Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
Steve Bennett wrote: > Absolutely we should. Routes like that appear on maps. For example, > there's a part of the Overland Track where John Chapman publishes an > alternative route around Lake St Clair. There's no track, and his map > uses a different kind of line to indicate "route" rather than "track". But is it a wilderness area, where route markers are prohibited? > Any route that we publish would probably have long straight line > sections, so the paths that actual walkers would follow would vary > significantly from that anyway, depending on local vegetation etc. They'd obviously gravitate towards the route showing on the GPS in their hand. Now if only we could include an area as part of a route. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
Steve Bennett wrote: > I think a little intuition can be a very dangerous thing. Remember, > the name "national walking route" is a UK term, reflecting a > particular way of administering trails by their government. > Essentially I think we can treat these four levels as just four levels > of significance to assign as we please, just as we have > "highway=primary,secondary,tertiary". Then our intuitions differ. Call it our "thinking" if you prefer that term. Our own government's way of splitting up the country works just fine with the OSM definitions. For me, the demarcation problem is largely solved. NWNs (of which there are two that I'm aware of) are clearly distinguished from RWNs. Otherwise, what distinguishes a NWR from a RWN is a grey area indeed. And any attempt to define what's what by fiat necessarily has a lot of arbitrariness about it. > The rule about crossing a state boundary...well, that will almost > never happen. Same with bike paths, our state boundaries are all in > the middle of nowhere. So that's just not useful. I think it is useful. We're used to it with road networks, with national routes and state routes. Sure, hiking trails are shorter, but that doesn't mean it's unworkable. > I originally put the Overland track as a RWN, then switched to NWN. > One consequence of this it is shows up at lower zoom levels on > lonvia's hiking map. Since there are so few long distance hiking > trails in Australia (compared to, say, central europe), we should > (IMHO) be fairly liberal with the higher designations, as there is no > danger of overcrowding the map. I'm not going to say anything about tagging for the r... (oops, nearly did). I am, of course, prepared to be voted down. I too am just putting my opinion into the debate. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:49 AM, John Smith wrote: > Speak for yourself, the Qld/NSW border along the coast is fairly > heavily populated, although this is the exception not the rule I > guess. Thank you for that insightful, helpful and utterly relevant contribution to this conversation, which was really worth everyone's time reading. Thanks to this contribution, the thread was improved, and the signal-noise ratio of the entire mailing list was improved substantially. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
On 24 February 2010 09:33, Steve Bennett wrote: > The rule about crossing a state boundary...well, that will almost > never happen. Same with bike paths, our state boundaries are all in > the middle of nowhere. So that's just not useful. Speak for yourself, the Qld/NSW border along the coast is fairly heavily populated, although this is the exception not the rule I guess. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] admin boundaries on garmin
I have found the admin boundaries (suburbs were giving me the most grief) are really misleading for navigation too, particularly on smaller screens as Liz mentioned. I prefer to grab the ones from here osmaustralia.org as I don't have time to build my own. So when he does fix it, it will be appreciated. Maybe he could filter out private pools while he is at it. :-) Cheers, Greg On 24 February 2010 10:25, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 8:57 AM, wrote: > > I used my garmin oregon 550 in the car on the way to Canberra yesterday. > > Messed up a bit because i hadn't put a routable map on it, so had Navit > on > > the netbook on the passengers seat to assist me. > > However I noted that the OSM map on the Garmin clearly shows the admin > > boundaries with names - I was seeing the postcode or suburb boundaries > > (not sure which). Not helpful overall on a small screen. > > Anyone else got any comments (do we change our admin boundaries or deal > > with mkgmap) > > This isn't so much a Garmin issue as an issue in how you convert OSM > to Garmin. Presumably you're downloading the converted maps from > http://osmaustralia.org/downloads.php . Now, I've talked to Matt White > about that issue (and a few others - notably buildings don't render), > and he knows and agrees, and has sent me the relevant files to fix, > but neither of us has had the time to do anything about it. I'm very > interested in improving this stuff, but just can't find the time atm. > > Anyway, try giving Matt a buzz (m...@osmaustralia.org) and maybe he can > help. > > Steve > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:46 PM, John Henderson wrote: > I forgot about the Australian Alps Walking Track, which is national, > spanning significant distances in both NSW and Vic. Yeah, it goes from Walhalla to Canberra, about 650km. By comparison, one version of the Camino de Santiago is 800km. The long-distance European walking paths seem to range from about 3-10,000km. So the AAWT would be a shortish international walking path, or a long national one. > > But part of that track goes through wilderness areas, where track markers > aren't permitted. Should we be even mapping those sections, thereby helping > create an erosion/"localised overuse" threat? Absolutely we should. Routes like that appear on maps. For example, there's a part of the Overland Track where John Chapman publishes an alternative route around Lake St Clair. There's no track, and his map uses a different kind of line to indicate "route" rather than "track". Any route that we publish would probably have long straight line sections, so the paths that actual walkers would follow would vary significantly from that anyway, depending on local vegetation etc. > I also think that many shorter routes don't warrant a route relation, mainly > because they can be adequately represented by a single way. The growing trend is that renderers treat route relations as "more significant" than mere ways. And I'm not sure your statement is true anyway - a single bridge, set of steps or even change in surface (eg, gravel to dirt) would need the way to be split to be fully mapped. > And many short routes that do warrant a route relation certainly aren't > significant enough to warrant a "lwn" tag. Yeah, probably. How can we define "significant" though? The fact that renderers assign zoom levels to them is actually sort of a good starting point: is a route significant enough to know about when you're viewing a) a country b) a state c) a region d) a national park e) a locality within a national park f) a campsite. IMHO, the overland, the AAWT, the lara pinta etc all easily satisfy a). A trail like the Pinnacle Walk (roughly 4 hours return iirc) in the Grampians will satisfy d) but probably not c). A short interpretive walk may satisfy e) but struggle to meet d). It all depends how many other trails there are at that level, how close they are, etc. (Just thinking out loud here a bit, I'm not committed to any of this.) Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:29 PM, John Henderson wrote: > I agree that we don't have international hiking routes (IWN) in Australia. > > I thought it intuitive that a national route (NWN) would cross a state > border and be a significantly long walk. Basically, that's the Bicentennial > National Trail. I think a little intuition can be a very dangerous thing. Remember, the name "national walking route" is a UK term, reflecting a particular way of administering trails by their government. Essentially I think we can treat these four levels as just four levels of significance to assign as we please, just as we have "highway=primary,secondary,tertiary". The rule about crossing a state boundary...well, that will almost never happen. Same with bike paths, our state boundaries are all in the middle of nowhere. So that's just not useful. > > Regional routes (RWN) would then be walks within a state, and be significant > within that state. These would include: > > Bibbulmun Track (WA) > Cape to Cape Track (WA) > Great North Walk (NSW) > Great Ocean Walk (Vic) > Great South West Walk (Vic) > Heysen Trail (SA) > Hume & Hovell Walking Track (NSW) > Larapinta Trail (NT) > Overland Track (Tas) I originally put the Overland track as a RWN, then switched to NWN. One consequence of this it is shows up at lower zoom levels on lonvia's hiking map. Since there are so few long distance hiking trails in Australia (compared to, say, central europe), we should (IMHO) be fairly liberal with the higher designations, as there is no danger of overcrowding the map. > If a region is a state, then I'll agree that we have some big regions in > Aus. Yer, much bigger than most European countries. >That's balanced by our lower population, and hiking route, density > compared with Europe. Yep, arguments for greater use of NWN etc. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] admin boundaries on garmin
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 8:57 AM, wrote: > I used my garmin oregon 550 in the car on the way to Canberra yesterday. > Messed up a bit because i hadn't put a routable map on it, so had Navit on > the netbook on the passengers seat to assist me. > However I noted that the OSM map on the Garmin clearly shows the admin > boundaries with names - I was seeing the postcode or suburb boundaries > (not sure which). Not helpful overall on a small screen. > Anyone else got any comments (do we change our admin boundaries or deal > with mkgmap) This isn't so much a Garmin issue as an issue in how you convert OSM to Garmin. Presumably you're downloading the converted maps from http://osmaustralia.org/downloads.php . Now, I've talked to Matt White about that issue (and a few others - notably buildings don't render), and he knows and agrees, and has sent me the relevant files to fix, but neither of us has had the time to do anything about it. I'm very interested in improving this stuff, but just can't find the time atm. Anyway, try giving Matt a buzz (m...@osmaustralia.org) and maybe he can help. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] admin boundaries on garmin
ed...@billiau.net wrote: > I used my garmin oregon 550 in the car on the way to Canberra yesterday. > Messed up a bit because i hadn't put a routable map on it, so had Navit on > the netbook on the passengers seat to assist me. > However I noted that the OSM map on the Garmin clearly shows the admin > boundaries with names - I was seeing the postcode or suburb boundaries > (not sure which). Not helpful overall on a small screen. > Anyone else got any comments (do we change our admin boundaries or deal > with mkgmap) One of the reasons I make my own Garmin maps is to suppress all admin boundaries. Many times in the early days I found myself driving an unmapped road which was also an admin boundary, and didn't log that section as a gpx file because I mistook the boundary display for a highway. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] admin boundaries on garmin
I don't think we should be changing the boundaries, otherwise we end running around trying to satisfy a whole bunch of different apps cheers On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 8:57 AM, wrote: > I used my garmin oregon 550 in the car on the way to Canberra yesterday. > Messed up a bit because i hadn't put a routable map on it, so had Navit on > the netbook on the passengers seat to assist me. > However I noted that the OSM map on the Garmin clearly shows the admin > boundaries with names - I was seeing the postcode or suburb boundaries > (not sure which). Not helpful overall on a small screen. > Anyone else got any comments (do we change our admin boundaries or deal > with mkgmap) > Liz > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > -- Franc ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] admin boundaries on garmin
I used my garmin oregon 550 in the car on the way to Canberra yesterday. Messed up a bit because i hadn't put a routable map on it, so had Navit on the netbook on the passengers seat to assist me. However I noted that the OSM map on the Garmin clearly shows the admin boundaries with names - I was seeing the postcode or suburb boundaries (not sure which). Not helpful overall on a small screen. Anyone else got any comments (do we change our admin boundaries or deal with mkgmap) Liz ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Opening hours
On 24 February 2010 07:42, Roy Wallace wrote: > That's a little strange. I would have thought instead > opening_hours=Jul We[-1] 09:00-17:00. But as long as it's described > clearly on the wiki, it's fine. It's common to PHP at least, as someone said on the tagging list, it's not really human readable, it's nerd readable and I have a programming background *shrug* > A school zone has "opening_hours"? Also, opening_hours:maxspeed seems > a little unintuitive, but I don't have a better solution. I couldn't think of anything better either, but as long as it's documented and becomes common usage the editors can hide this sort of thing behind more intuative dialog boxes at some point. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Opening hours
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 3:59 PM, John Smith wrote: > > Third sunday of the month, from 9 until 12 can be tagged as: > opening_hours=Su[3] 09:00-12:00 > > Sunday markets on the 1st, 3rd and 5th Sundays of the month: > opening_hours=Su[1,3,5] 06:00-12:00 These are good. > Last Wednesday in July: opening_hours=Aug We[-1] 09:00-17:00 That's a little strange. I would have thought instead opening_hours=Jul We[-1] 09:00-17:00. But as long as it's described clearly on the wiki, it's fine. > The following could be used to describe hours of operation of a school zone: > > opening_hours=Mo-Fr 08:00-09:00,14:00-15:00; SH off > opening_hours:maxspeed=40 > > Or something to that effect. A school zone has "opening_hours"? Also, opening_hours:maxspeed seems a little unintuitive, but I don't have a better solution. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] GA national park and state forest datasource - been discussed before?
I've been poking around for Qld National parks and State Forests info to allow me to bring the data in from DCDB, and came across this CC licenced dataset at GA which I hadn't seen referenced on the wiki or the mailing list before: Geoscience Australia - Land Tenure 2003 CC licenced dataset of Land Tenure, National Parks, State Forests (or equivalent) etc: * http://www.ga.gov.au/meta/ANZCW0703005424.html * https://www.ga.gov.au/products/servlet/controller?event=GEOCAT_DETAILS&catno=42340 This is good stuff right? The state forests and national parks would be nice to import? I've added it as a potential datasource to this page of the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Imports#Geoscience_Australia_-_Land_Tenure Features included in dataset: ---Polygon Aboriginal reserve over 100km2 Aboriginal freehold over 100km2 Aboriginal leasehold over 100km2 Defence land Forest reserve Freehold land other than Aboriginal land Leasehold land other than Aboriginal land Marine reserve Mining reserve Multiple public land parcels Aboriginal freehold-national park Nature conservation reserve Other Crown land Unallocated area of ocean Vacant crown land Water supply reserve ---Point Aboriginal reserve 0.1 to 10km2 Aboriginal reserve 10 to 100km2 Aboriginal freehold 0.1 to 10km2 Aboriginal freehold 10 to 100km2 Aboriginal leasehold 0.1 to 10km2 Aboriginal leasehold 10 to 100km2 ---Chain Coastline of Australia Reserve boundary State borders Tile edge Cheers, Chris ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] local chapter stuff
On 24 February 2010 07:14, Henk Hoff wrote: > - Foundation may (!) check on the books etc in order to check whether the LC > is not doing anything that could hurt the name and fame of OSM or the > Foundation. Assuming that is legal to do so, I'm yet to see anything close to formal legal advice in relation to Australian and non-profit privacy laws etc. At most you are only allowed to divulge this information to other members of the legal entity, that is unless OSM-F is planning to become a member of the LCs. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] local chapter stuff
Guys, It may be good to give also an update on the whole chapters thingy on this mailing list. First: the draft agreement you've been referring to is of the table. We had a good discussion within the OSMF board about the organizational structure of the Foundation. We concluded that this agreement did not fit nicely into our thoughts of where we're heading with the Foundation. So what are we working on now. Some highlights: - LC is a separate entity and has it's own membership scheme. - LC members are not official members of the Foundation (and can therefore not vote on Foundation matters) - LC is basically the representative of OSM in it's country/region - Foundation is official publisher of the OSM database and licensee of the data - Foundation may (!) check on the books etc in order to check whether the LC is not doing anything that could hurt the name and fame of OSM or the Foundation. - LC may use the name and logo of OSM Hope this gives some clarity on the current situation with Local Chapters. Cheers, Henk Hoff OpenStreetMap Foundation 2010/2/20 John Smith > On 20 February 2010 12:47, Liz wrote: > > I wrote a note about this draft, decided it could be libellous and > haven't > > posted it publically. > > It's only libelous if unfounded... > > > I'll merely say that if they are the terms, I wouldn't be able to join > the > > local chapter. > > This is why I've decided to pursue a local entity, rather than a local > chapter, I wouldn't join one either. > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Layers for landuse (Was: tennis court land)
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 17:16 +1100, Luke Woolley wrote: > Mainly because I normally give landuses a -3 layer and for things that > sit just above or directly on the ground I give the next layer up. > Probably doesn't need it, but it will do no harm being there. Until someone decides to map underground sewers or tunnels and gives them a layer=-1, then the tunnel is below everything at ground level and above anything less than -1. >From the wiki[1]: >> Especially do not use it in these circumstances: >> * Do not tag areas like landuse, natural etc. with a layer. David [1] wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] License to OSM
There has been a number of people reporting that they have been stoped and questioned and/or had a gun pointed at them due to their activities associated with OSM. Same thing happens to Geocachers and a solution they came up with was to produce license like documents to help explain their presence. http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/1008/geocachinglicencetempla.png It might be a good idea, plus give people the warm and fuzzies, if we did something similar for OSMers. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
On 23 February 2010 20:09, John Henderson wrote: > That's very unlike the OSM situation, where the resolution allows an > exactly identical path to be taken every time. If there is a lot of tree cover GPS will experince the same issue as well. > If they're not confident, or travelling in a small or inexperienced > party, they should be carrying a PLB/EPIRB. Since when has common sense gotten people stuck up on mountains in extreme weather without proper equipment? :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
John Smith wrote: > On 23 February 2010 19:46, John Henderson wrote: >> But part of that track goes through wilderness areas, where track >> markers aren't permitted. Should we be even mapping those sections, >> thereby helping create an erosion/"localised overuse" threat? > > Are they marked on official maps, or at least maps easily accessible > to those likely to use those walking tracks? Yes, some. But in extremely low resolution so that any two parties are most unlikely to pick the same exact route. That's very unlike the OSM situation, where the resolution allows an exactly identical path to be taken every time. >From a life threatening/emergency worker point of view, having them > mapped could mean they potentially save a life. If they're not confident, or travelling in a small or inexperienced party, they should be carrying a PLB/EPIRB. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
On 23 February 2010 19:46, John Henderson wrote: > But part of that track goes through wilderness areas, where track > markers aren't permitted. Should we be even mapping those sections, > thereby helping create an erosion/"localised overuse" threat? Are they marked on official maps, or at least maps easily accessible to those likely to use those walking tracks? >From a life threatening/emergency worker point of view, having them mapped could mean they potentially save a life. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
Steve Bennett wrote: > Not too important yet, but it would certainly be good to get all > walking tracks using route relations, and to be roughly consistent > about what is IWN/NWN/RWN/LWN. Some further thoughts on this: I forgot about the Australian Alps Walking Track, which is national, spanning significant distances in both NSW and Vic. But part of that track goes through wilderness areas, where track markers aren't permitted. Should we be even mapping those sections, thereby helping create an erosion/"localised overuse" threat? I also think that many shorter routes don't warrant a route relation, mainly because they can be adequately represented by a single way. And many short routes that do warrant a route relation certainly aren't significant enough to warrant a "lwn" tag. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Duplicate node finder
Great to see the hero and villian list. I can see the 'duplicate way' finder being the logical extension given the number of duplicate nodes I found to be the result of complete way/building/landuse duplication. Jeff. Re: [talk-au] Duplicate node finder Tuesday, 23 February 2010 4:11:06 PM From: "John Smith" To: "OSM Australian Talk List" There is a hero and villian list, of people removing/adding duplicate nodes since the dup node site went up: http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/dupe_nodes/heroes.html___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
Steve Bennett wrote: > Not too important yet, but it would certainly be good to get all > walking tracks using route relations, and to be roughly consistent > about what is IWN/NWN/RWN/LWN. I agree that we don't have international hiking routes (IWN) in Australia. I thought it intuitive that a national route (NWN) would cross a state border and be a significantly long walk. Basically, that's the Bicentennial National Trail. Regional routes (RWN) would then be walks within a state, and be significant within that state. These would include: Bibbulmun Track (WA) Cape to Cape Track (WA) Great North Walk (NSW) Great Ocean Walk (Vic) Great South West Walk (Vic) Heysen Trail (SA) Hume & Hovell Walking Track (NSW) Larapinta Trail (NT) Overland Track (Tas) Then local routes would include shorter walks like the collection of Misty Mountains walks in northern Queensland. The OSM tagging guidelines for hiking routes aren't especially helpful, but seem to me to suggest the above scheme. "Specify the network as an international route, a national route, a regional route, or a local route." If a region is a state, then I'll agree that we have some big regions in Aus. That's balanced by our lower population, and hiking route, density compared with Europe. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Opening hours
On 23 February 2010 18:47, John Henderson wrote: >> Last Wednesday in July: opening_hours=Aug We[-1] 09:00-17:00 > > I don't know Java syntax, but the above looks like it's lifted straight > from Python. It was suggested by someone based on ical/vcal format. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Opening hours
John Smith wrote: > For the benefit of those not on the tagging list there has been a > solution to my problem of how to tag opening hours for things like > "third sunday of the month" and even how to tag school zones. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Aopening_hours&diff=428825&oldid=426434 > > Third sunday of the month, from 9 until 12 can be tagged as: > opening_hours=Su[3] 09:00-12:00 > > Sunday markets on the 1st, 3rd and 5th Sundays of the month: > opening_hours=Su[1,3,5] 06:00-12:00 > > Last Wednesday in July: opening_hours=Aug We[-1] 09:00-17:00 I don't know Java syntax, but the above looks like it's lifted straight from Python. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
