Re: [talk-au] Track route names used to name paths

[Ian Steer via Talk-au]

Sounds like you have 2 issues here?
1. someone has created a way (probably from a GPS recorded walk) with no
regard for the fact that some (or all) of the ways were already in OSM, and
2. how those ways are named?

Issue 1: I have come across this from time-to-time and it is a p-i-t-a
fixing it up - but has to be done.  This involves deleting the new way where
a way already existed, creating new ones where they don't, then creating the
route relation.

Issue 2: Is also something I come across with the Munda Biddi Trail and
Bibbulmun Track in WA.  Original mappers of these ways and relations have in
some cases named (for example) a forestry fire trail "Munda Biddi Trail"
because the Munda Biddi uses the existing way.  I don't believe this is
correct and usually delete the name off the way.  However, when a new piece
of single-trail has been built just for the Munda Biddi, I believe it *is*
correct to name that way Munda Biddi Trail.

Ian


> 
> HI,
> 
> On some paths route signs have been used to 'name' the path.
> 
> 
> One example is the 'Great North Walk', a Sydney to Newcastle walking
route,
> where many of the paths existed before the route was created. I think this
is a
> combination of mistaking the route signage as the track name and route
> relations not rendering.
> 
> 
> In the Blue Mountains some paths have more than one OSM way - each with
> different 'name', at least some of these are routes that may, I repeat
may, not
> be the true path name.
> 
> 
> Example
> 
> Way 1199677262 - 'Grand Clifftop Walk'
> 
> Way 22761613 - 'Overcliff Track' Note NPWS route 'Overcliff-Undercliff
track' ..
> the over cliff track is mapped separately in OSM. A route relation could
be
> made with both these tracks and a website link..
> 
> --
> 
> In the Blue Mts where there are overlayed ways and one of them is a route
I
> think it would be best to remove that way and include the remaining way in
a
> route relation .. I think most of this is the 'Great Cliff Top Walk' route
and that
> would then remove the double overlayed ways. .
> 
> 
> Thoughts/comments ???
> 
> 
> 


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

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

[Adam Steer]

Thanks Tony.

The first crux as I see it is that the OSM community doesn't listen. It is
unable to hear values other than some abstract academic notion of map
purity.

The second crux is that OSM mappers are not responsible or accountable for
anything. So taking the view that "everyone should come to OSM and justify
themselves" is pretty weird and backwards.

What about taking the approach "ok land managers what can we do to help
you?" And if the answer is "stop reverting parks service  edits", then
respect that ...

A better map isn't one with all the everything. It's one made respectfully
and responsibly.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Adam Steer]

Wait ... does the OSM community seriously want to call public land managers
vandals for attempting to manage access to parts of public land effectively?

This is a publicly archived forum, which land managers may read.

It's been raised a few times, and I have no problem raising this again:

- OSM have zero control over who renders what downstream, regardless of
tags.

- the existence of trails in a map infers useability at some point.

- continually reinstating trails to a database may incur real world
monetary, ecological, landscape and cultural costs, aside from time of
people engaging in slow edit wars. Who is OSM is then liable for those
costs?

- who in the land management community would now feel inclined to join this
discussion? It seems obvious the OSM community isn't prepared to listen,
only to talk...

This thread has been a bit mind numbing. I've tried hard to avoid writing
this post, and couldn't any more.

There are more important values than a database. Land managers have better
things to do that have edit wars.

And to repeat, OSM has no control over who renders what downstream. Please
respect a land managers decision, or at least ask about it respectfully and
wait as long as is needed for a response. They're busy..managing land.

With regards,

Adam







On Thu, Feb 29, 2024, 21:09 Andrew Welch via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> As much as we want to wait on them and work with them, there’s probably a
> point at which we should treat their edits like vandalism (and just revert
> their deletions) until they actually work with us.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew Welch
> m...@andrewwelch.net
>
>
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 8:13 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>> I've yet had no response back from Stephen Stenberg re Slate Falls
>> Lookout, after I basically repeated what you all had already said to him :-(
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 10:51, Andrew Welch via Talk-au <
>> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>>> The user who's edits were revered by Frederik has now tagged those ways
>>> as access=no, hopefully that means the message is starting to get across to
>>> NPWS.
>>>
>>> They did set some questionable names on those trails though, and haven't
>>> replied to a changeset comment asking about those.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Andrew Welch
>>> m...@andrewwelch.net
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 23:12, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>>>
 There’s probably going to be other examples of NPWS deleting paths.
 I’ve just had a look at the Jungle Circuit in Blackheath. This was deleted
 by NPWS https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144648041 - at least
 most of it was, a small bridge was left behind near the creek, and the
 first part from Rodriguez Pass was left alone. With Rodriguez Pass
 currently closed, I’m not able to check it in-person. It was passable in
 2017, with some indistinct sections, so it’s possible that the 2020 fires
 and 2022 floods have finished it off. I’ve asked a clarifying question on
 the changeset.

 Mark P.

 On 27 Feb 2024, at 8:53 pm, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

 I haven't followed this thread and I don't know if this is relevant to
 the discussion but I have just reverted the deletion of a bunch of paths in
 Tweed Shire, NSW here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147956474
 - the deleter claims to have ties to NPS.

 --
 Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09"
 E008°23'33"

 ___
 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] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Ian Steer via Talk-au]

As you say, they are trying to discourage walkers but nothing to indicate it
is not permitted to enter.

Path should be in OSM

Ian

> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 22:52:06 +1100
> From: Mark Pulley 
> To: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
> 
> On my last holiday I took a detour to re-check the Apsley Gorge track.
> 
> The asphalt path ends at a lookout
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/324186826
> 
> The ?controversial? path is still present south of here - I followed it
some of
> the way (about 350m), but didn?t follow it all the way to the end.
> 
> There is a sign just south of the lookout - Google Maps street view shows
the
> sign (the small yellow object near the southern end of the safety rail!)
> https://maps.app.goo.gl/9mDecm2GKpXxM48k6
> 
> On the left side of the sign, there?s a warning icon (exclamation mark),
then
> ?No safety rail?, another warning icon (man falling off edge of crumbling
cliff),
> then ?Unstable edges?
> 
> On the right side of the sign is the text ?End of track, no safety rail
beyond this
> point?
> 
> The sign is there to discourage walkers venturing further south, but it?s
not
> technically a ?do not enter? sign.
> 
> Does that help with what to do with this particular example?
> 
> Mark P.
> 
> >
> > On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley  > wrote:
> >> A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just
this
> particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):
> >>
> >> 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information) 2.
> >> Partial revert, with a change in tags 3. Leave the deletion as it is.
> >>
> >> For this particular example, the results would be:
> >> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access
> >> tags 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or alternatively
> >> abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* 3. No reversion
> >
> > I would opt for 2, leave the way in place, but with access=no, a
lifecycle prefix
> on the highway tag like abandoned:highway=* or rehabilitated:highway=*.
> >
> > If there is signage that says closed for rehabilitation, we should
capture the
> closure reason somewhere, so OSM data consumers can present that reason
> for the closure to users, whether that be via rehabilitated:highway=* or
> something like, access:reason=rehabilitation.
> >
> 
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:  au/attachments/20231214/f7dcd5fa/attachment-0001.htm>
> 
> --
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 
> 
> --
> 
> End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 198, Issue 6
> ***


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

Re: [talk-au] emergency highway airstrips

[Ian Steer via Talk-au]

Opps, sent too early, here's a second example:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/187347278#map=15/-31.9089/127.0839=
D


https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/187347277

Ian


> Whether it's right or wrong, I don't know, but here's another example:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/187347277
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2023 20:12:35 +1100
> > From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
> > To: OSM Australian Talk List 
> > Subject: [talk-au] emergency highway airstrips
> > Message-ID: <233db7e4-cb4c-4539-a3f3-87a375b54...@gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > How do we tag emergency highway airstrips, as used by the RFDS? I
> > thought this was documented on the Australian tagging guidelines but I
> cannot see it..
> >
> > I have used this as an example
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/493146070
> >
> > for a rough area cleared for the wings and a turning area.
> >
> > aeroway ??? aerodrome
> > military ??? airfield
> > name ??? Royal Flying Doctor Service Emergency Airstrip Stuart Highway
> > wikipedia ??? en:Highway strip#Australia
> >
> >
> > together with
> >
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/493146071
> >
> > for the centre line of the runway itself. Note the highway exists as a
> > separate way.
> >
> > aeroway ??? runway
> > ref ??? 13/31
> > source ??? survey
> > surface ??? asphalt
> >
> >
> > -
> >
> > Anyone have thought on this? I'm not certain of
> >
> > military ??? airfield .. may not always be military though this area
> > is surrounded by it.
> >
> > name ??? Royal Flying Doctor Service Emergency Airstrip Stuart Highway
..
> > more of a description possibly operator???
> >
> >
> > Once this is discussed .. then I'll put it in the Aust. Tagging
> > Guidelines thingy.
> >
> >
> >
> 


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

Re: [talk-au] emergency highway airstrips

[Ian Steer via Talk-au]

Whether it's right or wrong, I don't know, but here's another example:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/187347277




> Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2023 20:12:35 +1100
> From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
> To: OSM Australian Talk List 
> Subject: [talk-au] emergency highway airstrips
> Message-ID: <233db7e4-cb4c-4539-a3f3-87a375b54...@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> 
> Hi
> 
> How do we tag emergency highway airstrips, as used by the RFDS? I thought
> this was documented on the Australian tagging guidelines but I cannot see
it..
> 
> I have used this as an example
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/493146070
> 
> for a rough area cleared for the wings and a turning area.
> 
> aeroway ??? aerodrome
> military ??? airfield
> name ??? Royal Flying Doctor Service Emergency Airstrip Stuart Highway
> wikipedia ??? en:Highway strip#Australia
> 
> 
> together with
> 
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/493146071
> 
> for the centre line of the runway itself. Note the highway exists as a
separate
> way.
> 
> aeroway ??? runway
> ref ??? 13/31
> source ??? survey
> surface ??? asphalt
> 
> 
> -
> 
> Anyone have thought on this? I'm not certain of
> 
> military ??? airfield .. may not always be military though this area is
> surrounded by it.
> 
> name ??? Royal Flying Doctor Service Emergency Airstrip Stuart Highway ..
> more of a description possibly operator???
> 
> 
> Once this is discussed .. then I'll put it in the Aust. Tagging
> Guidelines thingy.
> 
> 
> 



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

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

[Adam Steer]

Hi all

What is the OSM community issue with the concept of 'do not map this it
will cause harm'?

OSMF and the OSM community cannot stop downstream users from using data
however they like. It's open data, people may not even be aware that they
need to apply specific tagging for visibility or not.

The path of least harm is to let land managers remove informal paths and
leave them removed. It's quite straightforward. I've worked on one project
where having informal tracks visible on a map would have trashed years of
advocacy work. I've also seen that if a trail appears on a map, it gets
used. Others in this thread have given direct experience (ground truth if
you like, or as close as anyone will get to whatever people think
ground truth is) of when mapping trails leads to harm.

As an open data community, mapping responsibly comes before "map all the
things". This means considering that downstream users may not use data in
ways we would like or expect once it is there.

It's not even controversial that NSW NPWS would remove informal trails from
OSM. Heck, I would. I'd also get smart, and start to ask OSM to revoke
accounts of repeat trail remappers. Because see the second sentence in this
email. Also remember it costs actual dollars to keep re-remediating trails,
policing usage, monitoring which mapping aps are showing trails that should
not be there. So an abstract insistence on a concept which does not even
exist (ground truth) is sucking up real world time and money. Which, I'd
wager, could be far better spend elsewhere.

With regards,

Adam
--
Dr Adam Steer
https://iamadamsteer.com
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Ian Steer]

I think that if there has been *active* measures to rehabilitate the track
(eg "brushing over", track closed signs *and* barricades, then fair-enough,
delete/make invisible the track.

But if the land owner is not making much effort, we should map what's on the
ground.

Ian



> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 23:25:02 +1000
> From: Andrew Harvey 
> To: Mark Pulley 
> Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
> Message-ID:
>jeo...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley  wrote:
> 
> > I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS
> > has deleted some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers
> > National Park).
> >
> > These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion
> > were reverted. I re-surveyed them later that year.
> > These paths have been recently deleted again, initially edited by a
> > different NPWS employee. (Three different change sets, summarised
> > below.)
> >
> > I had thought the consensus last time was to leave the paths in,
> > tagged as informal=yes (unless the path has been formally closed, in
> > which case access=no can be used). Is this still the case? Also, do we
> > need to add a policy to the wiki for similar situations?
> >
> 
> We have
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_
> and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Path
>  _and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths>
> 
> Informal Paths (informal=yes) - these would still show up as for use, but
with
> the note that they may not be maintained, may not have signage etc.
> 
> Closed Paths (abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* + access=no) -
> These should not show up as for use, but still be present in OSM data for
> users looking for closed paths.
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:  au/attachments/20230921/a752981a/attachment-0001.htm>
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:32:16 +1000
> From: "Sebastian S." 
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org, Andrew Harvey
>   , Mark Pulley 
> Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> I recall these discussions vaguely.
> Was not one of the reasons for removing them from the map as the rangers
> or gov wanted them to be renaturatin etc. So from that perspective I
> understand why not having them in a map is in their interests.
> 
> 
> On 21 September 2023 11:25:02 pm AEST, Andrew Harvey
>  wrote:
> >On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley  wrote:
> >
> >> I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS
> >> has deleted some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers
> >> National Park).
> >>
> >> These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion
> >> were reverted. I re-surveyed them later that year.
> >> These paths have been recently deleted again, initially edited by a
> >> different NPWS employee. (Three different change sets, summarised
> >> below.)
> >>
> >> I had thought the consensus last time was to leave the paths in,
> >> tagged as informal=yes (unless the path has been formally closed, in
> >> which case access=no can be used). Is this still the case? Also, do
> >> we need to add a policy to the wiki for similar situations?
> >>
> >
> >We have
> >https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycli
> >ng_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Path
> > >ing_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths>
> >
> >Informal Paths (informal=yes) - these would still show up as for use,
> >but with the note that they may not be maintained, may not have signage
> etc.
> >
> >Closed Paths (abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* + access=no) -
> >These should not show up as for use, but still be present in OSM data
> >for users looking for closed paths.
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:  au/attachments/20230922/3cec4504/attachment-0001.htm>
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 16:37:01 +1000
> From: "Phil Wyatt" 
> To: "'Sebastian S.'" ,
>   , "'Andrew Harvey'"
>   , "'Mark Pulley'"
> 
> Cc: "'OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List'" 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
> Message-ID: <004b01d9ed1f$36833d80$a389b880$@wyatt-family.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I believe if the managing agency requests that the tracks be
> removed from the map then as good corporate citizens we should do
> everything possible to 

Re: [talk-au] Routing problem near Albany, WA

[Ian Steer]

Ben, thanks for the suggestions - I'll give them a go.

Ian
> 
> The intersection in question is quite new, so I am not surprised that
there are
> cache issues as you guys have identified. Each routing engine will ingest
new
> OSM data on its own schedule.
> 
> One thing that I noticed with the spurious "at the fork, turn right onto
Albany
> Hwy" instructions in the original OSMR link
>  e=-34.9226%2C117.7915%3B-34.9670%2C117.8239#map=16/-
> 34.9652/117.8223>,
> is the lack of `_link` roads. I would expect the on- and off-ramps to be
tagged
> as `highway=trunk_link`. I suspect the routing engines are expecting the
same,
> and therefore seeing the Menang Dr slip road
>  as a legitimate fork in
> the highway.
> 
> The latest incorrect directions with "turn sharp left" are probably the
result of
> missing turn restriction relations
> . I would expect
> some "no_u_turn" restrictions where slip roads join the two-way hwy way.
> For example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1077469012. Some
> routing engines will infer this from the angle of the ways, but not all of
them.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ben
> 


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

Re: [talk-au] Routing problem near Albany, WA

[Ian Steer]

Do you mean where Menang Drv curls around and meets Albany Hwy at a
T-junction?  If so, I took the kink out yesterday (?) - maybe the renderer
hasn't caught-up with the change when you looked at it ??

Ian

>Hi
>Sorry if this is my misunderstanding but it seems that the same mistake
that is made by the routers is being made by some tile >rendering engines
too. The standard tile has a kink at the end of Menang Drive (1077469021)
which is not there. The >cycleOSM tile renderer does not do this. Likewise
the junction of Menang Drive
>(1077469008) is shifted NW by the Standard tile renderer but not the
CycleOSM tile renderer.
>Tony



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

Re: [talk-au] Routing problem near Albany, WA

[Ian Steer]

There's some weird s^%t going on that's for sure.  Yes, you can do what your
route intends - I just did it this afternoon.

Ian

-Original Message-
From: Phil Wyatt  
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 5:58 PM
To: 'Ian Steer' ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: RE: [talk-au] Routing problem near Albany, WA

This end has an issue if you can legally go round the Menang Drive loop

https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car=-34.9
6706%2C117.81758%3B-34.96606%2C117.82303#map=18/-34.96639/117.82031

-Original Message-
From: Ian Steer  
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 7:44 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Routing problem near Albany, WA

Ah - thanks Ben.  I wasn't aware of that service, I'll give it a try.

Encouraging that it's not just Garmin's GPS algorithm.

It is a mystery what's happening.

Thanks

Ian

>Subject: Re: [talk-au] Routing problem near Albany, WA
>Message-ID:
>   
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>I don't know what causes it, but you can see the same problem with OSMR:
>
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car=-34.
9226%2C117.7915%3B-34.9670%>2C117.8239#map=17/-34.96524/117.82097
>
>



___
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] Routing problem near Albany, WA

[Ian Steer]

My Garmin GPSMAP 66i gives misleading routing instructions at a new
intersection on Albany Highway near Albany when using OSM data.  I have
looked at the OSM data through JOSM and it all looks good.  I wondered if
anyone else can see what might be causing the strange routing instructions.

 

The explanation really needs pictures, so I've put them in Dropbox:

 

Screenshot 1 shows the first OSM way of the section in question (highlighted
in red) plus some annotations about the points where the GPS has
instructions for the two misleading manoeuvres:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mk7pmpucvp9y5q6/screenshot%201.jpg?dl=0

 

Screenshot 2 just shows the other OSM way that covers the section in
question:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wpfaip74htzbnyw/screenshot%202.JPG?dl=0

 

Screenshot 3 shows the routing instructions on the GPS:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4hy8r91c5syvq4d/screenshot%203.JPG?dl=0

 

I don't know how to give OSM way references, but the intersection is at
S34.9647 and E117.8205 (Menang Drive and Albany Highway)

 

Has anyone got any clues why the GPS would be doing what it is doing ?

 

Thanks

 

Ian

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

Re: [talk-au] Publishing data as vector tiles/something else

[Adam Steer]

Hi Ben

I knew about Tippecanoe - and will also give it a go. Thanks for the
reminder! Like all unfunded projects the whole idea is prone to being put
on the back burner (or in the back of a dark cupboard ).. might see some
action soon!

Cheers,

Adam

On Tue, May 23, 2023, 12:34 Ben Ritter  wrote:

> I recently came across Tippecanoe, which is a tool that outputs "Mapbox
> Vector Tile Specification" tiles from other formats, with a focus on large
> datasets and sensible level-of-detail handling. I haven't used it myself,
> but it looks like it might be useful here. Maybe converting your data to
> .mbtiles, then generating a "TMS folder" from that (which I imagine is
> possible).
>
> https://github.com/felt/tippecanoe
> https://github.com/mapbox/awesome-vector-tiles
>
> I hope those leads help you out. I'd be interested to hear what solution
> you settle on!
>
> Cheers,
> Ben
>
> On Wed, 10 May 2023 at 06:55, Adam Steer  wrote:
>
>> Hiya
>>
>> I have about a gigabyte (maybe 2) of vector data for high resolution
>> terrain classifications and features (snow safety related) that I want to
>> publish in a way that leaflet/openlayers/cesium based apps can ingest it.
>>
>> I also want it to be static - bare http access without a server in the
>> way.
>>
>> ...and I don't want to restrict access with a paywall, I want people to
>> play with it and figure out if it is useful (donations are always welcome!)
>>
>> Currently it's all in .gpkg
>>
>> What's the current state of the art in static, over-http vector delivery
>> for web apps (or to qgis) that isn't over-fluffy ? (Geojson for example
>> blows the size out by a lot). Links to how-to's welcome...
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> --
>> Dr Adam Steer
>> https://iamadamsteer.com
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Publishing data as vector tiles/something else

[Adam Steer]

Hiya

I have about a gigabyte (maybe 2) of vector data for high resolution
terrain classifications and features (snow safety related) that I want to
publish in a way that leaflet/openlayers/cesium based apps can ingest it.

I also want it to be static - bare http access without a server in the way.

...and I don't want to restrict access with a paywall, I want people to
play with it and figure out if it is useful (donations are always welcome!)

Currently it's all in .gpkg

What's the current state of the art in static, over-http vector delivery
for web apps (or to qgis) that isn't over-fluffy ? (Geojson for example
blows the size out by a lot). Links to how-to's welcome...

Thanks,

Adam

--
Dr Adam Steer
https://iamadamsteer.com
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] 'Named' EV chargers

[Ian Steer]

I also agree - but if there are several superchargers at the same location,
do they all get the same name? (probably)

Ian

On 16 December 2022 1:33:21 pm AEDT, Andrew Harvey
 wrote:
>I think it's reasonable for it to have a name like "Tesla Supercharger 
>Hollydene, NSW". If Tesla refers to it as such, and you might ask 
>someone to meet you at the Tesla Supercharger Hollydene, then that's it's
name.
>Just like we would map name="Woolworths Dee Why", since that's what the 
>receipt would label it as, and what you might tell someone when 
>referring to the store. It doesn't stop you also tagging brand= and
branch=.
>


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

Re: [talk-au] [Talk-nz] Oceania Discourse Community open

[Adam Steer]

Great - thanks for your work getting that going Dian!

On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 12:03, Dian Ågesson  wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I'm pleased to report that the Oceania community on the OpenStreetMap 
> Discourse server is open and operational!
>
> https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/oceania/73
>
> If you've never used discourse, check out this How-To guide for all the tips 
> and tricks. For those who prefer email notifications, the how-to guide also 
> explains how to configure email notifications similar to a mailing list!
>
> Don't be shy! See you there.
>
> Dian
>
> ___
> Talk-nz mailing list
> talk...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nz

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

Re: [talk-au] So, should we request an Oceania Community Channel?

[Adam Steer]

Hi DIan

To me it makes sense to have an "Oceania" community listed here:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/9/none

Thanks,

Adam

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

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

[Ian Steer]

I see that cyclists up to the age of 13 are permitted on footpaths in
Victoria, so technically, "bicycle=yes" is true, but to be pedantic, some
age restriction should be added.  I would have thought the default position
should be that bicycles are permitted.

My guess is that the other user does not ride a bike and does not like
bicycles sharing his/her path, and is on a bit of a crusade and no reasoning
or logic will be adequate to stop their mapping activities.

Ian

> Hi
> I have been monitoring the edits by a user who still "changes shared paths
to
> footpaths as no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted" in
Victoria
> Australia.
> 
> Most of these changes are small ways where there are unlikely to be
serious
> consequences, its not worth the petrol (or electricity in this case for my
> Nissan Leaf) to go out and inspect the way and I have said nothing.
> 
> I have commented on way 1008258040 in Changeset: 126886850 where
> bicycle=yes by the previous editor has been removed because there were
> "no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted"
> 
> There is good street level imagery. It is not a footpath in the sidewalk
sense.
> It looks OK for bicycles to me. Sorry to bother but I request a clear
> community consensus again on whether "no signs present to indicated bikes
> are permitted" is of itself  sufficient evidence that bicycles are
disallowed.
> 
> Sorry to bother you all
> Tony
> 
> 
> 
> 


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

Re: [talk-au] Boardwalk not rendering

[Ian Steer]

Ignore this - I tagged it incorrectly and someone corrected it in the
mean-time

 

Ian

 

From: Ian Steer  
Sent: Wednesday, 14 September 2022 4:15 PM
To: 'talk-au@openstreetmap.org' 
Subject: Boardwalk not rendering

 

I added some boardwalk into the Cape To Cape walking track (in WA's
southwest) and the Garmin maps I get from https://alternativaslibres.org/
don't render the boardwalk as a track (and my GPSr won't route along it -
not surprisingly).  It renders OK on the OSM "slippy map"

 

Have I done something wrong - or is it a rendering fault?

 

It is tagged as follows:

 

bridge=boardwalk (my sole edit was to add this tag)

highway=footway

motor_vehicle=no (I didn't add this - I think it is a useless tag but I left
it for consistency)

name=Cape to Cape Track

surface=unpaved

width=2

 

Ian

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

[talk-au] Boardwalk not rendering

[Ian Steer]

I added some boardwalk into the Cape To Cape walking track (in WA's
southwest) and the Garmin maps I get from https://alternativaslibres.org/
don't render the boardwalk as a track (and my GPSr won't route along it -
not surprisingly).  It renders OK on the OSM "slippy map"

 

Have I done something wrong - or is it a rendering fault?

 

It is tagged as follows:

 

bridge=boardwalk (my sole edit was to add this tag)

highway=footway

motor_vehicle=no (I didn't add this - I think it is a useless tag but I left
it for consistency)

name=Cape to Cape Track

surface=unpaved

width=2

 

Ian

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

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

[Adam Steer]

Hi Graeme - this is exactly what I was thinking about in my question
earlier - make mapping part of the job. Also great to hear OSMAnd+ in
there (my choice of personal navigator for offline missions in both
Australia and Norway )

Also want to touch on a point Ewen made. I was at Taylors crossing
(Vic, on this patch:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-36.8418/147.6456) in the
2019/20 summer. No EMS is coming there - and comms are super flaky
between Benambra and Corryong - that whole region. A lot of common
ground with the linked talk. It makes a lot of sense to spend EMS time
mapping things that are relevant for offline use later - IMO far more
effective use of funding than infrastructure which then needs
protecting to support apps / services which may fail offline.

Relevant to this, I'm looking for the next career, I'd be super happy
to work on this stuff - and likely back in Au sometime in January 23.

Cheers

Adam

On Tue, 13 Sept 2022 at 06:27, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
>
> Carrying on from this discussion, just spotted this mentioned on Discord: 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgk9al1rluE
>
> Very interesting, especially in regard to what we were talking about!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 23:49, Ewen Hill  wrote:
>>
>> A really great thread. Sometime early this century, the Victorian CFA used 
>> local brigades to confirm mapping. This became the original 
>> paperbasedSpatial Vision Maps. We now have the Common Operating Platform or 
>> EM-COP that does much the same as Graeme's QFES above but has a proprietary 
>> basemap.
>>
>>It works really well and allows updates by the Fire Behavioural Analysts 
>> (FBANS) and other Intel staff, BOM staff, warnings officers and  local 
>> incident controllers as well as strike team leaders commanding 4 or so fire 
>> tankers.
>>
>> Now, if we could not put transmission towers on top of hills because there 
>> is one flaw in all of this.
>>
>> Ewen
>>
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 10:10, Graeme Fitzpatrick  
>> wrote:
>>>

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

Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?

[Ian Steer]

> Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2022 16:39:39 +1000
> From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?

> Ideally the GPX file would have at least the trail as a contiguous conga
line ...
> with the 'extras' off to the end ... that used to make following it
easier?
> 
> I would think that one file will all the variations (north/south bound,
season
> winter/summer) would be quite hard for the users to use and the
> maintainers to maintain... ???
> 
I have mused on the maintainability (since that is dear to my heart), but I
think having the north/south, summer/winter in one relation will be simpler
that breaking-out more sub-relations - and I think simplest is best.
Anyway, what I am proposing is a step along the way to a more complex
implementation which could be done if this approach doesn't seem to be
working.

Ian


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

Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?

[Ian Steer]

> 
> What would people think about a structure that had a Munda Biddi master
> relation, containing only 3 sub-relations:
> 1.  the existing relation containing the main route (including both north &
> south-bound one-way sections, plus the winter/summer routes)
> 2.  a new
> "Munda Biddi Collie Spur" relation 
> 3.  the existing Munda Biddi Alternate
> relation (that is presently a sub-relation of the relation containing the main
> route) containing all the hut spurs, huts etc
> 

- and I would give the winter section, and northbound one-way sections in the 
main route relation a role of "alternative"


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

Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?

[Ian Steer]

> From: Ewen Hill 
> Sent: Saturday, 10 September 2022 9:35 AM
> To: Ian Steer 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?
> 
>I have been thinking of this with the new Collie township spur and the
> other oddities and especially the huts that scatter the route which apart from
> one amazing hut that is smack bang in the middle of the trail, are normally
> just off the trail on short spurs. 
> 
>   Where it started with two relationships of MB-Main and MB-Alternative, I
> believe a master MB would be preferable containing all the huts, spurs,
> winter/summer variations and the main route. Where there is a spur like
> Collie (~16km?), an additional MB-Collie-Spur might be worthwhile.
> 
> Having a single master would allow users to easily extract the entire route
> and huts in one go and prepare them for their garmin and whatever GIS
> software they use.It would also give councils, emergency services, tourism
> operators etc. easy access to all of the relevant data.  I don't see the need 
> to
> maintain any other spur relationships unless the spur is ~> 2km as it's
> probably overkill and makes it more complex to maintain.
> 

What would people think about a structure that had a Munda Biddi master 
relation, containing only 3 sub-relations:
1.  the existing relation containing the main route (including both north & 
south-bound one-way sections, plus the winter/summer routes)
2.  a new "Munda Biddi Collie Spur" relation
3.  the existing Munda Biddi Alternate relation (that is presently a 
sub-relation of the relation containing the main route) containing all the hut 
spurs, huts etc


I note that the hut spurs could perhaps be left in the main relation and tagged 
with an "excursion" role (rather than dragged-out into a separate relation as 
they are now).
What are the pros and cons of leaving them in the main route and using the 
excursion role?

I suppose one disadvantage would be that sorting the route would show 
discontinuities ?

Ian


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

Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?

[Ian Steer]

> For the "north only" and "south only" segments, I would certainly keep both
> of these "directional" segments in the one "main" relation, but tagged with
> role tags:  usually "forward" if the direction of the way corresponds to the
> direction of travel, 
>  JOSM's relation editor also pays
> attention to forward and backward directional role tags, presenting them
> (after a click of the sort button) in a visually clear way.  

I'm a bit confused here.  Are you saying that even if the ways are in the 
correct direction (and even have oneway=yes), they should have a role in the 
relation of "forward" ?  (I don't see forward and backward roles in the wiki?)

> For the summer / winter routes, you may want to see if you can coax the
> opening_hours syntax to properly reflect the "time" that these are to be /
> should be used, and also do a rename

I think this is impractical because Parks & Wildlife divert the route depending 
on river levels, so it depends on the season.

> Thinking about this .. and coming from 'public transport' routes ...
> Use 2 relations
> One from 'x' to 'y' (and public transports uses keys 'from' and 'to')
> The other from 'y' to 'x'.
> So you'd have 2 Munda Biddi Trail route relations.. similar to the India
> Pacific train - one from Perth the other from Sydney.
> 
> This would make clear the north only and south only routes...

I am very reluctant to do this.  The main reason is that 95+% of the trail is 
bidirectional, and route changes occur many times per year.  This would mean 
having the edit two relations each time the route changes.  The other reason is 
that creating 2 relations would not solve the summer/winter route issue (and 
don't even suggest 4 relations )


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

[talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?

[Ian Steer]

I am a volunteer with the Munda Biddi Trail Foundation, and do my best to
keep the Munda Biddi Trail route relation (5810814) up-to-date.  The trail
is 1,000km from Perth to Albany.

 

There is a child route relation (Munda Biddi Alternate, 8900679) that
contains "odds and sods" not on the main route (typically spur trails into
overnight huts).

 

There are a few sections of the main trail that have alternate routes - some
for north-bound/south-bound, and one for summer/winter routes.

 

I don't know enough about the potential consumers of route relation data to
answer the following question:

- should the sections of track with alternate routes (eg north/south,
summer/winter) be in the main route relation? - or should I randomly select
(say) north-bound and summer routes so as to keep the main route strictly a
simple, point-to-point route (and shift the south-bound and winter routes
into the Munda Biddi Alternate relation) ?

 

My suspicion is that they should stay in the main route relation.

 

Regards

 

Ian

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

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

[Adam Steer]

Hi, great to see OSM in the emergency management space. Alex (or
anyone) - what's your feel on EMS users also contributing to OSM? is
there awareness around, say, heading to the field with OSMand+ and
adding temporary closures if they're relevant (eg this bridge is going
to be closed for months, lets flag it).

And what training is missing for people to do that? (do the OSM
community think its a good idea even?)

...these are super naive questions and have probably been discussed a
lot already. It would be great to get a 'current impression'.

Thanks,

Adam

On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 16:37, Michael Collinson  wrote:
>
> Graeme,
> You are one with Steve Coast on seeing that as a major focus.
>
> Yes, use and of use.  Anecdotally, I have a peripheral connection with a 
> small commercial app map/routing library and have hobby-business apps Android 
> apps based on it. Yes, definitely of use particularly on longer roads ... 
> which bit do I want to aim for? Either by visual indication or by searching 
> then routing.
>
> Mike
>
> On 2022-08-26 04:15, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> One thing that I'd love feedback on if possible is street numbers, 
> particularly for rural areas?
>
> Does anybody use them & are they of any use?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 11:37, Alex Sims  wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m at the EMSINA (Emergency Management Spatial Information
>> Network Australia) PDP day as part of AFAC (Australasian Fire and Emergency 
>> Service Authorities Council) 2022 Conference in Adelaide and finding a few 
>> “OpenStreetMap used here”.
>>
>>
>>
>> Feedback from participants I’ve spoken to:
>>
>> The price is right, free!
>> Good coverage of health facilities
>>
>>
>>
>> Uses of OpenStreetMap I’ve not noticed before, mainly background maps
>>
>> Find a police station (SA Police) 
>> https://www.police.sa.gov.au/about-us/find-your-local-police-station (via 
>> ESRI)
>>
>>
>>
>> And oddly an attribution where OpenStreetMap is credited but its SA 
>> government mapping
>>
>> Bus Stop location map https://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/stops?id=16490
>>
>>
>>
>> My own observation and I suppose the reason I’m here is there are plenty of 
>> users of our mapping but not much feedback from users as to what they want, 
>> which we are probably willing to map.
>>
>>
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

Re: [talk-au] Victorian Government and OSM Attribution

[Adam Steer]

That's great!

On Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 09:46  wrote:

> Hi all
>
> A good news story on OSM attribution. The map at
> https://engage.vic.gov.au/CardiniaCkParklands now shows copyright
> OpenStreetMap. They say it will be right on all maps displayed on
> Engage Victoria. They were glacially slow but we got the results in
> the end.
>
> They stressed the Victorian Government's desire to support open data.
>
> I have contact information for the Department of Premier and Cabinet
> which I am happy to share off list.
>
> Tony
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Adding river crossings to Guidelines "road quality / 4wd-only"?

[Adam Steer]

A little note to the discussion - the foot/ animal traffic modes = no are
crocodile related, right?

Yes, possible. Recommended? Definitely not according to every google-able
bit of information about the place.

For vehicles I think it's generally worth indicating something about
whether a ford / river needs a proper 4wd. Here I'm thinking of one I know
well, where some ways to the river are easily SUV ok - but you need great
clearance, a lot of grip and a high air intake to make the river crossing.

I hope I haven't misinterpreted the conversation...

Cheers

Adam



On Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 04:09 Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Cleared a note to add a ford / river-crossing to a road in Cape York:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1025490234, & added both a "ford" node,
> & also changed the actual river crossing to a track with 4wd only & similar
> tags.
>
> Wondering if we should include those sort of details in the Guidelines? eg
>
> 4wd_only=extreme
>
> bicycle=no
>
> foot=no
>
> highway=track
>
> horse=no
>
> motor_vehicle=yes
>
> smoothness=horrible
>
> tracktype=grade8
>
> & possibly even hazard=wild_animals + animals=crocodile!
>
> 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] Adding river crossings to Guidelines "road quality

[Ian Steer]

I would not like to see anyone presume that a hiker, mountain-biker or horse
rider could not forward a river.  Anyone tackling that kind of country is
probably prepared to do just that, and it might upset their map routing
planning by assuming they can't.  Adding to the chances of them fording
these creeks/rivers is that they are intermittent and might even be dry at
the time of year they are planning their trip.  Ditto for "non-extreme"
4WDs.

Please don't restrict the map unnecessarily.

Regards

Ian


> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2022 12:06:05 +1000
> From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> To: OSM-Au 
> Subject: [talk-au] Adding river crossings to Guidelines "road quality
>   / 4wd-only"?
> Message-ID:
>08qho...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Cleared a note to add a ford / river-crossing to a road in Cape York:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1025490234, & added both a "ford"
> node, & also changed the actual river crossing to a track with 4wd only &
> similar tags.
> 
> Wondering if we should include those sort of details in the Guidelines? eg
> 
> 4wd_only=extreme
> 
> bicycle=no
> 
> foot=no
> 
> highway=track
> 
> horse=no
> 
> motor_vehicle=yes
> 
> smoothness=horrible
> 
> tracktype=grade8
> 
> & possibly even hazard=wild_animals + animals=crocodile!
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Graeme


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

Re: [talk-au] Australian Tagging Guidelines Footpath Cycling

[Ian Steer]

Tony,

 

I'm wondering about the usefulness of adding foot=yes to highway=path and
highway=track.

 

I have never done this because I thought it would be assumed that
pedestrians (and cyclists) can use paths and tracks ?

 

In WA, where people have (in my opinion) wrongly classified a path as a
footpath (and hence excluded bicycles), I have often changed it to a path,
but never tagged foot=yes and/or bicycle=yes.

 

Ian

 

>Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 16:55:42 +1000

>From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  

>To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org  

>Subject: [talk-au] Australian Tagging Guidelines Footpath Cycling

 

>Hi

 

>I have edited

>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Footpath_
Cycling

 

>(1) to record the different international English uses of footpath,
pavement and sidewalk

>(2) to give photographic examples as a base for discussion.

 

>Not intending to redefine anything, sorry if anything is controversial.

 

>Tony

 

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

Re: [talk-au] TheSwavu

[Ian Steer]

Anthony,

While I have not examined the technical merits of your case;

1. I wish you would follow the talk-au guidelines and have the subject more
specific than " Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13" - as it says at the top
of *every* digest

2. I wish you would delete most of the ancient correspondence and just leave
the small part you are responding to

3. Looking at the balance of the discussion, it would seem that you perhaps
ought to be sitting back and having second thoughts about your mapping
practices.  There have been several users who have explained in an
un-emotional manner that they seem to think TheSwavu is correct.  You seem
to be quite emotional about the matter and maybe should take a step back and
consider what others have been saying.

Ian


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

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

[Ian Steer]

>> I prefer hiking_scale:awtgs= as you know that it is a hiking scale .. 

>> even if you don't know what awtgs is.

>> 

>Fair comment.

> 

>> Routes are a different problem  while the worst one could be 

>> included .. what happens if/when things change? Possibly better to leave
it off?

>> Consider that some routes have alternatives, excursions...

>> 

>One grade for the entire route, which counts the worst bits of the whole
distance, plus separate grades for individual sections?

> 

>& can we just write this up for Oz use, or do we have to go down the full
path of RFC / Proposal / Voting? (Which will >undoubtedly be a Grade 5 trek!

>:-))

 

I'm thinking "hiking_scale:awtgs=".  This would have solved the problem of
my well-meaning German friend deleting my tags.

 

Since it is an Australian tag, I would have thought adding it to the
Australian Wiki would be sufficient. 

 

With regard to users applying a grade using this system, how about we use a
"source:grade=" tag?  Maybe if the AWTGS grade  has been sign-posted by the
trail manager (whoever that might be), it could be
"source:grade=as_signed"??  If a grade has been assigned by a user,
"source:grade=user" ??

 

Ian

 

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

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

[Ian Steer]

G'day all,

 

I'm trying to recall where we got to (if anywhere) on a consensus of how to
tag walking tracks with the Australian Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)
scale??

 

I originally tagged then with awtgs=x.  A well meaning guy in Germany then
deleted them thinking someone had made a typo in entering a tag and
suggested:

- using "hiking_scale:awtgs:  (as there were "hundreds of hiking_scale:"
tags in use in the European Alps")

- entering it into "the Wiki"

 

I would like to get a consensus so I can reinstate my tags.

 

regards

 

Ian

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

Re: [talk-au] Proposed features/Snow chains

[Adam Steer]

hei all

first - great idea to map areas where snow chains need to be carried.

In the Australian context:

The season for needing to carry chains is generally fixed, and
corresponds to when park entry fees change (on tarred / main roads
which go to snowfields at least). In my experience its not a subject
decision every day, more like:

'between date 1 and date 2 you are required to carry chains, road A
requires all vehicles to carry chains, road B requires only 2wd
vehicles to carry chains'.

I haven't seen a requirement for winter tyres in Australia, but as a
general principle always bought ones with the snow/mountain mark
anyway :)

Chain fitting bays are usually fixed sites - the variable part is
which ones are in use as chain fitting bays on any given day, so
giving it a conditional flag which indicates 'in winter this might be
a chain fitting bay'  is a great idea.

Anyway, I've scanned the proposal and don't see any issues yet, it
seems generally useful given my experience with snow and ice driving
in Australia (seems paradoxical huh?

hope that helps,
Adam


On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 at 09:18, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
>
>  highway=chain_up_area sounds fine, while these places close/open depending 
> on conditions, many are signposted as chain bays and they don't move, so can 
> be surveyed and added.
>
> I think snow_chains:conditional=required @ ... is very useful to show roads 
> which you may be expected to carry and use snow chains, at least during 
> particular seasons. I can't see why anyone would think this is not a good 
> idea?
>
> Leaving the current situation about if you need to use the chains up to local 
> signage which does change with conditions over time so won't be tagged.
>
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 at 18:06, Brendan Barnes  wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> For the NSW and Victorian snowfield mappers, user Trapicki has submitted a 
>> comprehensive snow chains proposal:
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Snow_chains
>>
>> A lot of Aussie chain bays are (incorrectly) tagged as parking lots, so 
>> proposed tags may be useful.
>>
>> ..Brendan
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Tagging hiking path difficulty - Australian Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)

[Ian Steer]

I have added a note in the Australian Tagging Guidelines about using “awtgs”.  
It is my first time editing the wiki, so I hope I’ve done the right thing.

 

Ian

 

From: Phil Wyatt  
Sent: Friday, 17 September 2021 3:52 PM
To: 'Andrew Harvey' ; 'Ian Steer' 

Cc: 'OSM Australian Talk List' 
Subject: RE: [talk-au] Tagging hiking path difficulty - Australian Walking 
Track Grading System (AWTGS)

 

Hi Folks.

 

Also be aware that there are also websites using their own ‘grading systems’ 
based on a combination of other systems (AWTGS and/or Australian Standards 
combinations or straight out their own gradings) so please ensure that they 
actually explicitly state that it’s the Australian Walking Track Grading system 
that they are using exclusively before tagging it as such.

 

https://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/safety/bushwalking-safety/australian-walking-track-grading-system

https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/recreational-activities/walking-and-camping/australian-walking-track-grading-system

 

All the systems are often misinterpreted by folks not in the land management 
field so please be careful. Officially signed classifications from the land 
management agency would be the only ones I would trust that have been applied 
correctly.

 

Like Andrew, I am not a fan of these classifications but tourism associations, 
promoters, some commercial guiding establishments and some walking clubs love 
them as a way to ‘guide people’ about the ‘general difficulty’ of the track.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Andrew Harvey mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> 
> 
Sent: Thursday, 16 September 2021 11:54 AM
To: Ian Steer mailto:ianst...@iinet.net.au> >
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Tagging hiking path difficulty - Australian Walking 
Track Grading System (AWTGS)

 

If it's signposted or we have compatible data for officially assigned 
classifications you use a new tag like awtgs=1-5. It would be a good idea to 
document this tag if used on the wiki so that others can understand how to 
apply it and use it.

 

We would need to decide if it should only be tagged for officially assigned 
classifications, or if every track we can assign a classification and tag that. 
I'm leaning towards only tagging those officially assigned.

 

Personally I'm not a fan of the grading system, but it does exist and so you 
can tag it.

 

The grading system (per descibed at 
https://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/safety/bushwalking-safety/australian-walking-track-grading-system)
 is comprised of a few independent variables, like

 

- steepness (which data consumers can determine via external terrain data)

- length (can be calculated)

- surface (could be covered by the surface=* tag, smoothness=* tag, and 
highway=steps)

 

We already have in use and documented tags in OSM for:

 

1. trail_visibility=*, which as currently documented covers both how well 
signposted a route is and how visible/easy to follow the path is

2. sac_scale=* which is kind of tagging the technical difficulty (eg. do you 
need to use your hands and arms to climb up the track, is it highly exposed on 
cliff edges etc.)

 

Then we also have existing tags trailblazed=* and 
information=guidepost/route_marker.

 

I try to map all these specific variables and elements which provides richer 
data, but I would also support including officially assigned AWTGS via awtgs=*.

 

On Thu, 16 Sept 2021 at 11:00, mailto:ianst...@iinet.net.au> > wrote:

I’m unsure in how to apply the AWTGS to walking/hiking paths.

 

I followed through a very long OSM discussion thread from 2020, but didn’t see 
any resolution(I don’t think the discussion was Australian specific)

 

What are others doing ?

 

Ian

___
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] Australian maps for Garmin devices

[Ian Steer]

Ian, where did you go to learn what to do with this data ?  (eg a nice little 
website somewhere ??)

Ian

>Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:18:39 +1000
>From: Ian Bennett 
>To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [talk-au] Australian maps for Garmin devices
>Message-ID: <78b8c297-ae4b-0b92-1c4a-b395d50b5...@tpg.com.au>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

>Lads,
>   Anyone else use http://download.geofabrik.de/australia-oceania.html 
> other than me??
>   I have been using them for a number of years and I've had no problems 
> thus far. Data is "refreshed" 
>every 24 hours or so.
>   I had a few hoops to jump through with splitter.jar and mkgmap.jar to 
> get these (along with contour info from shonky >maps) onto my (very, very 
> old) GPS60CSX.
>   Full disclosure; I only use the '60 when bush walking, so I don't know 
> if routing works and other info works. That said, >POI's do display.
>   YMMV.

>Ian



--

Subject: Digest Footer

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


--

End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 166, Issue 28



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

Re: [talk-au] [FOSS4G-Oceania] Nominations - OSGeo Oceania board election

[Adam Steer]

Awesome, thanks Ewen and Ed.

--
Dr. Adam Steer
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Steer
Sent from mobile device

On Thu, 19 Nov 2020, 10:25 Edoardo Neerhut,  wrote:

> Dear Returning Officer & OSGeo Oceania,
>
> I am happy to nominate another candidate for the OSGeo Oceania board, *Ewen
> Hill of Melbourne, Australia*.
>
> Ewen Hill is one of those people who contributes an enormous amount to the
> geospatial community while asking little in return. He has been involved in
> almost all geospatial events since I have been in Melbourne, and I am sure
> many before. Ewen is the guy who patiently shows people how to get the most
> out of JOSM or QGIS, working his way around the room to support anyone
> needing help. He's the guy that spends time putting together a map in QGIS
> after an OpenStreetMap event to show the results of a mapathon. He's the
> guy who rocks up at the venue two weeks before to make sure it has
> everything you need for FOSS4G SotM Oceania.
>
> I'm sure he'd bring this same selflessness and attention to detail to the
> board, while being a strong advocate of the open source geospatial tools we
> all know and love.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
> ___
> FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
> foss4g-ocea...@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Adam Steer]

hey all

Very late to the conversation - and responding to concerns way back when
there were only a few replies - relating specifically to the AAWT and
similar 'untracked' areas, and veering a little onto the terrain of illicit
(or pseudo illicit) trails:

I back Phil and Tony's view here, because I think it is important to listen
to people who have experience with on ground management consequences
arising from lines on maps which maybe should not have been drawn.

I would prefer as a user of OSM and also someone who values unmapped
experiences to leave 'off track routes' unmapped. As well as conforming to
desirable local practice (for example avoiding development of future
management issues), it is respectful to the place and the intention of
encouraging an experience that is ever-more-rare. That last one is super
important for not just trails, but many things. Once a line is drawn on a
map, it tends to get used no matter what ethereal permissions are applied.
Many parks in Australia have not nearly enough people on the ground to 'be
gatekeepers' and it is up to the individual using the area to act within
the intention set by the land managers. So 'closed to you' or 'do not route
here' is often meaningless (or in the least confusing).

To say 'its just data/evidence' is to completely ignore the real world
impact of a (sometimes remote) decision - in this case an 'armchair mapper'
might create years of issues for on-ground managers, and erase an
experience which future travellers might wish to have - which is I think is
what Tony and Phil were getting at. It is also missing critical awareness
of how people behave on the ground - if a line exists in a map, people will
use it regardless of virtual signage.

...so like Phil and Tony, my preference would be to not map any kind of
route in an 'off track' area. Of course this means knowing where 'off track
areas' are... and constant curation.

Finally, as a one-time builder of informal tracks with an 'officially we
can't say yes but informally kinda but don't publicise anything and don't
get hurt' arrangement with the land manager, it would have been devastating
to a long term project should those trails have appeared on any map. 7
years later, it is an asset for a small town... but at the time, having
routes show up on a map of any kind would have killed it right there. I
give this example as another reason to not always map stuff because you see
it, and also that 'if trails are there, people will come'.

I guess take from that what you will - I hope it provides material for an
internal 'think a bit about the dogma of mapping all the things always' ;)

Cheers,
Adam

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 13:20, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 19:21,  wrote:
>
>> Andrew
>> Thanks, I hadn't considered life cycle prefixes. There might be
>> problems with disused or abandoned if those reopening the trails
>> argued that they used the trail last week so it was neither disused
>> nor abandoned.
>>
>
> I can see the issue, but still hopefully access=no indicating legal access
> should still be able to be used if it's clear enough that access is not
> permitted.
>
>
>> "illegal tracks", the ones I am thinking of are illegal in both their
>> construction and use, if I recollect correctly, the fine for
>> construction is much much bigger than use. Sorry if the description
>> has baggage or is misleading. Re access=no, if I recollect correctly
>> they still display in OSM, only slightly more red. You probably
>> wouldn't notice. I haven't checked data users such as Osmand and Strava.
>>
>
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 20:43, Phil Wyatt  wrote:
>> An illegal track in a national park is likely to be one that is cut
>> without the authority of the managing agency. It’s a fairly regular
>> occurrence and often the start of increased impacts in ares that may be
>> reserved for conservation rather than recreation.
>
>
> Thanks for the explanation, I didn't think about unauthorised track
> construction, I had assumed these tracks simply formed over time by
> repeated use, which in itself wouldn't have been illegal unless the area
> was closed. Even then a track that was illegally constructed, wouldn't be
> illegal to use unless it was signposted as such.
>
> It's just after hearing park authorities raise concerns about us showing
> un-authorised tracks on OSM, my reaction is usually how are we or anyone
> supposed to know which tracks are authorised and which aren't unless there
> is signage to indicate that.
> ___
> 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] vine row tagging

[Adam Steer]

 Hey John

What are the owners of the properties containing vines saying? Are they
fully aware that their farm data will be open for everyone to see?

...and what data/tagging useful to them?

Cheers,
Adam

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 08:40, John Bryant  wrote:

> So, map the strainer posts on the ends of the rows, rather than the rows
> themselves, and then the end user could use them to interpolate the row?
> That's an interesting idea.
>
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 14:33, nwastra  wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
> ___
> 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] Mapping emergency beach access numbers

[Ian Steer]

Emergency Access Points sound perfect

 

thanks all

 

Ian

 

From: Alex (Maxious) Sadleir  
Sent: Thursday, 1 October 2020 7:09 PM
To: Phil Wyatt 
Cc: Ian Steer ; OSM Australian Talk List 

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Mapping emergency beach access numbers

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Demergency_access_point sounds 
good. 

 

There's a whole bunch of these along highways and beaches in Victoria 
https://www.esta.vic.gov.au/emergency-markers

 

On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 8:39 PM Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:

..or maybe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:emergency emergency access 
point?

 

Cheers - Phil, 

On the road with his iPad 





On 1 Oct 2020, at 7:36 pm, Ian Steer mailto:ianst...@iinet.net.au> > wrote:



G’day all,

 

I don’t know about the rest of Australia, but following some tragedies where 
emergency services didn’t know exactly where to go for some beach responses, 
many councils are now placing signs at the entrances to beach access tracks 
with a unique location number (eg “L7” for the 7th access point to Leighton 
Beach), along with emergency services contact information (eg dial 000).

 

How do we go about mapping these?

 

regards

 

Ian

 

___
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 <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] Mapping emergency beach access numbers

[Ian Steer]

G'day all,

 

I don't know about the rest of Australia, but following some tragedies where
emergency services didn't know exactly where to go for some beach responses,
many councils are now placing signs at the entrances to beach access tracks
with a unique location number (eg "L7" for the 7th access point to Leighton
Beach), along with emergency services contact information (eg dial 000).

 

How do we go about mapping these?

 

regards

 

Ian

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Contributions to Road Geometry in Perth,

[Ian Steer]

>Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2020 19:23:21 +1000
>From: "Sebastian S." 
>Subject: Re: [talk-au] Contributions to Road Geometry in Perth,
>   Australia
>Hi,
>I have made excessive use of the node tag for islands.
>Particularly for pedestrian crossing.
>
>Splitting the road into two separate ways for only a few metres seems 
>excessive to me. Even when there is a several Meter long raised kerb 
>separating the lanes I would not >split the road.

Could you please elaborate on this method you have been using ?

Ian


On 1 September 2020 10:05:42 pm AEST, Andrew Harvey  
wrote:
>Heads up, looks like their team has started to map in Perth, see on 
>OSMCha
>-> https://osmcha.org/?aoi=80b50a6d-6bb5-48cb-8ac4-4b2ddd9d5d76
>
>Mostly looks okay to me, and mostly minor tweaks, though I raised a few 
>questions and issues on changeset comments but also listed most of them
>here:
>
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/840589945/history was added but the 
>existing road name and other applicable attributes were not applied.
>This
>same issue happens in quite a few other places too so appears to be 
>systemic. I've raised some changeset comments but worth including this 
>as part of the standard practice by your editing team.
>
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/842851495/history is that a 
>roundabout? I can't tell from the Maxar imagery, yet that is the 
>claimed source, how could you tell from the imagery what this is?
>
>I personally find splitting ways for a traffic island at roundabouts 
>like in https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/840189281/history a tad to 
>excessive (would prefer to just tag the node as traffic island and use 
>one way, gives a much cleaner dataset as the transition between dual 
>and single carriageways is always messy) but I guess it's not wrong and 
>both styles are popular in OSM currently. Does the community have a 
>view on this?
>
>Unclear source of the turn restriction in
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90223764#map=18/-32.04553/115.8
>0953
>
>On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 at 21:28, OSM NextBillion. AI 
>wrote:
>
>> Thank you cleary for valuable insights, we would be more cautious
>while
>> mapping in such areas. While Satellite Imagery is our prime resource,
>we’d
>> consider mapillary photos as well wherever available. We do have some 
>> expert assistance in our team for interpreting satellite imagery and
>map
>> something only if we’re double sure of it’s existence. We will refer
>to
>> mappers history before editing existing data to understand if it was 
>> created using local expertise and would change only if there is
>conclusive
>> evidence from satellite and mapillary imageries.
>>
>> We will reach out to local mapping experts through forum and/or
>changeset
>> comments if we require further help.
>>
>> Thank you all once again for the suggestions, we look forward to
>working
>> with you all. :)
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 at 05:35, cleary  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the interest in mapping in Australia and thanks for
>posting
>>> your plans on this list.
>>>
>>> I would add to the caution expressed by others.  I live in an urban 
>>> location in Australia but I have travelled in other areas within 
>>> Australia.  It has taken me quite some time to learn to interpret
>satellite
>>> imagery and I still have a lot to learn about this country.  After 
>>> personally visiting areas and noting what I see, and sometimes
>taking
>>> photographs, I then return home and compare my notes with what I see
>in the
>>> imagery and I am still surprised.  I think it can be quite
>precarious to
>>> map features using just satellite imagery unless you have expert
>assistance
>>> in interpreting the imagery.  For example, a common error by others
>has
>>> been to map lines of cleared vegetation as roads when they are
>actually
>>> fences. Even where an unmapped road exists, it is probably still
>unmapped
>>> because it is a private road and not accessible by the public - many
>of the
>>> roads on rural properties in Australia are private and, if added to
>the
>>> map, need to marked as such. Farmers get annoyed about intruders on
>their
>>> farms especially as biosecurity is a significant concern in parts of 
>>> Australia.
>>>
>>> So while I appreciate contributions to the map, I suggest that
>"armchair"
>>> mapping needs to be undertaken with a lot of caution.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2020, at 2:17 AM, OSM NextBillion. AI wrote:
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > We’re a small team based out of Hyderabad, India. We would be
>doing
>>> > minimal edits in Perth and contribute to OSM in the next couple of 
>>> > weeks, in-line with OSM and Australia specific tagging guidelines
>[Link
>>> >
>].
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Please refer our Wiki
>>> >  and
>Github
>>> >  project pages
>for
>>> > more information.
>>> >
>>> > Looking 

Re: [talk-au] [OSGeo Oceania] resignation from OSGeo Oceania

[adam steer]

Hi John

Thanks for all your hard work and steady navigation of many complex issues.
I’m sorry to see you step down, I really appreciate your ‘radical
open-ness’ approach - which I think is critical for this organisation - and
ethical stance. I (selfishly) hope you find the energy to help with the
outreach and comms working group when you can!

Regards,

Adam



On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 08:39, John Bryant  wrote:

> Hi folks, just a quick note to let you know that I decided yesterday to
> resign from the OSGeo Oceania board of directors. I won't be continuing
> with board business, but I'll continue to contribute as a community member
> however I can.
>
> Looking forward to continuing to work on this awesome community with you
> all.
>
> Cheers
> John
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> ocea...@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>


-- 
Dr. Adam Steer
http://spatialised.net
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Steer
http://au.linkedin.com/in/adamsteer
http://orcid.org/-0003-0046-7236
+61 427 091 712 ::  @adamdsteer

Suits are bad for business: http://www.spatialised.net/business-penguins/
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] highway=motorway_junction

[Ian Steer]

 

On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 14:33, Andrew Harvey mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> > wrote:

In that particular example I don't think it's needed, since it's only an 
entrance to the motorway (not an exit) and South Street probably doesn't need 
these junction tags.

 

The tag is useful when exits are named or numbered to say there is a motorway 
exit at this point which such and such name and ref, it's different to 
destination sign.

 

eg. if you had an exit which was number 2 but exited to a road with ref 1, then 
he destination_sign relation would be ref=1 but the highway=motorway_junction 
would have ref=2. I've never seen numbered exits but they exist in other 
countries, and maybe here too.

 

If I've understood properly, we've got a few of them around here:

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0457042,153.3543885,3a,15y,133.24h,91.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skFYA0h_lsvqsWAualmVfFQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.1011105,153.403105,3a,15y,131.46h,91.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm4vuA4WcyuCaeBf1mkamNQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0085086,153.3437299,3a,15y,113.78h,91.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smpdDZK21i8RV9tOdn6Gl4g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@-27.9533827,153.343662,3a,24.7y,127.87h,102.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQ1cD8Na9AZrWjwcNdLAdxA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

 

So how should these be tagged?

Thanks

Graeme

 

Yes, that is what I thought highway=motorway_junction ought to be used for (but 
not where the exit is not numbered in any way)

 

Ian

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

Re: [talk-au] highway=motorway_junction

[Ian Steer]

sorry, yes – it’s lacram_telenav.

 

The changeset that caught my eye is 67193952

 

I just don’t understand what they’re trying to achieve.  There are gazillions 
of such intersections to be done if they head down this path.

 

I see that it is a member of a relation called destination_sign (3286190), 
which has lots of information about the signage on this exit.  Do they need to 
have the motorway_junction tag to record these details about the signage ??  - 
and why wouldn’t they be using destination= ?

 

Ian

 

 

From: Andrew Harvey  
Sent: Monday, 24 February 2020 11:14 AM
To: Ian Steer 
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] highway=motorway_junction

 

I don't really see the point of motorway_junction unless that exit has a name 
or number (ref), however it's still valid per the wiki as on nodes at which you 
can exit the highway, I think to avoid putting it on absolutely every 
intersection we should reserve it's use for highway=motorway or trunk/primary 
which have grade separated exits.

 

So based on what you've said, it does sound okay, but if you could link to a 
few changesets that would help?

 

Is that username lacram_telenav instead of lacrom_telenav? Per 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Telenav it looks like they are no longer 
working for Telenav, so if there is an issue or question we'll need to contact 
Telenav at eu-map-analy...@telenav.com <mailto:eu-map-analy...@telenav.com>  
for any questions.

 

On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 13:11, Ian Steer mailto:ianst...@iinet.net.au> > wrote:

lacrom_telenav has been adding highway=motorway_junction tags on exits from 
major roads around Perth – I think to designate destination signs.  It is 
associated with “noref=yes”

 

The wiki says:

 

Use the  <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> 
highway=motorway_junction tag to identify a point along a  
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> highway=* with junction refs 
or names where it is possible to exit the highway onto another road. This is 
usually found along a  <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> 
highway= <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway> motorway, 
but is also applicable to other roads with numbered or named junctions 
including some  <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> highway= 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrunk> trunk and  
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> highway= 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dprimary> primary roads.

 

The instances I have noticed are not on roads with named or numbered exits, 
therefore I am thinking this tag is inappropriate.  (I noticed it because it 
shows-up as an “e” on my GPS – which is a rendering issue I know)

 

The wiki also says:

 

 <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name> name=* for the name of the 
junction or interchange. Do not confuse the name of a junction with the 
destination(s) the junction leads to. In most cases worldwide, sign information 
describes destinations, not the name of the junction or interchange itself. If 
a signpost or indication displays destinations exclusively, this data belongs 
to  <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination> destination=* tags, 
not the  <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name> name=* of the  
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> highway=motorway_junction 
node.

 

I tried messaging this user a week-or-so ago and have had no response.

 

What do people think about this tag?  I don’t know what he is trying to achieve.

 

Ian

___
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] highway=motorway_junction

[Ian Steer]

lacrom_telenav has been adding highway=motorway_junction tags on exits from
major roads around Perth - I think to designate destination signs.  It is
associated with "noref=yes"

 

The wiki says:

 

Use the  
highway=motorway_junction tag to identify a point along a
 highway=* with junction
refs or names where it is possible to exit the highway onto another road.
This is usually found along a
 highway=
 motorway, but
is also applicable to other roads with numbered or named junctions including
some   highway=
 trunk and
 highway=
 primary roads.

 

The instances I have noticed are not on roads with named or numbered exits,
therefore I am thinking this tag is inappropriate.  (I noticed it because it
shows-up as an "e" on my GPS - which is a rendering issue I know)

 

The wiki also says:

 

  name=* for the name of the
junction or interchange. Do not confuse the name of a junction with the
destination(s) the junction leads to. In most cases worldwide, sign
information describes destinations, not the name of the junction or
interchange itself. If a signpost or indication displays destinations
exclusively, this data belongs to
 destination=* tags,
not the   name=* of the
 highway=motorway_junction
node.

 

I tried messaging this user a week-or-so ago and have had no response.

 

What do people think about this tag?  I don't know what he is trying to
achieve.

 

Ian

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

Re: [talk-au] [OSGeo Oceania] FOSS4G SotM Oceania 2019 tree planting day

[adam steer]

Hi Ed (and all)

Thanks! I’m filling out a filming permission form for 14/15/16 August.

Ideally flights will take place the day before, or early on the same day
before people arrive (weather dependent); it won’t be practical to
undertake mapping missions and comply with CASA regulations while people
are planting / moving around on the site. The day after is there just in
case weather isn’t kind… and we might want to capture trees at the start of
their life as well.

Just had a thought strike me - is anyone in academia listening who wants to
start a project on yellow box woodland development? good opportunity here…
;)

Cheers,

Adam



On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 at 15:44, Edoardo Neerhut  wrote:

> Love your work Adam. And thanks to Tony and Mick as well.
>
> In terms of the pre-planting aerial survey, would you do that on the day
> itself if permission is granted?
>
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 at 11:52, adam steer  wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> I'm excited to report that the FOSS4G SotM Oceania 2019 tree planting
>> program has been scheduled for 15 August 2020. Here is the Parks Victoria
>> event information:
>>
>>
>> https://www.parkconnect.vic.gov.au/Volunteer/public-planned-activity/?id=c38ff798-914c-ea11-b698-0003ff6f5db4
>>
>> If you want to attend and plant trees, great! You need to register as a
>> volunteer with Parks Victoria using the ‘Register with ParkConnect’ button
>> on the link above.
>>
>> We hope to run some free, volunteer-run mapping events on/around the day.
>> Full details TBA, some ideas are:
>> - conduct a pre-planting aerial survey (subject to Parks Victoria
>> approval)
>> - collect locations of all the trees (potentially also running a hands on
>> QField / Input workshop)
>> - add trees to OSM (along with any other salient features that are
>> missing)
>>
>> Ideally everyone attending will also help plant trees - so please
>> register with ParkConnect if you plan to attend in any capacity.
>>
>> Again, thanks to this community and especially the FOSS4G SotM Oceania
>> organising committee for their moral and financial support. I'd like to
>> specifically thank Tony Forster, who first suggested this project and has
>> done much of the on-ground logistics (getting support of Parks Victoria and
>> linking us up with local organisations / suppliers); and Mick van de Vreede
>> of Parks Victoria, who has help line a lot of stuff up to help this happen.
>>
>> Please feel free to ask any questions by responding to list posts, or
>> contact me directly.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Adam
>> ___
>> Oceania mailing list
>> ocea...@lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>
>

-- 
Dr. Adam Steer
http://spatialised.net
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Steer
http://au.linkedin.com/in/adamsteer
http://orcid.org/-0003-0046-7236
+61 427 091 712 ::  @adamdsteer

Suits are bad for business: http://www.spatialised.net/business-penguins/
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] FOSS4G SotM Oceania 2019 tree planting day

[adam steer]

Hi all

I'm excited to report that the FOSS4G SotM Oceania 2019 tree planting
program has been scheduled for 15 August 2020. Here is the Parks Victoria
event information:

https://www.parkconnect.vic.gov.au/Volunteer/public-planned-activity/?id=c38ff798-914c-ea11-b698-0003ff6f5db4

If you want to attend and plant trees, great! You need to register as a
volunteer with Parks Victoria using the ‘Register with ParkConnect’ button
on the link above.

We hope to run some free, volunteer-run mapping events on/around the day.
Full details TBA, some ideas are:
- conduct a pre-planting aerial survey (subject to Parks Victoria approval)
- collect locations of all the trees (potentially also running a hands on
QField / Input workshop)
- add trees to OSM (along with any other salient features that are missing)

Ideally everyone attending will also help plant trees - so please register
with ParkConnect if you plan to attend in any capacity.

Again, thanks to this community and especially the FOSS4G SotM Oceania
organising committee for their moral and financial support. I'd like to
specifically thank Tony Forster, who first suggested this project and has
done much of the on-ground logistics (getting support of Parks Victoria and
linking us up with local organisations / suppliers); and Mick van de Vreede
of Parks Victoria, who has help line a lot of stuff up to help this happen.

Please feel free to ask any questions by responding to list posts, or
contact me directly.

Regards,

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

Re: [talk-au] tagging burnt areas

[adam steer]

I’d  personally avoid tagging areas as burnt - they’re temporary and as per
advice from Andrew maybe should be left tagged as their long term state.

Looking around where I am (Benambra and north) there are already a lot of
overlapping/duplicated/whats this for polygons relating to land cover… it’d
be great to avoid adding more.

I guess if people want to add burned areas, my only suggestion is that
whoever does so takes it upon themselves to return and update things later…

Regards,

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

Re: [talk-au] Bush Fire Neighbourhood Safer Places

[adam steer]

Thanks David - seems all the eastern states speak the same language. So
Andrew’s suggestion here:

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

...looks good.

Victoria CFA's wikidata entry is https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q13632973

Cheers, and thanks

Adam







On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 at 18:57, David Wales  wrote:

> According to the NSW RFS:
>
> "Neighbourhood Safer Places are a place of last resort during a bush fire
> emergency.
>
> They are to be used when all other options in your bush fire survival plan
> can't be put into action safely."
>
> https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/plan-and-prepare/neighbourhood-safer-places
>
> On 4 January 2020 6:11:15 pm AEDT, Graeme Fitzpatrick <
> graemefi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 at 12:21, adam steer  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In Vic these are only used as a last resort. Not sure if 'assembly
>>> point' translates to 'only come here if there are absolutely no other
>>> options, and this place might not be safe anyway'.
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems that 'neighbourhood safer places' means something different
>>> across borders. Can anyone in emergency services comment?
>>>
>>
>> The Qld version is similar
>> https://www.ruralfire.qld.gov.au/BushFire_Safety/Neighbourhood-Safer-Places/Pages/default.aspx
>>
>> "An NSP is a local open space or building where people may gather, as a
>> last resort, to seek shelter from a bushfire."
>>
>>   Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Dr. Adam Steer
http://spatialised.net
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Steer
http://au.linkedin.com/in/adamsteer
http://orcid.org/-0003-0046-7236
+61 427 091 712 ::  @adamdsteer

Suits are bad for business: http://www.spatialised.net/business-penguins/
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Bush Fire Neighbourhood Safer Places

[adam steer]

Hi Andrew

In Vic these are only used as a last resort. Not sure if 'assembly point'
translates to 'only come here if there are absolutely no other options, and
this place might not be safe anyway'.

See: https://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/plan-prepare/neighbourhood-safer-places

There are also community fire refuges:
https://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/plan-prepare/community-fire-refuges/

...my reading there is also 'try really hard not to come here, but if
there's nothing else then turn up'.

Could we add a 'place of last resort' tag?

Relief centres, eg:
https://www.eastgippsland.vic.gov.au/Council/News_and_Media_Releases/Emergency_Relief_Centres
https://www.wangaratta.vic.gov.au/emergency/relief-and-recovery

...seem to be council operated...

It seems that 'neighbourhood safer places' means something different across
borders. Can anyone in emergency services comment?

Thanks,

Adam






On Sat, 4 Jan 2020, 11:30 am Andrew Harvey, 
wrote:

> I'm not sure what these are called or look like in other states, but in
> NSW they look like
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/136319147@N08/49324333543/ and they are
> operated by the NSW RFS.
>
> emergency=assembly_point seems like the best tag to use per the wiki
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dassembly_point "A
> designated (safe) place where people can gather or must report to during an
> emergency or a fire drill Edit or translate this description."
>
> Also documented on the wiki is
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:assembly_point:fire which seems
> fitting.
>
> I'm proposing these be tagged as
>
> emergency=assembly_point
> assembly_point:fire=designated
> operator=NSW Rural Fire Service
> operator:wikidata=Q7011777
>
> could also add description="Bush Fire Neighbourhood Safer Place" or your
> state's equivalent.
>
> Any comments? If this sounds good, I'll document this on the Australian
> Tagging Guidelines for NSW.
> ___
> 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] highway link is not linked to adequate highway/link ??

[Ian Steer]

From: Mateusz Konieczny mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com> >

Subject: Re: [talk-au] highway link is not linked to adequate highway/link
??

 

>> Is it intentional that
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/696446485#map=18/-32.14717/115.92374
 =N is highway=trunk?

>> I would tag it at highway=primary, maybe highway=trunk_link is
defensible, but it is unclear to me why it would highway=trunk

 

I didn't change the highway=trunk, I just added the link roads to match.
After checking the Aust wiki, I am inclined to agree with you that it should
be highway=primary but all similar roads in Perth are classified as trunks,
so I have left it at a trunk.

 

>> Also, I would expect https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/696452550 to be
highway=primary

 

again, not something I did, but I agree and have changed it to
highway=primary

 

>>"looking at the wiki on link roads" which pages you have checked? Maybe
something should be changed.

 

I was looking at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Link_roads_between_different_highways_ty
pes.  If Armadale Rd was legitimately a trunk, then what I did seemed to be
correct.

 

The other strange think was that part of Armadale Rd object itself did not
have a name tag, but was just part of an Armadale Rd relation.  I thought
this was a bit unusual, and have added the name tag (can't hurt can it?)

 

The funny thing was that after making the minor changes above and uploading
again, the same warning message did not re-appear.  All's well that ends
well I say.

 

27 Dec 2019, 10:06 by ianst...@iinet.net.au  :

> I've made an approximation of the new grade-separated interchange of
Nicholson & Armadale Rds in Perth in the changeset below.  I get the warning
"highway link is not linked to adequate highway/link" on all the trunk_links
I have added, and looking at the wiki on link roads, I can't work-out why ?

> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78916457

> 

> 

 

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

[talk-au] highway link is not linked to adequate highway/link ??

[Ian Steer]

I've made an approximation of the new grade-separated interchange of
Nicholson & Armadale Rds in Perth in the changeset below.  I get the warning
"highway link is not linked to adequate highway/link" on all the trunk_links
I have added, and looking at the wiki on link roads, I can't work-out why ?

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78916457

 

Ian

 

 

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

[talk-au] tagging of "demolished" roads

[Ian Steer]

Nanga Rd in WA's south west has been affected by bauxite mining and has been
re-routed.  I'm hesitant to simply delete the old alignment, and am
wondering whether there is an appropriate tag like "demolished=yes" to use
on it instead ?

 

Ian

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping 'private roads' conclusion

[Ian Steer]

Sounds OK

(I'll have to change my mapping practices)

Ian



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

Re: [talk-au] Remote mapping of Thredbo and Perisher areas

[adam steer]

I can check in a couple of days, I'm pretty familiar with that region, I
think lots of others here will be also :)


Regards,

Adam

On Fri., 23 Aug. 2019, 21:10 Warin, <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 23/08/19 20:42, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> > From memory its rocks and heath, random rivulets hidden under the
> > heath but not wetland
> >
> > He has also been adding glacial lakes that I never new existed Way:
> > 713143979
>
> On the LPI Imagery there is what appears to be water there, but it is
> probably some bush when viewed with Ersi clarity.  Also some 'cliff'
> lines above the 'lake' and no cliff there.
>
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> A German has been remote mapping this area - he has not been there. I
> >> thought he was working the ski season there ... so I let it go.
> >>
> >>
> >> He has mapped some areas as 'wetland'. I have only walked occasionally
> >> here and then not noted any wetland.
> >>
> >> The LPI Base Map shows no wetland here.
> >>
> >> One example Relation: 9919734
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Comments?
> >>
> >> Phase change material
> >> Phase change material
> >> Phase change material
> >> Phase change material
> >> Phase change material
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] [FOSS4G-Oceania] Considering future Open Geospatial conferences in Oceania

[adam steer]

hey community

I want to temper this a little with Bruce Bannerman’s recent and very
relevant comments on where OSGeo Oceania and FOSS4G SotM Oceania are at.
The main question being:

‘how many things can we do at once?’

In my mind, a laser focus on bedding in OSGeo Oceania and sorting out all
the wrinkles with respect to OSGeo and OSM chapterhood / board processes /
who the org represents / how to represent people who don’t feel immediately
bonded to the idea is the first community priority.

Yes, since 2017 we’ve had remarkable success and we should aim to keep that
momentum. To use an analogy, I feel this revitalised fast-growing tree of
OSGeo Oceania needs a broader base and deeper roots right now.

We need to establish and broaden our regional connections and volunteer
base.

With that in mind, it’s definitely time to start thinking about a 2020
regional event. I’m sure the OSGeo Oceania board will be looking for
proposals soon!

Those are my thoughts - I hope they’re taken as virtual organic mulch and
well composted manure for the future of OSGeo Oceania, and not cold water….

Regards,

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

Re: [talk-au] GHG mitigation and FOSS4G SotM Oceania

[adam steer]

hey folks

waking this conversation up again - there’s some interest from Parks
Victoria around applying funding from a GHG offset scheme to restore yellow
box woodland - which is direct, local and observable.

I started making some calculations here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DGcpUCO6pHhKutoCh8qh1FcIrnXjyYQ_kOEIf5nCnGw/edit?usp=sharing

…using the ICAO flight emissions calculator. So far we’re up to about 48t
CO2 based on my assumptions around who comes from where - and no additions
from south pacific islands yet. If you have any input on those numbers
please add comments.

Next step is to work more on how much money is appropriate for a programme
to sequester 48t of CO2 based on existing offset programmes. Then, have a
chat with Parks Victoria around how far that amount goes.

I’ll add those estimates in the same sheet.

Regards

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

[talk-au] Fwd: FW: ANZMapS mini conference "Mapping In Action _ Students"

[adam steer]

Hi OSGeo and OSM cartographers - this looks like a great event to try and
get along to, especially if you know students in the game!

Regards,

Adam
-- Forwarded message -
From: Kay Dancey 
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 12:00
Subject: FW: ANZMapS mini conference "Mapping In Action _ Students"
To: gis_fo...@alliance.anu.edu.au 


Hello Everyone,



A great opportunity for students from any discipline whose work references
or utilises maps, spatial information or data visualisation. The ANZMapS
organisation is having a mini conference on September 24-25 in Canberra and
encouraging student participation.



This year we are offering a *$1,000 prize* for the best student
presentation, to be awarded by the ANZMapS editorial panel. Further
information and reply to queries - www.anzmaps.org. and anzma...@gmail.com



Please pass onto your networks as appropriate.



Best wishes,

Kay



Kay Dancey | CartoGIS Services Manager | College of Asia and the Pacific |
The Australian National University |

Copyright of all works produced by CartoGIS is held by the ANU and licensed
under CC BY SA. <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/au/>

Please note I am on leave on alternate Fridays.

*CartoGIS Services are now located in rooms 2.26–2.28 of the Coombs
Extension Building #**8*



P +61 (0)2 6125 2230

M +61 (0)424 154 197

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/cartogis/

Location map https://goo.gl/maps/Gcd6G



Australian and New Zealand Map Society

*2019 Conference*
National Library of Australia, Canberra
*Mapping In Action*



*Mapping In Action*
Are you studying in the humanity or science disciplines? Does your
research/study reference or utilise maps, spatial information or data
visualisation? Talk about your research for 20 minutes for a chance to *win
$1,000!*

*The 2019 ANZMapS conference is being held on Tuesday 24th and Wednesday
25th September. *

*Call for Student Presentations *
Abstract submissions (200 words): submit here


Deadline for submission: *Friday 31 July 2019*
Prize money: for best student presentation *$1,000 *with potential for
publication in *The Globe* <https://www.anzmaps.org/the-globe-journal/>.
*Free day registration for student presenters*

*Registration*
*Student registration:* $60 per day ($120 for 2 days)
Full registration: $100 per day ($200 for 2 days)
Registration includes morning/afternoon tea and lunch.
Earlybird registration will open shortly.
Check website <https://www.anzmaps.org/> for updates.

*Proceedings*
Conference sessions will be held on Tuesday 24th and the morning of
Wednesday 25th September, followed by a visit behind the scenes of the
NLA's Map Collection on Wednesday afternoon. View the unique maps
and ephemera that make up Australia's largest map collection.

*ANZMapS Membership*
Annual student membership only $30!
Join here <https://www.anzmaps.org/membership/>.

*September 2019*

*24 & 25*

*National Library of Australia <https://www.nla.gov.au/visit>**, Canberra.*





<https://www.facebook.com/groups/134859637095535/>

*Facebook* <https://www.facebook.com/groups/134859637095535/>

<https://twitter.com/ANZMapS>

*Twitter* <https://twitter.com/ANZMapS>

<https://www.anzmaps.org/>

*Website* <https://www.anzmaps.org/>



*Email* 

*Copyright © 2019 ANZMapS, All rights reserved.*

If you do not wish to receive future emails, please unsubscribe
<http://anzma...@gmail.com>



--

This automatic notification message was sent by Alliance (
https://alliance.anu.edu.au/portal) from the GIS Forum site.
You can modify how you receive notifications at My Workspace > Preferences.


-- 
Dr. Adam Steer
http://spatialised.net
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Steer
http://au.linkedin.com/in/adamsteer
http://orcid.org/-0003-0046-7236
+61 427 091 712 ::  @adamdsteer

Suits are bad for business: http://www.spatialised.net/business-penguins/
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Fwd: FW: ANZMapS mini conference "Mapping In Action _ Students"

[adam steer]

Hi OSGeo and OSM cartographers - this looks like a great event to try and
get along to, especially if you know students in the game!

Regards,

Adam
-- Forwarded message -
From: Kay Dancey 
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 12:00
Subject: FW: ANZMapS mini conference "Mapping In Action _ Students"
To: gis_fo...@alliance.anu.edu.au 


Hello Everyone,



A great opportunity for students from any discipline whose work references
or utilises maps, spatial information or data visualisation. The ANZMapS
organisation is having a mini conference on September 24-25 in Canberra and
encouraging student participation.



This year we are offering a *$1,000 prize* for the best student
presentation, to be awarded by the ANZMapS editorial panel. Further
information and reply to queries - www.anzmaps.org. and anzma...@gmail.com



Please pass onto your networks as appropriate.



Best wishes,

Kay



Kay Dancey | CartoGIS Services Manager | College of Asia and the Pacific |
The Australian National University |

Copyright of all works produced by CartoGIS is held by the ANU and licensed
under CC BY SA. <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/au/>

Please note I am on leave on alternate Fridays.

*CartoGIS Services are now located in rooms 2.26–2.28 of the Coombs
Extension Building #**8*



P +61 (0)2 6125 2230

M +61 (0)424 154 197

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/cartogis/

Location map https://goo.gl/maps/Gcd6G



Australian and New Zealand Map Society

*2019 Conference*
National Library of Australia, Canberra
*Mapping In Action*



*Mapping In Action*
Are you studying in the humanity or science disciplines? Does your
research/study reference or utilise maps, spatial information or data
visualisation? Talk about your research for 20 minutes for a chance to *win
$1,000!*

*The 2019 ANZMapS conference is being held on Tuesday 24th and Wednesday
25th September. *

*Call for Student Presentations *
Abstract submissions (200 words): submit here


Deadline for submission: *Friday 31 July 2019*
Prize money: for best student presentation *$1,000 *with potential for
publication in *The Globe* <https://www.anzmaps.org/the-globe-journal/>.
*Free day registration for student presenters*

*Registration*
*Student registration:* $60 per day ($120 for 2 days)
Full registration: $100 per day ($200 for 2 days)
Registration includes morning/afternoon tea and lunch.
Earlybird registration will open shortly.
Check website <https://www.anzmaps.org/> for updates.

*Proceedings*
Conference sessions will be held on Tuesday 24th and the morning of
Wednesday 25th September, followed by a visit behind the scenes of the
NLA's Map Collection on Wednesday afternoon. View the unique maps
and ephemera that make up Australia's largest map collection.

*ANZMapS Membership*
Annual student membership only $30!
Join here <https://www.anzmaps.org/membership/>.

*September 2019*

*24 & 25*

*National Library of Australia <https://www.nla.gov.au/visit>**, Canberra.*





<https://www.facebook.com/groups/134859637095535/>

*Facebook* <https://www.facebook.com/groups/134859637095535/>

<https://twitter.com/ANZMapS>

*Twitter* <https://twitter.com/ANZMapS>

<https://www.anzmaps.org/>

*Website* <https://www.anzmaps.org/>



*Email* 

*Copyright © 2019 ANZMapS, All rights reserved.*

If you do not wish to receive future emails, please unsubscribe
<http://anzma...@gmail.com>



--

This automatic notification message was sent by Alliance (
https://alliance.anu.edu.au/portal) from the GIS Forum site.
You can modify how you receive notifications at My Workspace > Preferences.


-- 
Dr. Adam Steer
http://spatialised.net
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Steer
http://au.linkedin.com/in/adamsteer
http://orcid.org/-0003-0046-7236
+61 427 091 712 ::  @adamdsteer

Suits are bad for business: http://www.spatialised.net/business-penguins/


-- 
Dr. Adam Steer
http://spatialised.net
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Steer
http://au.linkedin.com/in/adamsteer
http://orcid.org/-0003-0046-7236
+61 427 091 712 ::  @adamdsteer

Suits are bad for business: http://www.spatialised.net/business-penguins/
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] [FOSS4G-Oceania] GHG mitigation and FOSS4G SotM Oceania

[adam steer]

Martin, I am riding on the shoulders of giants as always :)

Greg, Martin:

...maybe it’s my not so inner socialist: I think responsibility here lies
with the organisation (conference / OSGeo Oceania). We already ask a lot of
community members, the financial burden is likely to be small, it’s less
work to just commit (no extra tito fields, less accounting, good
organisation vibes etc) - especially as an org seeking to represent nations
who are at risk.

Regards,

-- 
Dr. Adam Steer
http://spatialised.net
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Steer
http://au.linkedin.com/in/adamsteer
http://orcid.org/-0003-0046-7236
+61 427 091 712 ::  @adamdsteer

Suits are bad for business: http://www.spatialised.net/business-penguins/
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] [FOSS4G-Oceania] GHG mitigation and FOSS4G SotM Oceania

[adam steer]

Alex,

Thanks for your in principle support - we’ll get all the numbers lined up
and as per the OSGeo Oceania / FOSS4G SotM Oceania principles, await
funding outcomes. For anyone listening in, the conference budget is fully
committed and relies on surplus to do anything not already budgeted. I’m
 extremely positive that it will be ‘budget positive’ and we can contribute
to some great earth-critical initiatives.

Perhaps we can use this year’s work to add GHG mitigation as an up front
budget item in 2020!

Graeme, thanks for the calculator - I think a good approach is to use a few
and take the median. I’m waiting on numbers from the organisations I’ve
contacted, and will slowly get the modelling done in preparation for a
pitch to the conference LoC / OSGeo Oceania board.

Regards,

-- 
Dr. Adam Steer
http://spatialised.net
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Steer
http://au.linkedin.com/in/adamsteer
http://orcid.org/-0003-0046-7236
+61 427 091 712 ::  @adamdsteer

Suits are bad for business: http://www.spatialised.net/business-penguins/
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] GHG mitigation and FOSS4G SotM Oceania

[adam steer]

Hi folks

Following from an earlier discussion [1] on osgeo-oceania about offsetting
emissions which are incurred by getting to FOSS4G SotM Oceania, there’s
been a long chat in the Maptime Australia slack channel about creating a
low-carbon conference.

This has also been raised as an issue for the global FOSS4G [2].

The upshot of the conversation is that we’re looking at ways to mitigate
our impact on the planet using something other than throwing money at
offsetters [3].

With that in mind, I’ve sent enquiries to Bush Heritage Australia [4] and
the NZ Native Forest Regeneration Trust [5] about donating an amount to
work toward landscape-scale forest and biodiversity restoration - since
buying acres of maybe-never-planted monoculture is really not a solution
(see [3]).

The idea is that the conference uses some of its budget (amount TBA) to
‘offset’ the event. Since the event is in NZ, the main carbon source is air
travel - so I’ll do some modelling work to estimate travel GHG emissions,
based initially on 2018 attendees and refining as we go.

If you have any useful tools to hand for that task to hand, I’d appreciate
hearing about them (or better! collaboration!). John Bryant already
suggested this one:
https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/Pages/default.aspx

If you know any other ‘boots on ground’ organisations we should consider,
also please let us know.

Regards

Adam

[1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/foss4g-oceania/2019-April/001348.html
[2] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2019-June/005222.html (end
of a discussion)
[3]
https://features.propublica.org/brazil-carbon-offsets/inconvenient-truth-carbon-credits-dont-work-deforestation-redd-acre-cambodia/#162201
[4] https://www.bushheritage.org.au
[5] https://www.nfrt.org.nz


-- 
Dr. Adam Steer
http://spatialised.net
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Steer
http://au.linkedin.com/in/adamsteer
http://orcid.org/-0003-0046-7236
+61 427 091 712 ::  @adamdsteer

Suits are bad for business: http://www.spatialised.net/business-penguins/
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] [OSGeo Oceania] FOSS4G SotM Oceania 2019 - programme outline

[adam steer]

Hi John

thanks for your input, and gentle reminder to explain some thinking:

yes, we’re optimistic that we’ll get a lot of great talk proposals!

There’s a bit of to and fro about more/shorter talks, and fewer/longer
talks. Do we prefer 60 short sharp (15+5) talks or 48 (20+)5 talks?  A lot
of people preferred the shorter format; and we are also looking at ways to
get more people in the spotlight - offering more space to do so is one way
(maybe).

Pretty much a constant in conferences is that there will be be
interruptions as people move between talks; and there’s no avoiding it.
Perhaps we can add some gentle reminders to consider your speakers and
fellow attendees when session hopping at the opening plenary.

On start times - we can’t open the doors to members of the public til 8:30
for a 9:00 start at the moment. However, we also cannot attempt to register
a whole lot of people in 30 minutes on day 1, so the conference start time
was pushed back to allow an hour to get people all registered. On day 2,
the timing is the same because I know I’ll get mixed up if the session
times change.

If we want 30 minute breaks, we need to take time from somewhere - about
the only way I can see is to shorten stream sessions, I’ve added another
sheet which shows 90 minute sessions and half hour breaks.

I don’t see yet how to get things finishing earlier… suggestions welcome,
and we may yet get to open up earlier...

Cheers

Adam



On Sat, 20 Apr 2019 at 05:12, John Bryant  wrote:

> Thanks Adam & program committee, looking great!
>
> The adjustment to having more talks is interesting, I suppose there may be
> a bit of a challenge to fill 60 speaking slots out of an audience of 170,
> but hey, challenges are good! And personally, I'm hopeful we exceed the 170
> target, though it will raise some logistical challenges re: venue.
>
> One of the key messages we got in attendee feedback last year was that
> timing was important, we could have done a bit better, and people found
> movement between sessions frustrating. There were also quite a few requests
> for longer talks, and more time between sessions. The venue layout this
> year might help improve the movement between sessions. But sticking with
> the 15+5 format, we'll need to be really strict on timing to improve on one
> of the key frustrations from last year's event.
>
> On timing:
> - Is a 930am start intentional? Feels a bit late to me, but I acknowledge
> that some people prefer a late start. But will people's attention start
> lagging for the talks late in the day, ie. finishing at 5:40 pm?
> - Are 20 minute breaks between sessions long enough? For some people,
> these are important slots for networking. This is shorter than last year's
> 30 minute breaks.
>
> Cheers
> John
>
>
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 03:29, adam steer  wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> We’d like to share with you our current thinking about the 2019
>> programme, and call for comments.
>>
>> We need to put it all together and run calls for papers and workshops by
>> the end of May - so please spark any debates early! We will close
>>  discussion and move toward a fixed plan at the end of April. Let's say 1
>> May is ‘close the discussion’ date.
>>
>> As a rundown we have:
>>
>> - 2 x 3.5 hour workshop sessions (8 rooms, 16 workshops possible in total)
>> - 60 15-20 minute stream talks (4 sessions, 3 streams, 5 talks each
>> session)
>> - 4 keynotes
>> - a mystery hour on day 2, after the initial keynote. this might be a
>> panel, a very short unconference, a ’state of [QGIS/OSM/… ]’ plenary talk
>> session, or a facilitated community discussion on what we see as prevalent
>> issues in the community. We’d like to know what you think, but also reserve
>> the right to surprise (and we hope, delight) you
>> - a community day, which will be a mix of OSGeo code sprint, mapathons,
>> and other OSGeo / OSM related activities.
>> - various opportunities for breakfasts and informal socialising, as well
>> as an organised conference icebreaker and dinner.
>>
>> These are laid out here:
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17KvFcVn226ay0clCZsBTL0jpbX-4ZMt6nyBfLcF94mE/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> There is a bit of variation from the 2018 formula. We’ve tried to add
>> more session talks; and hope to find a good provocative keynote to end with
>> (in fact we hope to find four excellent and thought provoking / challenging
>> keynotes)
>>
>> Please feel free to comment on the document, respond to the list, or
>> myself, with ideas.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Adam Steer
>> http://spatialised.net
>> https://www.researchgate.

[talk-au] FOSS4G SotM Oceania 2019 - programme outline

[adam steer]

Hi all

We’d like to share with you our current thinking about the 2019 programme,
and call for comments.

We need to put it all together and run calls for papers and workshops by
the end of May - so please spark any debates early! We will close
 discussion and move toward a fixed plan at the end of April. Let's say 1
May is ‘close the discussion’ date.

As a rundown we have:

- 2 x 3.5 hour workshop sessions (8 rooms, 16 workshops possible in total)
- 60 15-20 minute stream talks (4 sessions, 3 streams, 5 talks each session)
- 4 keynotes
- a mystery hour on day 2, after the initial keynote. this might be a
panel, a very short unconference, a ’state of [QGIS/OSM/… ]’ plenary talk
session, or a facilitated community discussion on what we see as prevalent
issues in the community. We’d like to know what you think, but also reserve
the right to surprise (and we hope, delight) you
- a community day, which will be a mix of OSGeo code sprint, mapathons, and
other OSGeo / OSM related activities.
- various opportunities for breakfasts and informal socialising, as well as
an organised conference icebreaker and dinner.

These are laid out here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17KvFcVn226ay0clCZsBTL0jpbX-4ZMt6nyBfLcF94mE/edit?usp=sharing

There is a bit of variation from the 2018 formula. We’ve tried to add more
session talks; and hope to find a good provocative keynote to end with (in
fact we hope to find four excellent and thought provoking / challenging
keynotes)

Please feel free to comment on the document, respond to the list, or
myself, with ideas.

Regards

Adam


-- 
Dr. Adam Steer
http://spatialised.net
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Steer
http://au.linkedin.com/in/adamsteer
http://orcid.org/-0003-0046-7236
+61 427 091 712 ::  @adamdsteer

Suits are bad for business: http://www.spatialised.net/business-penguins/
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] OSM CDN cache and AARNet - movement, and request for information

[adam steer]

Hi all

It looks like AARNet are coming to the OSM cache party!

Being academically focussed, they would like a list of researchers who use
OSM and would benefit from the local cache. I’m happy to compile one, so
please feel free to reply off list with:

- name
- institution
- broad project outline
- preferred contact method

AARNet will use the information to help justify the resource. They also
want to write up a news story about it; and work with researchers to ensure
that an AARNet-hosted OSM cache is meeting their needs / making life easier.

I’ll pass the compiled list to Dr Carina Kemp at AARNet; who (or another
AARNet representative) may get in touch with you for all of the above
purposes.

I can’t think of an easy way to make a public self-add list outside of
google docs, so this talk-au thread and anything coming in to my inbox will
have to do. I’m totally open to hearing about a better way to do this, and
happy to share results if you think it’s a great community asset to know
who’s using OSM for what (broadly).

Cheers, and thanks in advance.

Adam

-- 
Dr. Adam Steer
http://spatialised.net
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Steer
http://au.linkedin.com/in/adamsteer
http://orcid.org/-0003-0046-7236
+61 427 091 712
skype: adam.d.steer
tweet: @adamdsteer
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] OSGeo/OSM talk accepted at C3DIS

[adam steer]

hey folks

I pitched a talk about the growing OSGeo Oceania community at the C3DIS
conference (http://www.c3dis.com) and it was accepted as an oral
presentation.

Why? C3DIS is all about computational and data intensive science - and much
of that relies on the geospatial tools and data this community builds and
maintains. So it’s a bit of a PR / community building exercise; and timing
is a couple weeks ahead of the scheduled call for 2019 FOSS4G SotM Oceania
papers. it’s also introducing our new organisation - so some timing is a
bit ambitious.

Title and abstract below, I’ll build a revealJS-based talk here:
https://github.com/adamsteer/c3dis2019 - so please feel free to dump
relevant thoughts as issues; and help shape the conversation we want to
have with the ‘big science computers’ community.

Cheers

Adam

---

Title: The open geospatial community in Oceania

Abstract:
The Open Geospatial Foundation (OSgeo) and the Open Streetmap Foundation
(OSMF) have been mainstays in support of; and advocacy for; open geospatial
software and data for many years.

OSGeo supports foundational geospatial tooling used across the eResearch
community - from invisible infrastructure (GDAL; Proj4; pyWPS; Zoo-WPS ) to
prominent user-focussed, user facing applications (QGIS, geonode,
geoserver, geonetwork, leafletJS; openlayers) - to name just a few.

In 2009, an international conference of the OSGeo foundation was held in
Sydney; and after a long hiatus, the community was revived in 2018. The
result was a sold-out joint conference of the OSGeo and OSMF communities
for the Oceania region in Melbourne. This was both an incredible show of
community support, and an incredible showcase of open source innovation in
the region.

…and the momentum continues. By the time C3DIS happens, there will be a
fully-fledged local OSGeo Oceania organisation, aimed at supporting a
regional community of open source geo-developers, geo-users, and
geo-enablers - and 2019 conference organisation will be in full swing.

This talk will be about charting the journey of OSGeo Oceania so far, and
how the eResearch community in Australia and Oceania can engage with,
support, and benefit from this local and global community.

Come and join the party!


-- 
Dr. Adam Steer
http://spatialised.net
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Steer
http://au.linkedin.com/in/adamsteer
http://orcid.org/-0003-0046-7236
+61 427 091 712
skype: adam.d.steer
tweet: @adamdsteer
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Ian Steer]

>Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2018 22:10:19 +1000
>From: "Joel H." 
>To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org, d...@thinkmoult.com
>Subject: Re: [talk-au] Mapping houses and addresses in Sydney
>Message-ID: <884c4fa4-16cd-893d-8b62-3620f023e...@disroot.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>OSM is permitted to use the LPI Base Map, This contains street number where 
>they are.
>However I am not from NSW so I can't say how accurate LPI is. You are best to 
>do a ground survey, the Android app StreetComplete is good for this as long as 
>the houses have been mapped already.
>If you wish to use LPI, you can switch under imagery in JOSM (and maybe iD)

Does anyone know if there is a West Australian equivalent to the NSW LPI Base 
map ?




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

[talk-au] Perth Canning Rv wetland Relation: 8337801

[Ian Steer]

>Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 10:15:02 +1000
>From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
To: talk-au 
Subject: [talk-au] Perth Canning Rv wetland Relation: 8337801
>Hi,
>I have repaired Relation: 8337801  - wetland marsh that had been altered by an 
>Apple person.
>It was identified by OSMinspector as a probable error (and boy was it).
>It is now closed and has no crossing members. So technically better. But I am 
>far from local .. so it lacks verification.
>If someone knows the area they should be able to do better than my poor 
>attempts based on rough satellite views.
>I also included more bits in the Relation: Canning River (8337802) - makes it 
>easier on making the wetland relation.
>Thanks for any local help there.

I live reasonably close to that area, but verifying it is a bit arbitrary - 
where is the edge of a wetland?  as seen in summer? winter? etc.
Also, you can't go tramping around in a swamp to do a survey - it really has to 
be done from imagery.

I think your efforts will do just fine - thanks

Ian




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

[talk-au] Small culverts/bridges in bushland

[Ian Steer]

> 
> Hi,
> 
> Lately a mapper has been adding heaps of fords in SE QLD bushland along
> with more creeks/streams, however I've noticed quite a lot of the fords
> aren't actually fords based on my local knowledge of the area. I tried
> commenting on a changeset (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/58540304)
> 2 weeks ago and again a week ago without a response, they have been active
> in that time and appear to be a long time contributor, but I'm now at a
> loss on how to contact them.
> 
> My question isn't about what they've been doing, but about the fact I've
> not wanted to split ways and try to line up a tiny culvert or bridge when
> they are physically so small, however because they haven't been mapped
> someone is now incorrectly added fords. Many of the culverts are just a
> small pipe (sometimes as small as 20mm diameter and 0.5m long) with dirt
> over it to keep the trail dry (the trail is usually built up a little in
> the low lying area), and many of the bridges are only a metre long timber
> bridge especially those added for MTB.
> 
> The wiki states that bridge=* and tunnel=* should not be used on nodes, so
> I've not used them and in the past only mapped fords (many which have big
> sized gravel or stepping stones) and obviously use a shared node.
> 
> I've read a bunch of discussion on this topic and agree that splitting ways
> to model these is overkill as the tags on each way can get out of sync and
> get in the way, but removing the incorrect fords and not putting something
> in their place irks me. The wiki's comment about a ford: "You are both on
> the highway and in the waterway, and not separated logically as a stream
> under a bridge would be" makes complete sense, and I don't want shared
> nodes for these cases even though many streams are intermittent.
> 
> Finally my question, why couldn't we map a culvert as a node of a waterway,
> or a bridge as a node of a highway? The only other option I can think of is
> to add a note to a node of highway/waterway describing what is there so
> someone doesn't add a ford.
> 
> Thanks, Jono
> 
I have been “guilty” of adding small fords and culverts on bush tracks because 
JOSM gives me an error message if you have a waterway crossing a way without 
some sort of bridge, Ford, etc - and I try to avoid doing edits and leaving 
errors/warnings. 

Ian

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

Re: [talk-au] correct mapping of overtaking lanes

[Ian Steer]

I've had a go at one overtaking lane, and thought I'd put it out there for 
comment before tackling more.

Refer way 555706763

In this case, there is no overtaking (as in you can't use the lane in the 
opposing direction), but there are a couple (yet to be tackled) where it is 
permissable for the non-overtaking lane direction to use the overtaking lane 
(if not in use obviously).

Ian

-Original Message-
From: Marc Gemis [mailto:marc.ge...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 24 January 2018 6:38 PM
To: ianst...@iinet.net.au
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] correct mapping of overtaking lanes

possible tags:

lanes, lanes:forward, lanes:backward, change:lanes:forward, 
change:lanes:backward

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lanes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/change

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 8:11 AM,   wrote:
> Can someone point me to some examples of the correct method of mapping 
> overtaking lanes on country highways?
>
>
>
> I need examples for where it is both permissible and not permissible 
> for the contrary direction to use the overtaking lane.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> 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

[talk-au] Pacidic Highway mucked-up by construction changes

[Ian Steer]

I used OSM on my GPS when travelling on the Pacific Motorway between Port
Macquarie & South West Rocks recently, and routing was a disaster through
all the construction works.

 

It may just stem from the tagging of a bridge currently in use as
"construction".  I'm not confident-enough to go and make any changes myself.
I apologise for not knowing how to give the reference to the bridge in
question correctly, but I think it has a way number of 481729429.  It is
near the village of Kundaberg.

 

I am guessing that the routing engine refused to route over this Pacific
Highway bridge because it is tagged "construction" - but then again, the
highway either side of it is similarly tagged?  Is "construction" upsetting
the routing engine?

 

Can someone more confident with the impact of construction tagging please
have a look at this and try and fix it?

 

thanks

 

Ian

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

[talk-au] osmaustralia.org website and Garmin .img files - current status ?

[Ian Steer]

Does anyone know what's happening with the osmaustralia.org website, and the
regular updates of Garmin .img files ?

 

They used to be updated roughly weekly, but haven't been updated since
February.

 

(I use these files to update my Garmin GPS with the results of my (and
everyone else's) OSM updates.)

 

Ian

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

Re: [talk-au] Highway=path (David Clark)

[Ian Steer]

My request:

Firstly that people tagging paths consider adding the surface tag as well.
You probably already know the surface (as I always did even though I didn't
realise the significance of adding the tag) and if you're interested in
paths your likely one of those most interested in having it rendered in a
practical way.


David, 

As an off-road OSM user  path/track mapper, I'll certainly bear this in
mind

regards

Ian




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

Re: [talk-au] ISP caching problems with JOSM ?

[Steer]

Unfortunately, I was already set for User the default OSM server URL.

However, I think I have the solution - don't download **exactly** the same
area each time (left selected from the last edit session).  If the request
is slightly different, the ISP won't drag something out of the cache.

Seems to work on the basis of 1 test !

Thanks for your help

Ian


-Original Message-
From: gr...@firefishy.com [mailto:gr...@firefishy.com] On Behalf Of Grant
Slater
Sent: Thursday, 12 September 2013 9:15 PM
To: Steer
Cc: talk-au
Subject: Re: [talk-au] ISP caching problems with JOSM ?

Hi Ian,

The api.openstreetmap.org map data servers send no-cache headers and
proxy/caches should therefore NOT be caching the results...
But some ISPs are too aggressive with their caching.

Make sure JOSM is set to the default OSM server (there are 3rd party caching
API servers available):
JOSM - Edit - Preferences (shortcut: F12) - Connection Settings (World
Icon) - make sure: User the default OSM server URL is checked.

I am happy to help diagnose the error with you.

Regards
 Grant

On 12 September 2013 13:01, Steer ist...@iinet.net.au wrote:
 I'm wondering if I'm striking caching problems with my ISP or my PC.  
 I make changes and upload them with no error messages and close JOSM.  
 I re-open the next day, and my changes aren't there - but they are 
 present in the slippy map.  I re-do them and upload them and get a 
 conflict saying the server version is newer than mine.  I can close 
 JOSM, re-open and re-download, and the server version and my version don't
change.



 I have googled this problem, but it was all a bit above my head.  Does 
 anyone have a solution for this problem they can describe in simple terms
?
 J



 thanks



 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

[talk-au] ISP caching problems with JOSM ?

[Steer]

I'm wondering if I'm striking caching problems with my ISP or my PC.  I make
changes and upload them with no error messages and close JOSM.  I re-open
the next day, and my changes aren't there - but they are present in the
slippy map.  I re-do them and upload them and get a conflict saying the
server version is newer than mine.  I can close JOSM, re-open and
re-download, and the server version and my version don't change. 

 

I have googled this problem, but it was all a bit above my head.  Does
anyone have a solution for this problem they can describe in simple terms ?
J

 

thanks

 

Ian

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

Re: [talk-au] Historical rail lines (Ian Steer)

[Ian Steer]

Surely OSM isn't in the business of producing historical maps?  If so, where
do you stop (ie how old) - do the Europeans map Roman roads ?  It would be
confusing for people trying to use the maps to see a railway line marked,
with no physical evidence of its existence.

Ian

-Original Message-
From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
[mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org] 
Sent: Sunday, 25 November 2012 7:24 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 65, Issue 28

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

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

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

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


Today's Topics:

   1. Historical rail lines (Matt White)
   2. Re: Historical rail lines (Steve Bennett)
   3. Re: Tagging dirt and 4x4 roads - new approach (Steve Bennett)
   4. Re: Tagging dirt and 4x4 roads - new approach (David Bannon)
   5. Re: Historical rail lines (Ian Sergeant)
   6. Re: Historical rail lines (Matt White)


--

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:15:59 +1100
From: Matt White mattwh...@iinet.net.au
To: OSM Australian Talk List talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] Historical rail lines
Message-ID: 50b1b79f.4000...@iinet.net.au
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

A question for the list regarding historical/disused rail lines.

The old inner circle rail line in Melbourne is mapped in OSM, and I'm
unconvinced of it being a good thing. Here's a little bit of it that I can
talk about with some local knowledge of: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.780512lon=144.982887zoom=18layers=M

Given that there is pretty much no trace of the rail line left, why are we
mapping it? It was on the ground 30 years ago, but it certainly isn't now.

(That said, there are some small pieces of the track remaining - where it
crosses Rae St and Brunswick St Nth, two or three 15 metre sections + a set
of points just north of the end of Birkenhead St (including what appears to
be an old rail weighbridge), and a short three metre section in Edinburgh
Gardens, and the old North Carlton station building is still there)

If there are no complaints, I'm going to remove it. It's historical, and
appears on old maps, but does not exist today.

Matt



--

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 20:29:00 +1100
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
To: Matt White mattwh...@iinet.net.au
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Historical rail lines
Message-ID:
CA+z=q=ubdP81a1eLK9vSEc7pZxB7YHbH=7hfyvn-smk34wk...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Hi Matt,
  The question about mapping old, historical features is much wider than
just the Australian context. I'm pretty sure the current consensus is that
we old rail lines should be mapped - even if there is not much to see on the
ground. There might be more than you think - there's a station building (now
a community hall, I think), other things too, perhaps. There are probably
other former railways about with much less to see (the Rosstown Railway
comes to mind) - at least with this one there are physical remnants such as
tracks.

So, yes, I object. Feel free to raise the issue on the main OSM talk list
though.

Steve


On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Matt White mattwh...@iinet.net.au wrote:

 A question for the list regarding historical/disused rail lines.

 The old inner circle rail line in Melbourne is mapped in OSM, and I'm 
 unconvinced of it being a good thing. Here's a little bit of it that I 
 can talk about with some local knowledge of: 
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?** 
 lat=-37.780512lon=144.982887**zoom=18layers=Mhttp://www.openstreet
 map.org/?lat=-37.780512lon=144.982887zoom=18layers=M

 Given that there is pretty much no trace of the rail line left, why 
 are we mapping it? It was on the ground 30 years ago, but it certainly
isn't now.

 (That said, there are some small pieces of the track remaining - where 
 it crosses Rae St and Brunswick St Nth, two or three 15 metre sections 
 + a set of points just north of the end of Birkenhead St (including 
 what appears to be an old rail weighbridge), and a short three metre 
 section in Edinburgh Gardens, and the old North Carlton station 
 building is still there)

 If there are no complaints, I'm going to remove it. It's historical, 
 and appears on old maps, but does not exist today.

 Matt

 __**_
 Talk-au mailing list
 Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 

Re: [talk-au] tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up.

[Ian Steer]

I have been following this topic on a casual basis (ie I don't feel
passionately about it), but I think that what you have written sounds fine.

I guess that you will hear from people that feel passionately against your
views, but those that think that what you have written makes sense might
form the silent majority.

Don't give up - there will always be views at odds with your own.

Maybe all the others that think the proposal makes sense should speak up too
!

regards

Ian



-

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:01:38 +1030
From: David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
To: Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up.
Message-ID:
f9190472150e1a55b5dbc16b6431e4600a9a4...@webmail.internode.on.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8


OK, I have to recognise that my proposed proposal is not attracting any
support. So I will walk away. However, that leaves the problem unsolved and
, I still think, dangerously so.

Are there any alternatives folks ? Should we (ie in Australia) encourage
people to use smoothness= for example ? I hate the tag name and the values
associated with it but maybe its the only game in town ? There are already
considerably more horrible, very_horrible and impassable values set against
smoothness than 4wd_Only? tags and by a considerable factor. It does offer a
degree of fine grain against 4wd_only's 'yes' or not there.

However, (eg) OSM website map ignores smoothness= (unlike tracktype) but
that may be becuse not enough people are complaining about it. But I must
say, I would not feel anywhere near as confident asking renderers about
smoothness= as I would about an extended tracktype=.

Please consider

David,? 



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

Re: [talk-au] traffic lights on dual carriageway intersections

[Steer]

So, Ian Sergeant has presented reasoning why we should not pursue more
complicated schemes for applying traffic lights to intersections of dual
carriageways - fair enough.

 

This brings me back to the incident that triggered me to start this thread:
there are several intersections of dual carriageways in Perth CBD where only
1 of the 4 nodes are marked with traffic lights, and this struck me as
wrong, and hence I asked what was the correct and accepted method.

 

If we are to reject the more complex solution of adding traffic lights one
node back from the interesting nodes (as implemented in Melbourne CBD, and
reasoned against by Ian), surely we should be marking all 4 intersection
nodes as having traffic lights ?? (not just one).

 

what does everyone think ?

 

Ian Steer

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

Re: [talk-au] traffic lights on dual carriageway intersections

[Ian Steer]

 By choosing to place traffic light not on the intersection node, you
are failing to represent that this is an intersection of two roads,
controlled by traffic signals.

I don't see how it is failing to represent that - the intersection is there
(the ways intersect at nodes), and there are traffic signals *before* the
intersection (not smack-bang in the middle of the intersection)


 Instead you are choosing to represent There is a stop line here and
traffic signal and further on there is an intersection.

- but isn't that EXACTLY what we have - a stop line with a traffic signal,
with an intersection further on ?

- and if we were REALLY keen, the same *could* be done for single carriage
way intersections (but I'm not suggesting that that is a sensible option)

Ian


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

[talk-au] traffic lights on dual carriageway intersections

[Steer]

I have been trying to find the accepted practise for mapping traffic lights
where dual carriageways interest.  There is much discussion on various
sites, but most seems to be a bit old, and I'm not convinced I've found what
is the latest accepted practise.

 

I checked some intersections in Melbourne's CBD, and the method I saw that I
liked and thought the best was where there were 4 lights at the
intersection, but they were not placed on the intersecting modes, but one
node back upstream on each way.  I think this is good because no matter
which way you go through the intersection, you only pass one set of lights
(rather than 2 if they were placed on the actual intersecting nodes).

 

Any comments?

 

thanks

 

Ian

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

[talk-au] OSM Australia Garmin downloads have gone bung ?

[Steer]

Has anyone else noticed that the nightly Garmin downloads on OSM Australia
are now only 22 bytes long ?

 

Anybody know how to contact the site administrator (who has been providing
such a valuable service to us all ?  (well - to me at least))

 

regards

 

Ian

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

[talk-au] OSM Australia Garmin download update timing and method

[Steer]

I have been updating OSM in my suburb, and am getting the feeling that while
the Garmin maps on OSM Australia update every night, the changes I make
don't seem to come through for many days.

 

Can someone please explain the process so I know when to start looking for
my updates ?

 

thanks very much

 

Ian

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Flash cookies

[Damian Steer]

On 22 Jun 2011, at 10:54, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:

 Some extra information for the non-Dutch:
 'Recently' is this monday. NL stands for The Netherlands.
 
 Every Dutch IT company is protesting the way this ridiculous law is
 introduced and it has not yet been fully approved yet.
 
 But since Openstreetmap is not a Dutch company I don't see why they
 should adhere to our laws.

It's presumably an implementation of an EU-wide directive. [1]  It's certainly 
an issue with the UK [2][3] and pretty much everyone seems to be unprepared, 
which puts OSM firmly in the mainstream ;-)

Damian

[1] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_Privacy_and_Electronic_Communications
[2] 
http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/library/Privacy_and_electronic/Practical_application/advice_on_the_new_cookies_regulations.pdf
[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13345545

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