due to new 
> data published on QSpatial) but mostly it's consistent.
> 
> To compare the two I,
> 
> 1. Downloaded queensland.osm.pdf extract from 
> http://download.openstreetmap.fr/extracts/oceania/australia/
> 2. Extracted protected areas from that file with:
> osmium tags-filter --overwrite -o qld-protected-areas.osm.pbf 
> queensland.osm.pbf nwr/boundary=protected_area,national_park,state_forest
> 
> Giving https://tianjara.net/data/QLD_Protected_Areas.geojson from QSpatial 
> and https://tianjara.net/data/qld-protected-areas.geojson from OSM which can 
> be compared in QGIS or JOSM using the GeoJSON plugin.
> 
> [1] http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/index.page
> [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/QldProtectedAreas
> [3] 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:QPWS_ProtectedAreas_CC-BY3.0_OSM_PermissionSigned.pdf
> 
>> On 26 January 2016 at 21:35, Nev Wedding  wrote:
>> Hi
>> I have been browsing the Queensland Spatial Catalogue and noticed the 
>> following
>> 
>> Protected areas of Queensland - boundaries  Published date - 11 
>> Jun 2015
>> http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/search.page?q=%22Protected%20areas%20of%20Queensland%20-%20boundaries%22
>> 
>> Nature refuges and coordinated conservation Date published -14 Sep 2012
>> http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/search.page?q=%22Nature%20refuges%20and%20coordinated%20conservation%20areas%22
>> 
>> ** Has this been imported and if not do we have permission to use to 
>> edit/update the OSM
>> 
>> 
>> Others I noticed that may be useful were 
>> Local government area boundaries
>> http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/search.page?q=%22Local%20government%20area%20boundaries%20-%20Queensland%22
>> Locality boundaries
>> http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/search.page?q=%22Locality%20boundaries%20-%20Queensland%22
>> 
>> All are licensed under a Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Australia 
>> licence.
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] poor business listing edits

[nwastra]

I too have wasted a lot of time over many days trying to fix these problem 
edits and have come to the same conclusion. 
Trying to sort out what is right or wrong with each one cannot easily be solved 
by only referring to valid sources of data for use in OSM causing further 
dilemma. 
 
> On 21 May 2018, at 7:32 PM, Andrew Davidson  wrote:
> 
> After wasting many hours on this I've come to the conclusion that a 
> zero-tolerance policy is the only real option we have. So I've now started to 
> just revert them without bothering to look to closely.

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

[talk-au] poor business listing edits

[nwastra]

Just a heads up that there has been a rash of poor edits in the past 24 hours 
or so with new editors listing their businesses but in doing so many have 
accidentally shifted other mapped items or added the wrong tags to their edits.
Latest OpenStreetMap Contributors (last 7 Days) - Feed for Australia 


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

[talk-au] tagged links to photos

[nwastra]

clarification….as on most of the yellow nodes in the Achavi link…

> On 8 Apr 2018, at 12:31 PM, nwastra <nwas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Are we free to add tag links to images to OSM as in this.
> http://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=57903447
> The https://www.bushtrax.com site is copyrighted so I assume that such links 
> to the photos need to be either accompanied by permission or disclaimer or 
> suitable licence or display of the copyright, etc from the copyright holder.
> Does anything need to be documented on this page 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Australia.
> Or is any url from the web of an image ok to be pasted without any further 
> consideration other than relevance?
> Nev 
> 
> 


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

[talk-au] tagged links to photos

[nwastra]

Are we free to add tag links to images to OSM as in this.
http://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=57903447
The https://www.bushtrax.com site is copyrighted so I assume that such links to 
the photos need to be either accompanied by permission or disclaimer or 
suitable licence or display of the copyright, etc from the copyright holder.
Does anything need to be documented on this page 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Australia.
Or is any url from the web of an image ok to be pasted without any further 
consideration other than relevance?
Nev 



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

Re: [talk-au] QldGlobe

[nwastra]

There are only two changesets that specifically refer to QLDGlobe data being 
used and I have left a message for the mapper on the later of them suggesting 
ways it maybe resolved.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57806048
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57808506

Nev


> On 6 Apr 2018, at 9:52 AM, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> 
> Could you post the affected changesets? If you don't hear back via a 
> changeset comment best to revert them.

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

[talk-au] QldGlobe

[nwastra]

I see no mention of the Qld Govt dept Natural Resources Mines and Energy on the 
following web page which appears to be the most current page we should refer to.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors

N

> On 6 Apr 2018, at 2:19 am, nwastra <nwas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I assume the QldGlobe is just a different way to project all their datasets.
> Further info: https://www.dnrme.qld.gov.au/home/about-us/open-data
> 
>> On 5 Apr 2018, at 11:05 pm, nwastra <nwas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I noticed a mapper quoting “Added watercourses, upgraded roads to tertiary 
>> roads as per QLDGlobe.” in some of his changesets in the Innisfail area.
>> So using data from the https://qldglobe.information.qld.gov.au/ 
>> The few areas I checked displayed very high resolution imagery and would be 
>> useful to an OpenStreetMap mapper and there appears to be multiple layers 
>> available.
>> The terms and conditions are 
>> https://dnrme.qld.gov.au/home/legal/terms-conditions-online-services
>> Can someone confirm or otherwise that the licence is incompatible unless we 
>> have a signed waiver to allow us to use in OSM, and that we have no signed 
>> waiver to date.
>> Nevw
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] QldGlobe

[nwastra]

I assume the QldGlobe is just a different way to project all their datasets.
Further info: https://www.dnrme.qld.gov.au/home/about-us/open-data

> On 5 Apr 2018, at 11:05 pm, nwastra <nwas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I noticed a mapper quoting “Added watercourses, upgraded roads to tertiary 
> roads as per QLDGlobe.” in some of his changesets in the Innisfail area.
> So using data from the https://qldglobe.information.qld.gov.au/ 
> The few areas I checked displayed very high resolution imagery and would be 
> useful to an OpenStreetMap mapper and there appears to be multiple layers 
> available.
> The terms and conditions are 
> https://dnrme.qld.gov.au/home/legal/terms-conditions-online-services
> Can someone confirm or otherwise that the licence is incompatible unless we 
> have a signed waiver to allow us to use in OSM, and that we have no signed 
> waiver to date.
> Nevw
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] QldGlobe

[nwastra]

I noticed a mapper quoting “Added watercourses, upgraded roads to tertiary 
roads as per QLDGlobe.” in some of his changesets in the Innisfail area.
So using data from the https://qldglobe.information.qld.gov.au/ 
The few areas I checked displayed very high resolution imagery and would be 
useful to an OpenStreetMap mapper and there appears to be multiple layers 
available.
The terms and conditions are 
https://dnrme.qld.gov.au/home/legal/terms-conditions-online-services
Can someone confirm or otherwise that the licence is incompatible unless we 
have a signed waiver to allow us to use in OSM, and that we have no signed 
waiver to date.
Nevw
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] LPI NSW Base Map land parcel numbers

[nwastra]

Ok, in light of that, adding all the LPI street numbers to Tathra seems not 
reasonable and would be considered a mass import of addresses and not just 
'filling in the gaps', so I won’t go ahead with the adding of addresses to the 
buildings.
There are plenty of residents more able to accurately add the data if they want 
to anyway to a smallish town.
Tks
Nev

> On 22 Mar 2018, at 9:50 AM, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Yes, but keep in mind that LPI's view from 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/New_South_Wales_Government_Data
>  
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/New_South_Wales_Government_Data>
>  is "Unless a downstream users of OpenStreetMap can clearly identify LPI data 
> within their own derivative work it would not be reasonable for them to 
> attribute LPI."
> 
> That's a bit like the substantial extract guideline from the OSMF, in that 
> their permission for the OSM approach to attribution wouldn't extend to 
> extracting all street addresses from LPI and using that in OSM. So long as 
> we're only filling in the gaps here and there it's okay, but we can't mass 
> import everything from the LPI base map under the current permission.
> 
> I'm working on getting the OSMF CC BY waiver signed too, and they've 
> mentioned the possibility of opening more datasets under CC BY, but both of 
> those are likely at least a few months away.
> 
> On 22 March 2018 at 01:53, nwastra <nwas...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:nwas...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> I found this discussion from Jan 2017 which discusses the street numbers on 
> the LPI NSW Base Map and it seems I can use the info in the OSM
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2017-January/011175.html 
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2017-January/011175.html>
> 
> The house numbers are not the same number as the lot/parcel numbers in my 
> area in se Qld. 
> 
> So a further question
> Can the LPI NSW Base Map land parcel numbers be used as correct house 
> numbers, aside from the possibility of having multiple units on one parcel.
> 
> Nev
> 
> On 21 Mar 2018, at 10:13 pm, nwastra <nwas...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:nwas...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>> Hi
>> can I use from the LPI NSW Base Map what I presume to be land parcel 
>> numbers, to add house numbers to houses I have mapped using only the LPI 
>> imagery in Tathra recently? 
>> Not sure if they are lot numbers or house numbers on Base Map or if it is 
>> permissible to use them on the OSM.
>> 
>> https://imgur.com/a/OxuPN <https://imgur.com/a/OxuPN>
>> 
>> Nev
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au 
> <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] LPI NSW Base Map land parcel numbers

[nwastra]

Tks, all the LPI stuff is a fantastic resource.
Nev

> On 22 Mar 2018, at 5:44 am, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> They are house numbers and can be used in OSM. 
> 
>> On 22/03/18 01:53, nwastra wrote:
>> I found this discussion from Jan 2017 which discusses the street numbers on 
>> the LPI NSW Base Map and it seems I can use the info in the OSM
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2017-January/011175.html
>> 
>> The house numbers are not the same number as the lot/parcel numbers in my 
>> area in se Qld. 
>> 
>> So a further question
>> Can the LPI NSW Base Map land parcel numbers be used as correct house 
>> numbers, aside from the possibility of having multiple units on one parcel.
>> 
>> Nev
>> 
>> On 21 Mar 2018, at 10:13 pm, nwastra <nwas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi
>>> can I use from the LPI NSW Base Map what I presume to be land parcel 
>>> numbers, to add house numbers to houses I have mapped using only the LPI 
>>> imagery in Tathra recently? 
>>> Not sure if they are lot numbers or house numbers on Base Map or if it is 
>>> permissible to use them on the OSM.
>>> 
>>> https://imgur.com/a/OxuPN
>>> 
>>> Nev
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] LPI NSW Base Map land parcel numbers

[nwastra]

I found this discussion from Jan 2017 which discusses the street numbers on the 
LPI NSW Base Map and it seems I can use the info in the OSM
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2017-January/011175.html

The house numbers are not the same number as the lot/parcel numbers in my area 
in se Qld. 

So a further question
Can the LPI NSW Base Map land parcel numbers be used as correct house numbers, 
aside from the possibility of having multiple units on one parcel.

Nev

> On 21 Mar 2018, at 10:13 pm, nwastra <nwas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi
> can I use from the LPI NSW Base Map what I presume to be land parcel numbers, 
> to add house numbers to houses I have mapped using only the LPI imagery in 
> Tathra recently? 
> Not sure if they are lot numbers or house numbers on Base Map or if it is 
> permissible to use them on the OSM.
> 
> https://imgur.com/a/OxuPN
> 
> Nev
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] LPI NSW Base Map land parcel numbers

[nwastra]

Hi
can I use from the LPI NSW Base Map what I presume to be land parcel numbers, 
to add house numbers to houses I have mapped using only the LPI imagery in 
Tathra recently? 
Not sure if they are lot numbers or house numbers on Base Map or if it is 
permissible to use them on the OSM.

https://imgur.com/a/OxuPN 

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

[talk-au] Tathra Fires

[nwastra]

I have finished most of northern half and will leave rest for others to finish.
Nev

> On 19 Mar 2018, at 12:55 pm, Nick Hocking  wrote:
> 
> I'll map all the houses in Tathra tonight unless someone else beats me to it.
> ___
> 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] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.6.0

[nwastra]

Matthils 
Did I mis-read this..
“- Do not render small national parks and nature reserves”
At what zoom levels are they not rendered?
Surely these are still rendered when zoomed in close on the map and I would 
consider a higher priority of importance  that most other stuff that is 
rendered.

N

> On 18 Dec 2017, at 7:46 am, Matthijs Melissen  
> wrote:
> 
> - Do not render small national parks and nature reserves

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

[talk-au] Check please: Lower Heidelberg & McAuthur Rds, Ivanhoe East

[nwastra]

Thanks Cam
Your assistance is appreciated.
Cheers
Nev

> On 17 Nov 2017, at 10:30 am, Rhubarb <cam_...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Nev,
> 
> I'm reasonably local to the area, and am familiar with the place,
> you've done a perfect revert there.
> 
> There's only a few minor issues that I've now fixed that are not
> related to the business or revertion edits:
> * The traffic light is supposed to be there, but it's a pedestrian
> crossing controlled with traffic lights.
> * The roundabout just needed some very minor tweaks
> 
> Cheers, Cam.
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 2017-11-16 at 12:00 +, talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> wrote:
>> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
>>talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> 
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>> 
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>> 
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
>> Today's Topics:
>> 
>>   1. Check please: Lower Heidelberg & McAuthur Rds,Ivanhoe
>> East
>>  (nwastra)
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[talk-au] Check please: Lower Heidelberg & McAuthur Rds, Ivanhoe East

[nwastra]

Hi
these business addition edits wrecked the Lower Heidelberg Rd / McAuthur Rd 
roundabout intersection

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/gnsgroup/history#map=19/-37.77289/145.06001

I was not able to easily revert these, so can someone who is familiar with the 
area check that it is ok.
The traffic lights concern me and am not able to discern the roundabout area 
well enough to be confident all is ok.

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

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

[nwastra]

We do have permission to use the CAPAD data and CAPAD 2014 data has been added 
extensively to OSM in Australia. 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Imports

https://www.environment.gov.au/land/nrs/science/capad
Download link CAPAD 2014: 
https://www.environment.gov.au/fed/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7B1813C24E-42E7-4959-A09D-EFB9B7E6EF8E%7D

CAPAD 2016 is in progress to be used but not really to use in OSM yet. 
discussion here: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2017-February/date.html
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2017-August/date.html

Nev
> On 16 Oct 2017, at 3:53 PM, Paul Morton  wrote:
> 
> I agree the larger government data set, from which I extracted the national 
> park boundary shapefile, does appear to have an incompatible licence (see 
> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ 
> ). So by extension the 
> extracted subset cannot be used.
> 
> Can you suggest another source for the landuse outline for this public 
> national park? It must be available under a less restrictive licence 
> somewhere - many other maps like google etc show the park boundary.
> 
> Paul
> 
> On 16 October 2017 at 13:29, Ian Sergeant  > wrote:
> Do we have permission for that data?  On the face of it the licence is 
> incompatible with OSM.
> 
> Ian.
> 
> On 16 October 2017 at 16:12, Paul Morton  > wrote:
> OSM is missing the Leeuwin-Naturaliste National Park land use. I have 
> extracted a shapefile for the park from 
> https://catalogue.data.wa.gov.au/dataset/dpaw-managed-lands-and-waters/resource/274b5ca5-8efd-3f43-92d8-50db803d5c48?inner_span=True
>  
> 
>  and want to import it to OSM. 
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines 
>  request I ask you for 
> community buy in before importing.
> 
> Do you want me to import the data for the park?
> 
> What is the best way to import a shapefile to OSM? Shall I use JOSM or is 
> there a better way?
> 
> Thanks,
> Paul Morton
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[talk-au] Tag physical business location with their PO Box number

[nwastra]

Hi
In addition to the tags like contact:phone contact:email addr:housenumber 
addr:street, etc almost all businesses in Australia that have a physical 
presence on the ground also have PO Box number as part of their address and use 
that for their business correspondence.
Is contact:pobox=* the correct way to tag their PO Box number?  
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Phone numbers

[nwastra]

Mapper @tastrax appears to be using a maproulette challenge to fix these, 
presumably in Tasmania. I am not familiar with the program myself.

Nev

> On 6 Sep 2017, at 8:41 pm, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I've had a small look at what is presently in the data base.
> There are a lot of phone numbers in there! 
> I got a time out when I tried all of NSW, and reduced it down to   Sydney 
> and only nodes (no ways or relationships).
> Some 637. I had not expected so many!
> A small look and about half have +61 - leaving a rather large   quantity 
> in 'error'.
> There will be a way of not downloading any with the leading prefix of +61. 
> It would be a small matter to write a script that would add the   correct 
> prefix to these, being careful of the respective area codes.  
> (spotted one with 61 - no leading +, there will be some with the area code 02 
> and the quantity of numbers would need to be tested to avoid obvious 
> errors/software confusion)
> 
>> On 06-Sep-17 02:45 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>> All the numbers I've added include the +61 and drop off the leading zero 
>> from the area code or mobile. This makes the number work from wherever it is 
>> dialed and makes it universally unique.
>> 
>> So +1 to this format when tagging in OSM and noting this in the Australian 
>> Guidelines wiki. 
>> 
>> On 6 Sep 2017 2:37 PM, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> 
>> On the tagging list it has come up that 'we' should be using international 
>> dialling codes for the phone numbers.
>> 
>> 
>> I'm not certain how many OZ mappers would be aware of these ..
>> 
>> and I think this should be documented on the wiki page 
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines
>> 
>> 
>> Test
>> 
>> How many would know how to call a cell phone number from overseas?
>> 
>> 
>> Answer
>> 
>> Drop the leading 0 and prefix with +61
>> 
>> +61 4 xx xxx xxx
>> 
>> 
>> Same thing for 'our' local codes 02 becomes +61 2  .
>> 
>> 
>> I know my phone number additions are all local - no ISD or even regional 
>> codes.
>> 
>> 
>> 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
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Collaborative Australian Protected Areas Database (CAPAD) 2016

[nwastra]

Thanks Andrew
I remember reading about the rights holder not having time to review their 
CC-BY xx wording for a while yet, so CC-BY 3.0 is ok.
This is a large import so I we expect it to take some time to get right and it 
is preferable to wait for that instead of mappers adding the data in a 
piecemeal fashion prior.
Keep up the good work.

> On 29 Aug 2017, at 10:48 AM, Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The data came out over a month ago but I hadn't bothered to do any processing 
> on it because I had been led to believe that the data was going to be 
> released under CC-BY 4.0 and the OSM view seems to be that we need to get the 
> rights holder to sign a wavier 
> (https://www.mail-archive.com/talk-au@openstreetmap.org/msg10796.html) even 
> if they had already said yes.
> 
> However, I've just checked and the dataset is actually CC-BY 3.0 so we may 
> still be OK to go.
> 
> It'll take a while for me to recreate the processing I did on CAPAD2014 and 
> I'm not sure when I'll have time to do it.
> 
> On 29/8/17 10:16, nwastra wrote:
>> Further to my previous query…
>> I have viewed the thread leading to these…
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2017-February/011272.html
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2017-March/011302.html
>> and assume that the permission part is ok and the import is still on track.
>> Is there an update on the timeframe of the import?
>>> Hi
>>> I had been expecting that valid explicit permission to use Collaborative 
>>> Australian Protected Areas Database (CAPAD) 2016 to edit and add 
>>> information to the OpenStreetMap would have been obtained by now but I 
>>> assume that the legal licence compatibility issues need to be resolved.
>>> Is there an estimated timeframe to resolution?
>>> 
>>> regards
>>> Nev Wedding
>> ___
>> 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] Collaborative Australian Protected Areas Database (CAPAD) 2016

[nwastra]

Further to my previous query…
I have viewed the thread leading to these…
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2017-February/011272.html
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2017-March/011302.html
and assume that the permission part is ok and the import is still on track.
Is there an update on the timeframe of the import?

> Hi
> I had been expecting that valid explicit permission to use Collaborative 
> Australian Protected Areas Database (CAPAD) 2016 to edit and add information 
> to the OpenStreetMap would have been obtained by now but I assume that the 
> legal licence compatibility issues need to be resolved. 
> Is there an estimated timeframe to resolution?
> 
> regards
> Nev Wedding


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

[talk-au] Collaborative Australian Protected Areas Database (CAPAD) 2016

[nwastra]

Hi
I had been expecting that valid explicit permission to use Collaborative 
Australian Protected Areas Database (CAPAD) 2016 to edit and add information to 
the OpenStreetMap would have been obtained by now but I assume that the legal 
licence compatibility issues need to be resolved. 
Is there an estimated timeframe to resolution?

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

[talk-au] nodes of a business placed on a road

[nwastra]

These edits are just nodes of a business placed on a road without a physical 
building coincidentally mapped. 
Is this allowed? 
Does a business need to have a physical building presence to be included in 
OSM? 
If these nodes were placed near the road instead would that be ok? 

*Corrected link:*  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TechTronix%20Webmaster/history#map=17/-26.52661/153.08892
 


One is an extra node on top of a junction node.


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

[talk-au] nodes of a business placed on a road

[nwastra]

These edits are just nodes of a business placed on a road without a physical 
building coincidentally mapped. 
Is this allowed? 
Does a business need to have a physical building presence to be included in 
OSM? 
If these nodes were placed near the road instead would that be ok? 
http://www.oznativeplants.com/plantdetail/Lawyer-Vine/Calamus/muelleri/zz.html 


One is an extra node on top of a junction node.___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging - World Solar Challenge - Darwin to Adelaide

[nwastra]

Perhaps this could be seen as a special case and a valid exception to the usual 
tagging rules applied. 
Nev
> On 19 May 2017, at 8:53 PM, Alex Sims <a...@softgrow.com> wrote:
> 
> I should have been a little clearer,
> 
> Each element now has two attributes highway=raceway and highway=primary, a 
> single way should only have one highway attribute.
> 
> The tagging guidelines 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Draceway 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=raceway> seem to imply its 
> an either/or thing. I’m searching for a tag other than “highway=raceway” to 
> apply to the relation, like a bus route for example.
> 
> Alex
>> On 19 May 2017, at 8:12 pm, nwastra <nwas...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:nwas...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> I am quite ok with the tagging as the individual ways that make up the route 
>> have not been altered.
>> The relation maps out the route of the Solar Challenge Race. The route as I 
>> see it serves a dual purpose during the period of the race. The Solar 
>> Challenge vehicles, though racing within strict rules of the public roads 
>> are never the less in a Solar Race against time and the usual road users are 
>> following their normal highway route. There is likely some interaction 
>> between both road users during this time and the normal users are likely to 
>> benefit  from being able to view the route on the osm as it is currently 
>> mapped as well as other international interest in the race.
>> Nev 
>>> On 19 May 2017, at 8:19 PM, Alex Sims <a...@softgrow.com 
>>> <mailto:a...@softgrow.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I’m not quite sure how to resolve this.
>>> 
>>> There is a relation 
>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7107501#map=5/-24.173/134.723 
>>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7107501#map=5/-24.173/134.723> for 
>>> the World Solar Challenge that runs from Darwin to Adelaide.
>>> 
>>> It is a relation tagged as highway=raceway 
>>> 
>>> This is now propagating on to assorted apps as well as the slippy map and 
>>> I’m finding it confusing.
>>> 
>>> I’m not sure if it should be
>>> - deleted as it is not “on the ground” and verifiable
>>> - made into a “ref” tag, like a highway alternative name, e.g A1, B2, C3
>>> - something else.
>>> 
>>> I do find it a bit odd though as in the parts through Adelaide there is no 
>>> signage, so it is more of an administrative feature like a suburb boundary 
>>> but even less so. It only has use once a year and it is more the route of 
>>> an event. I see the various odd shaped vehicles go by, but the road is not 
>>> closed, it is more a cavalcade of vehicles passing along normal highways, 
>>> subject to normal highway rules
> 

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

[talk-au] Tagging - World Solar Challenge - Darwin to Adelaide

[nwastra]

I see your point, but was not aware that this was a problem when mapped within 
a relation.
Nev

> 
>> On 19 May 2017, at 8:53 PM, Alex Sims <a...@softgrow.com 
>> <mailto:a...@softgrow.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> I should have been a little clearer,
>> 
>> Each element now has two attributes highway=raceway and highway=primary, a 
>> single way should only have one highway attribute.
>> 
>> The tagging guidelines 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Draceway 
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=raceway> seem to imply its 
>> an either/or thing. I’m searching for a tag other than “highway=raceway” to 
>> apply to the relation, like a bus route for example.
>> 
>> Alex
>>> On 19 May 2017, at 8:12 pm, nwastra <nwas...@gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:nwas...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I am quite ok with the tagging as the individual ways that make up the 
>>> route have not been altered.
>>> The relation maps out the route of the Solar Challenge Race. The route as I 
>>> see it serves a dual purpose during the period of the race. The Solar 
>>> Challenge vehicles, though racing within strict rules of the public roads 
>>> are never the less in a Solar Race against time and the usual road users 
>>> are following their normal highway route. There is likely some interaction 
>>> between both road users during this time and the normal users are likely to 
>>> benefit  from being able to view the route on the osm as it is currently 
>>> mapped as well as other international interest in the race.
>>> Nev 
>>>> On 19 May 2017, at 8:19 PM, Alex Sims <a...@softgrow.com 
>>>> <mailto:a...@softgrow.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I’m not quite sure how to resolve this.
>>>> 
>>>> There is a relation 
>>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7107501#map=5/-24.173/134.723 
>>>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7107501#map=5/-24.173/134.723> for 
>>>> the World Solar Challenge that runs from Darwin to Adelaide.
>>>> 
>>>> It is a relation tagged as highway=raceway 
>>>> 
>>>> This is now propagating on to assorted apps as well as the slippy map and 
>>>> I’m finding it confusing.
>>>> 
>>>> I’m not sure if it should be
>>>> - deleted as it is not “on the ground” and verifiable
>>>> - made into a “ref” tag, like a highway alternative name, e.g A1, B2, C3
>>>> - something else.
>>>> 
>>>> I do find it a bit odd though as in the parts through Adelaide there is no 
>>>> signage, so it is more of an administrative feature like a suburb boundary 
>>>> but even less so. It only has use once a year and it is more the route of 
>>>> an event. I see the various odd shaped vehicles go by, but the road is not 
>>>> closed, it is more a cavalcade of vehicles passing along normal highways, 
>>>> subject to normal highway rules
>> 
> 

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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging - World Solar Challenge - Darwin to Adelaide

[nwastra]

I would like to see additional tags to specify the period that the World Solar 
Challenge route is being used for the actual race.
Not so sure about the route relation remaining as a mapped entity after the 
race is completed but do not really see a reason why is should not be 
permanently mapped and updated and rerouted as it changes each year.
Will be interesting to see others comments on the mapping of this race route. 
Nev
> On 19 May 2017, at 8:42 PM, nwastra <nwas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I am quite ok with the tagging as the individual ways that make up the route 
> have not been altered.
> The relation maps out the route of the Solar Challenge Race. The route as I 
> see it serves a dual purpose during the period of the race. The Solar 
> Challenge vehicles, though racing within strict rules of the public roads are 
> never the less in a Solar Race against time and the usual road users are 
> following their normal highway route. There is likely some interaction 
> between both road users during this time and the normal users are likely to 
> benefit  from being able to view the route on the osm as it is currently 
> mapped as well as other international interest in the race.
> Nev 
>> On 19 May 2017, at 8:19 PM, Alex Sims <a...@softgrow.com 
>> <mailto:a...@softgrow.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> I’m not quite sure how to resolve this.
>> 
>> There is a relation 
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7107501#map=5/-24.173/134.723 
>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7107501#map=5/-24.173/134.723> for 
>> the World Solar Challenge that runs from Darwin to Adelaide.
>> 
>> It is a relation tagged as highway=raceway 
>> 
>> This is now propagating on to assorted apps as well as the slippy map and 
>> I’m finding it confusing.
>> 
>> I’m not sure if it should be
>> - deleted as it is not “on the ground” and verifiable
>> - made into a “ref” tag, like a highway alternative name, e.g A1, B2, C3
>> - something else.
>> 
>> I do find it a bit odd though as in the parts through Adelaide there is no 
>> signage, so it is more of an administrative feature like a suburb boundary 
>> but even less so. It only has use once a year and it is more the route of an 
>> event. I see the various odd shaped vehicles go by, but the road is not 
>> closed, it is more a cavalcade of vehicles passing along normal highways, 
>> subject to normal highway rules
>> 
>> Thoughts, suggestions?
>> 
>> Alex
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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 - World Solar Challenge - Darwin to Adelaide

[nwastra]

I am quite ok with the tagging as the individual ways that make up the route 
have not been altered.
The relation maps out the route of the Solar Challenge Race. The route as I see 
it serves a dual purpose during the period of the race. The Solar Challenge 
vehicles, though racing within strict rules of the public roads are never the 
less in a Solar Race against time and the usual road users are following their 
normal highway route. There is likely some interaction between both road users 
during this time and the normal users are likely to benefit  from being able to 
view the route on the osm as it is currently mapped as well as other 
international interest in the race.
Nev 
> On 19 May 2017, at 8:19 PM, Alex Sims  wrote:
> 
> I’m not quite sure how to resolve this.
> 
> There is a relation 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7107501#map=5/-24.173/134.723 
>  for the 
> World Solar Challenge that runs from Darwin to Adelaide.
> 
> It is a relation tagged as highway=raceway 
> 
> This is now propagating on to assorted apps as well as the slippy map and I’m 
> finding it confusing.
> 
> I’m not sure if it should be
> - deleted as it is not “on the ground” and verifiable
> - made into a “ref” tag, like a highway alternative name, e.g A1, B2, C3
> - something else.
> 
> I do find it a bit odd though as in the parts through Adelaide there is no 
> signage, so it is more of an administrative feature like a suburb boundary 
> but even less so. It only has use once a year and it is more the route of an 
> event. I see the various odd shaped vehicles go by, but the road is not 
> closed, it is more a cavalcade of vehicles passing along normal highways, 
> subject to normal highway rules
> 
> Thoughts, suggestions?
> 
> 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

Re: [talk-au] Stormwater drains

[nwastra]

could also add substance=water if you think it is not obvious.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dpipeline

> On 11 May 2017, at 8:49 PM, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> drain or culvert.
> 
>> Am I justified in retagging as man_made=pipeline location=underground?
> 
> "Pipeline" is less specific - pipelines can carry, for example, oil or
> aviation fuel.


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

[talk-au] Fwd: New satellite imagery has been provided by DigitalGlobe

[nwastra]

proper link   https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=58339

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: nwastra <nwas...@gmail.com>
> Subject: New satellite imagery has been provided by DigitalGlobe
> Date: 10 May 2017 at 3:52:07 PM AEST
> To: OSM Australian Talk List <Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
> 
> New satellite imagery has been provided by DigitalGlobe … two new imagery 
> layers for the purposes of editing, tracing and validating OSM.
> Read more on the forum
> https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=645539#p645539
> 
> 
> It looks good in my area  :)

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

[talk-au] New satellite imagery has been provided by DigitalGlobe

[nwastra]

New satellite imagery has been provided by DigitalGlobe … two new imagery 
layers for the purposes of editing, tracing and validating OSM.
Read more on the forum
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=645539#p645539


It looks good in my area  :)
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[nwastra]

+1
> On 27 Apr 2017, at 7:39 PM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> I fully agree on this. Please do not remove separate cycleways, unless they 
> are wrongly mapped cycle lanes (an error which I encounter from time to time)

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

Re: [talk-au] Fixing deletions

[nwastra]

Hi
Archivi is a good way to view a changeset
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=47973757 

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=47973783 


There is a legend at the bottom left to describe the display.

The WhoDidIt page is useful for monitoring changes in your area
http://simon04.dev.openstreetmap.org/whodidit/?zoom=12=-27.62398=152.63623=BTT=1%20month
 

When you select a square you will see a list of changeset that cover that square
-you can see in Archivy by selecting the [A]
-you can see the changeset details at openstreetmap.org 
 by selecting the changeset number

the JOSM editor is a good way to revert a faulty changeset. 
You need to load the ‘reverter’ plugin to perform a revert
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Reverter 


If you don’t want to use the reverter, I guess you could take a screen capture 
encompassing the deleted area and load that image in Josm and use it to redraw 
the bits you want to add back into OSM. 
You would need to use the PicLayer plugin to do that
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/Plugin/PicLayer 


…or remap using Bing

The quarry near Rosewood still appears to be correctly mapped by viewing in 
Bing so not sure what was altered/added there.

Nev


> On 21 Apr 2017, at 10:22 AM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> 
> Hi
> I have been fixing map vandalism in Australia but ran into my skill 
> limitations on this one
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ramira2
> 
> where a quarry has been deleted.
> 
> How do I visualise the map before the deletion so I can assess what was 
> deleted?
> What is the easiest way to undelete something?
> 
> Thanks
> 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

[OSM-talk] multipolygon source tags preferred method

[nwastra]

Thanks for the link Martin.
It is well written and helps me a great deal on this matter.
Nev
> On 28 Mar 2017, at 8:27 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 2017-03-27 23:17 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> >:
> Source tags on features within the OSM data base have not been depreciated to 
> my knowledge
> 
> 
> let's say it like this: their use is discouraged, because the concept doesn't 
> work for OSM.
> You can see this reflected here: 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source 
> 
> 
> 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

[OSM-talk] multipolygon source tags preferred method

[nwastra]

Jochen, ridding the osm of these unnecessary source tags seems like a good 
candidate for our MapRoulette challenge. :)


Putting the sources on the objects has been deprecated for a while. The source 
should be put on the changeset only. If you are doing edits that involve 
several different sources, it is best to split the changes up into different 
changesets. Of course this is not always possible, then you can also put 
several sources in the changeset source tag. Adding the source to the objects 
was deprecated, too fined-grained source tagging simply doesn't make much 
sense. We can not track every source for every node, way, or relation or the 
parts of them for every tiny change that somebody does. In the end most data 
will have multiple sources and figuring out what came from what can only be 
done going through the changeset tags, not by looking at the tags on the data 
itself. Jochen -- Jochen Topf



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

[OSM-talk] multipolygon source tags preferred method

[nwastra]

I am unsure what is the preferred way or best practice to tag the source for 
multipolygons.
I currently put the source on the relation with all the rest of the tags, and 
only adding tags to individual ways or inner polygons if they are also part of 
a seperate entity like a fence or a body of water. I also include the source 
with the uploaded change-set. This would seem to be ok when adding a new mp 
relation.

Should the source also be added to all the individual ways that make up the 
outer and inner boundaries of each polygon? 
Is this also the preferred way when adding a new large mp relation that does 
not currently exist?
  
When replacing individual ways or splitting and altering part of a way with 
updated data, adding the new source tag to those new ways would seem best 
practice or is it sufficient to added the source to the change-sets alone?

Is the most sensible way to initially add the source tags to the relation and 
change-set upload alone and from then on as individual parts are amended, to 
add the source to just the updated/corrected ways and the change-set on upload?

I have not come across guidance for this on the wki yet.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Duplicate ways in multipolygon relations

[nwastra]

Unfortunately OGR2OSM doesn’t appear to me to split common ways and delete 
duplicates between relations/polygons at first glance on running the program on 
a test shapefile, which may be prudent anyway, though I would prefer it was 
able to do it. 
OGR2OSM will likely be useful in with the tags.
Nev
 
> On 19 Feb 2017, at 8:40 PM, nwastra <nwas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Ed
> OGR2OSM seems to be what I am looking for.
> 
> Nev Wedding
> 
>> On 19 Feb 2017, at 7:42 pm, "Ed Loach" <edlo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Not sure about QGIS but have you looked at OGR2OSM?
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ogr2osm


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Duplicate ways in multipolygon relations

[nwastra]

Thanks Ed
OGR2OSM seems to be what I am looking for.

Nev Wedding

> On 19 Feb 2017, at 7:42 pm, "Ed Loach"  wrote:
> 
> Not sure about QGIS but have you looked at OGR2OSM?
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ogr2osm

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Duplicate ways in multipolygon relations

[nwastra]

…..Actually, all the overlapping ways in the current shapefile are where 
adjacent relations meet.

> On 19 Feb 2017, at 2:04 PM, nwastra <nwas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi
> is there a JOSM plugin to assist with duplicate ways?
> 
> We have been given explicit permission to use a good data set of shapefiles 
> that define boundaries for the OSM.
> 
> Using JOSM, my method is to select the shapefile relation for a particular 
> National Park for instance then merge the selection into the OSM Data Layer. 
> Often a replace geometry is needed on many polygons to help preserve the 
> history. Add all the tags to the relation. 
> 
> Then the hard part….
> You have to cut up and conflate the new boundaries with the existing data. 
> All the duplicate overlying ways need to be selected, nodes entered, nodes 
> merged and joined at the end, boundary and nodes selected where split is 
> performed, remove extra over lapping ways to generally leave one, add that 
> one left to this or another relation. Add more tags as needed.
> Then selection each relation that was affected and view the result to see if 
> it is complete.
> 
> In some areas there are likely to be National Parks and other protected 
> areas, forestry areas, etc all adjacent to each other with boundaries that 
> meet.
> 
> Another method I use is to split up the relation before merging piece by 
> piece but is just as complex.
> 
> Another method is to leave the overlapping ways for someone else to sort out.
> 
> In some relations there may be 30 or so adjacent polygons with ways partially 
> overlapping so is a lot of work that I think would be ideal for plugin 
> assistance and efficiency. 
> It seems to me that if one relation is selected at a time, it should be a 
> task able to be mostly automated by programming. Then it would be up to the 
> mapper to verify and quality control the result.
> 
> I am a new user to QGis and wonder if the splitting and conflating of the 
> shapefile to be merged can be done in QGis prior to introduction to JOSM and 
> then would only need to sort out areas between adjacent relations. 
> 
> Is it best not to bother doing this anyway or even preferable to leave all 
> the polygons as individual entities with overlapping ways?
> 
> Finally, I should add that I do try to add small discreet areas and relations 
> one at a time that are manageable before proceeding. 
> 
> Nev 
> 


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

[OSM-talk] Duplicate ways in multipolygon relations

[nwastra]

Hi
is there a JOSM plugin to assist with duplicate ways?

We have been given explicit permission to use a good data set of shapefiles 
that define boundaries for the OSM.

Using JOSM, my method is to select the shapefile relation for a particular 
National Park for instance then merge the selection into the OSM Data Layer. 
Often a replace geometry is needed on many polygons to help preserve the 
history. Add all the tags to the relation. 

Then the hard part….
You have to cut up and conflate the new boundaries with the existing data. 
All the duplicate overlying ways need to be selected, nodes entered, nodes 
merged and joined at the end, boundary and nodes selected where split is 
performed, remove extra over lapping ways to generally leave one, add that one 
left to this or another relation. Add more tags as needed.
Then selection each relation that was affected and view the result to see if it 
is complete.

In some areas there are likely to be National Parks and other protected areas, 
forestry areas, etc all adjacent to each other with boundaries that meet.

Another method I use is to split up the relation before merging piece by piece 
but is just as complex.

Another method is to leave the overlapping ways for someone else to sort out.

In some relations there may be 30 or so adjacent polygons with ways partially 
overlapping so is a lot of work that I think would be ideal for plugin 
assistance and efficiency. 
It seems to me that if one relation is selected at a time, it should be a task 
able to be mostly automated by programming. Then it would be up to the mapper 
to verify and quality control the result.

I am a new user to QGis and wonder if the splitting and conflating of the 
shapefile to be merged can be done in QGis prior to introduction to JOSM and 
then would only need to sort out areas between adjacent relations. 

Is it best not to bother doing this anyway or even preferable to leave all the 
polygons as individual entities with overlapping ways?

Finally, I should add that I do try to add small discreet areas and relations 
one at a time that are manageable before proceeding. 

Nev 


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

[talk-au] Parks Vic data

[nwastra]

Hi
I have found many problems with the Heathcote-Graytown National Park in 
Victoria. 
Is there a place from which I can download the boundary as we have done with 
the NSW LPI NPWSReserve - public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries, so I sort out 
where the gazetted boundary is and then fix the boundary in the osm?


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

Re: [talk-au] New User Surge.

[nwastra]

Apart from the addition of numerous poorly edited parks, numerous footways 
(even with no construction or visible path on the ground), water features, etc 
by the followers of this children's game, I am also dismayed to see that wide 
shared cement ways that most would have previously marked as cycleways to aid 
cycle routing are now being changed to footways. Most of my osm editing time is 
taken up trying to fix all these poor edits. 
Hopefully all these new editors gain experience and become a valued editing 
force. 
Nev 
  
> On 27 Jan 2017, at 8:52 PM, Andrew Davidson  wrote:
> 
> Good news people. There seems to have been a surge in the number of new 
> mappers in Australia:
> 
> http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious?country=3=96=10==t=%3E=1000=c=n#5/-30.600/148.425
> 
> and they all seem to be *very* interested in making sure every park is on the 
> map. Rivers and meadows are quite popular too.
> 
> In other news:
> 
> https://mic.com/articles/166654/pokemon-go-hack-altering-openstreetmap-data-may-create-new-spawn-points-in-the-game
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Perth double park names

[nwastra]

They appear to be mostly derived from the adjacent street names.
Is this the signage at the parks?

> On 7 Jan 2017, at 4:38 PM, nwastra <nwas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi
> is there a reason why many Perth Parks have two names separated by a “/“  ?
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/l66 <http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/l66>
> 
> If they need correcting, is there a local person able to correct the names?

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

[talk-au] Perth double park names

[nwastra]

Hi
is there a reason why many Perth Parks have two names separated by a “/“  ?
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/l66 

If they need correcting, is there a local person able to correct the names?___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Local Government Areas without Councils

[nwastra]

Your suggestion of …
'the simplest solution, changing the term "Local Government Authority" to 
"Local Government Area" in the wiki. is acceptable’ 
is a good solution for me as all these areas need to appear on the map.
nevw 

> On 23 Dec 2016, at 8:50 AM, cleary  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the feedback about this issue.
> 
> I understand that Andrew would prefer non-council LGAs be negatively mapped 
> (i.e they constitute areas within a state that are not mapped as council 
> LGAs) but I didn't perceive that to be the view of other respondents. It 
> would also mean that the names of these areas would not appear on the map, 
> defeating one of the purposes of a map.
> 
> I suggest a simple one-word change in the wiki so that Level 6 administrative 
> boundaries in Australia would read "Local Government Area Border (e.g 
> Shire/Council)" replacing "Local Government Authority Border (e.g 
> Shire/Council)" clarifying that we map the area rather than the form of 
> administration in the area.
> 
> I looked at the possibility of separating the areas into LGAs administered by 
> councils, LGAs administered by other bodies, and LGAs without a single 
> administering authority and mapping them with different admin_levels but it 
> seems a very clumsy solution.
> 
> I also looked again at the model for States and Territories. In that category 
> we have three different categories (1) States administered by governments 
> with powers independent of the Commonwealth, Territories with governments 
> with limited powers and ultimately subject to Commonwealth control, and the 
> Jervis Bay Territory which has no single administering authority.  All are 
> mapped as admin_level=4 which I think is appropriate.  If we think an LGA 
> should not be mapped because it does not have an administering authority, 
> would we also delete the Jervis Bay Territory for the same reason? I would 
> hope not.
> 
> Which brings me back to the simplest solution, changing the term "Local 
> Government Authority" to "Local Government Area" in the wiki.
> 
> Is this suggestion generally acceptable or could someone else suggest a more 
> acceptable solution to the question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016, at 08:48 AM, Warin wrote:
>> On 21-Dec-16 05:10 PM, Warin wrote:
>>> Hummm 
>>> How about looking at it from a data consumers view point? 
>>> Who would use boundary level 6  and what for? 
>>> 
>>> A resident/occupier/potential purchaser/developer may want to know who is 
>>> the relevant authority for a particular property ... 
>>> A new employee many want confirmation of the boundaries of the authority 
>>> they are working for. 
>>>  I suppose you could ask a real estate agent (joke) or look in OSM ... 
>>> If you are in one of these 'unincorporated areas' then with Andrew's' 
>>> 'rule' you won't get an answer.. not much help. 
>>> 
>>> I would think that the 'rule' is easily expanded to include unincorporated 
>>> areas. 
>>> What is/are  the objection/s to this expansion? Other than 'it is not in 
>>> the wiki'. 
>>> 
>>>  On 21-Dec-16 11:35 AM, Andrew Davidson wrote: 
>>> 
 It's pretty simple: 
 
 1. Admin level 6 boundaries are supposed to enclose a "Local Government 
 Authority". 
 
 2. In NSW the only form of "Local Government Authority" are councils 
 incorporated under the Local Government Act. 
 
 3. The areas covered by these councils are "incorporated areas". 
 
 4. The three polygons in the LPI dataset labelled "UNINCORPORATED" 
 represent areas that are not in the "incorporated areas" and therefore 
 have no "Local Government Authority". 
 
 5. You don't put boundaries around things that don't exist. 
>>> 
>>> Unincorporated areas exit.
>>> They form a similar role to 'Local Councils'. 
>>> The areas do not overlap, in fact sharing the same ways/part boundaries. 
>>> There would be no data conflict in adding these to boundary level 6. 
>>> 
>> 
>> Looking 
>> athttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative#10_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> the United kingdom for level 6 boundary has "administrative counties / 
>> Unitary authorities , City 
>> of London" 
>> 
>> And the wiki on Unitary authorities 
>>  says in part "type of local 
>> authority that has a single tier and is responsible for all local government 
>>  functions within its area" 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 
 QED.
 
 The SA case is complicated by the existence of the Outback Communities 
 Authority. According to the Office of Local Government it's not included: 
 
 http://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/local_govt 
 . 
 

Re: [talk-au] Yellow Creek Road

[nwastra]

The signs can be seen quite well on Google Street View too. Seems quite odd as 
no maps I checked had that name on the road, though there are a few real estate 
sales mention the name and if you click on the True Local site for the local FM 
radio station location icon (next to the address) it gives you a map at the 
same location you mention. 
http://www.truelocal.com.au/business/yass-fm-100-3-1/yass .
I guess the name has recently changed. 
I would send an email of to the NSW Dept Roads 
https://secure.rms.nsw.gov.au/contact-us/


> On 23 Nov 2016, at 12:41 PM, Nick Hocking  wrote:
> 
> Where Cooks Hill Road crosses the Hume Highway near Yass NSW
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-34.80827/148.93106 
> 
> 
> The are signs, on the sides of the bridge, facing both carriageways, saying 
> "Yellow Creek Road",
> 
> Why this so is a mystery to me and the only references to "Yellow Creek Road" 
> that I can find anywhere are where the Police have given a ticket to someone 
> at that bridge.
> 
> PS - I did survey Cooks Hill Road, again, last Monday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Is it ok to add data from the yellow pages to OSM?

[nwastra]

Wow, we finally have a use for the unsolicited paper copy that gets dropped at 
the front door each year  :)


> On 12 Nov 2016, at 1:14 PM, cleary  wrote:
> 
> 
> Use your favourite search engine to search for the many articles about
> copyright in the yellow and white pages. You will find articles such as 
> http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/95894/Copyright/Copyright+in+Databases+No+Copyright+in+White+and+Yellow+Pages
> 
> The Federal Court of Australia ruled there was no copyright in the
> printed editions of the yellow pages and white pages. The decision was
> appealed and the Full Bench of the Federal Court upheld the previous
> decision.
> 
> I think that effectively places the yellow pages printed edition in the
> public domain and the information can be used by anyone for any purpose.
> As far as I know the decision did not apply to the yellow pages or
> white pages websites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016, at 01:00 PM, Luke Picciau wrote:
>> I just got a 2017 copy of the yellow pages and instead of throwing it 
>> out like normal I was wondering if the data inside it can be added to 
>> OSM? Would this be ok, i'm not sure what the license for this data is.
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] Is it ok to add data from the yellow pages to OSM?

[nwastra]

I think the terms of use may preclude that
https://www.yellowpages.com.au/pages/legal/terms

> On 12 Nov 2016, at 12:00 PM, Luke Picciau  wrote:
> 
> I just got a 2017 copy of the yellow pages and instead of throwing it out 
> like normal I was wondering if the data inside it can be added to OSM? Would 
> this be ok, i'm not sure what the license for this data is.
> 
> ___
> 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] Alternative to Pipermail?

[nwastra]

There is http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html but 
that site is very poor because it keeps putting a 'free resume' site into your 
browser so you are directed to that when you hit the back button. Because that 
happens to me on the nabble site i am quite pleased to use the piper mail.

N

> On 14 Sep 2016, at 12:39 am, Dave F  wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> Is there a site other than Pipermail which archives OSM forums?
> 
> As Pipermail gives up displaying posts as children when about 3 or 4 deep it 
> gets a bit confusing who's replying to who.
> 
> Cheers
> Dave F.
> 
> ___
> 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] Tagging for the router

[nwastra]

> 
> and in the rest of Australia as well

In Victoria, drivers are allowed to perform u-turns at intersections with or 
without traffic signals and at breaks in the median unless there is a no U-turn 
sign(as shown on the right) displayed at that location or applying to that 
length of road. A no right turn sign also prohibits a u-turn.

In some other states in Australia, the opposite applies and you can only do a 
u-turn at these locations if signs permit it.___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au