Re: [talk-au] Burn area mapping

[Andrew Harvey]

I'm a bit late to this one, but I agree. I don't think it's a good idea to
try and map this kind of temporal information in OSM. I think it's better
done externally to OSM.

On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 17:13, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>  Do we put into OSM the areas burnt from the recent fires?
>
>  These are available from other sources (probably copyright so don't start to 
> use these);
>
> https://www.emsina.org/australianbushfires
>
> http://www.environment.gov.au/fed/catalog/search/resource/downloadData.page?uuid=%7B9ACDCB09-0364-4FE8-9459-2A56C792C743%7D
>
> I think not.
>
> The fires will be history. The effect of the fires will fade as vegetation 
> recovers and we rebuild.
>
> Certainly map razed etc features, but not the area. Already the vegetation is 
> recovering.
>
> Anyone who wants the information can get it from other sources, as in the 
> above examples.
>
> Past fires have not been mapped, I see no reason to start doing it.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Sydney City Tunnels name= vs tunnel:name=

[Andrew Harvey]

There were changes done recently by MS Open Maps team which moved name=* to
tunnel:name=*.

https://osmcha.org/changesets/82675900
https://osmcha.org/changesets/82676173
https://osmcha.org/changesets/82676226

I don't think these have seperate tunnel vs road names unlike some bridges
which do, and in many cases the road name is considered to be the tunnel
name.

Does anyone have thoughts on if we should tag name=* and tunnel:name=* as
the same, omit name= and just add tunnel:name=*?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Duplicate of the same airport

[Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au]

Ok, thank you all for the clarification once again.

I will leave then as is.

Thanks,
Nemanja

Od: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Poslato: sreda, 25. mart 2020. 22:56
Za: Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) 
Cc: Michael James ; OpenStreetMap 

Tema: [EXTERNAL] Re: [talk-au] Duplicate of the same airport

No, I would leave it as 2 separate airfields, with the same info against both.

If that causes a problem, then take the codes off the airbase, as strictly 
speaking, that side of the airfield isn't an air transport destination.

Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 22:10, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
Thank you all for clarification.

Thank you James for more local details.

So by your opinion is it better to have 2 separate airports with duplicated 
data (such as IATA, ICAO, etc.), or to combine into one polygon.
Taking into consideration Cleary's and Andrew's answer I would leave as is, but 
since this is isolated case in AU, and some data will be duplicated, I would 
join two polygons. Don't know what to do. 

Thank you in advance for the response.

Nemanja

-Originalna poruka-
Od: Michael James mailto:mich...@techdrive.com.au>>
Poslato: sreda, 25. mart 2020. 12:21
Za: OpenStreetMap mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>>
Tema: [EXTERNAL] Re: [talk-au] Duplicate of the same airport

It is a military base that allows civilian air traffic to use its runway.

As far as air traffic goes it's called Williamtown, only the civilian terminal 
area is called Newcastle airport. (28 hectares of land)

https://www.newcastleairport.com.au/corporate/about/board-governance

Hope that helps, though no map of that land parcel that they lease for the 
civilian side.

> -Original Message-
> From: cleary mailto:o...@97k.com>>
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 March 2020 6:29 PM
> To: OpenStreetMap 
> mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Duplicate of the same airport
>
>
>
> I think the air force base and civilian airport share the same runway
> but they are two distinct entities with separate buildings etc. Same
> applies in some other cities including Canberra. I would defer to
> someone more knowledgeable but I think it remains appropriate to have two 
> separate entities mapped in OSM.
>
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2020, at 7:06 PM, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > There are two relations in OSM that are referring to the same airport:
> >
> >  * 
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6263052
> >  * 
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4145466
> >
> >
> >
> > The first one has a *aeroway:aerodrome* tag, the second one has a
> > *military:airfield* tag.
> >
> >
> > I’m not sure should I merge these two relations since there are some
> > sporadic differences for the same tag in both relations. Please, I
> > need an extra hand on this.
> >
> >
> > This is an isolated case in whole Australia.
> >
> >
> > Thank you in advance,
> >
> > Nemanja
> >
> > ___
> > 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