Re: [talk-au] admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?
Speaking from personal experience as only one participant over many years (between say, 2012 with some agreement in 2015 and some refinement 2020) in a big country with a lot of states and dozens of their idiosyncrasies, getting admin_level values "right" can be a true, multi-year-long wrangle to get these "more or less correct by wide agreement" in any given country. Keep up the dialog, it can only get better. Although, there are circumstances where it simply breaks down (in the USA, there is a "concurrent sovereignty" with aboriginal boundaries that isn't really mathematically / geographically / geometrically accurately capture-able with admin_level, so it isn't perfect and likely never will be). A "do our best" approach (in any given country, admin_level=2, down to the 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 levels) often has to go right down to the "here's what we do here, at this relatively-medium-low-level, and that's how it is" and OSM does its best to accurately fit that into the country-wide scheme (via wide agreement among that country's region's mappers). Tables with state-by-state entries can help, expect lots of footnotes as in [1], although, [2] is a "novice-friendlier" version. There are places where OSM agrees with and mimics what our USA Census Bureau does, there are places where it doesn't, though the reasons OSM does that (and where) are explained clearly in our wiki. That helps, too. Local knowledge is good here. Wide agreement is good here. Some edges where minor disagreement happens is likely inevitable, but I think Australia can "largely get this correct" even down to the neighborhood level (10). It takes years, it takes a great deal of dialog. It can be hard to say "how done it is." [1] www.osm.org/wiki/United_States_admin_level [2] www.osm.org/wiki/United_States/Boundaries ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?
On 8/4/22 21:57, Dian Ågesson wrote: Hey Andrew, I don’t believe anything was decided with regards to ACT districts. However, after looking into the details I don’t think they actually fit in the administration boundary set up at all; seems closer to parishes/counties on other states than a “council” or locality. I was going to suggest that they get moved to admin_level 5 which could be also used for counties in other states (that still have them). Otherwise no problem with getting rid of level 7 and moving suburbs to 9. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Queensland railway stations
Thanks Richard, we'll check them out. Thanks Graeme On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 02:29, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Hi folks, > > There appear to be a _lot_ of bogus rail stations on the map in Queensland: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=11/-21.0650/148.8397=T > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/-23.5706/150.1838=T > > I think these are historic halts that haven't had service for many years > but have mistakenly been added. They mostly seem to have been mapped by > TheOldMiner who hasn't been active for four years. > > Any rail enthusiasts or Queenslanders on this list who fancy cleaning them > up? > > cheers > Richard > ___ > 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 bicycle on footpath laws Was: Re: HighRouleur edits
I am not local, but just my two cents: I agree with Andrew that such specific state-wide rules (or exceptions to the rules) should be tagged as a single regional default, and highway features should have generic tags (unless there are relevant signage and routes, obviously), especially since those rules might change in the future. The data consumers not using the data how it should be used shouldn't force us to create a big maintenance overhead. Cheers On 8/4/22 19:05, Andy Townsend wrote: On 08/04/2022 06:31, Andrew Harvey wrote: On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 14:53, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 12:50, Andrew Harvey wrote: I think this is getting too much into mapping regulations, we could just have no bicycle tag and leave it to data consumers to apply the regional defaults. What would that do to bike routing? Well your router would need to look up the specific default whether that's something in the routing engine configuration, pulled from the OSM wiki, or pulled from the Victoria state relation def:* tags. Which, practically speaking, will never happen. In OSM terms, that's very much "on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of The Leopard'"** Best Regards, Andy ** Douglas Adams, of course. ___ 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] JOSM multipolygon how-to?
On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 18:44, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Just try things out, control+Z to undo the last command .. you can even > press it a few times to go back a bit further. > Oh yes, ctrl+Z has had lot's of use! :-) Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] JOSM multipolygon how-to?
To be sure everyone reading knows, JOSM's buffer has amazing undo capacity, I believe "all the way back to the beginning of the session." And there's the fact you can edit, edit, play with things all day and night long, then you simply do not upload to the OSM servers (and into the fabric of our map). That's a delightfully clear boundary and when you decide you DO want to upload your changes, JOSM wraps doing that up quite nicely (with the way it prompts for changeset comments, et cetera). Good editor, JOSM. I can't like it enough! (Meaning I'm crazy-enthusiastic for it). OSM data structures nutshell: there are nodes, ways, closed ways (polygons) and relations. Relations can be routes, boundaries, multipolygons, special_econonmic_zones, aboriginal_lands...these values are around 18 and they are all slightly different, with different rules about what's on the role tags and similar but pretty simple stuff. Keep all that straight (it does take practice) and you've technically mastered writing data into OSM (at a volunteer Contributor level). There's more to mastering OSM than that, but such technical mastery is a great start and even a pretty tall perch from which to further survey the OSM landscape. It's a bit like "I can fly." Have fun mapping, everybody. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging bicycle on footpath laws Was: Re: HighRouleur edits
> (Personally I do have a whole bunch of country, state and even > county-specific adaptions for cycle.travel's routing, but I'm very aware > that I'm the outlier. And I've never even heard of "def:*" tags.) > For example https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316593 has def:highway=footway;access:bicycle=no best documentation I could find was https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Defaults so not a very well developed tag but is in use in some places. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?
Hey Andrew, I don't believe anything was decided with regards to ACT districts. However, after looking into the details I don't think they actually fit in the administration boundary set up at all; seems closer to parishes/counties on other states than a "council" or locality. Dian On 2022-04-08 02:47, Andrew Harvey wrote: On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 09:33, Dian Ågesson wrote: Hey all, Resurrecting this thread to see if there are any objections to implementing the following changes as part of the cleanup: -Removing admin_level=7 Was there a resolution for Andrew Davidson's comment about ACT districts being admin_level=7? What's the resolution for the other existing items tagged admin_level=7 Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide, etc.? I think these aren't sufficiently administrative boundaries so we could remove the admin_level, boundary tags and replace type=boundary with type=multipolygon? -Moving localities to admin_level=9 I'm happy with this.___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging bicycle on footpath laws Was: Re: HighRouleur edits
Andrew Harvey wrote: > Well your router would need to look up the specific default whether > that's something in the routing engine configuration, pulled from > the OSM wiki, or pulled from the Victoria state relation def:* tags. With the best will in the world, that's not going to happen. I can point you to a well-known bike routing app that has 75+ employees, was backed by a government funding office to the tune of seven figures, and has an install base of millions, and yet it still gets path access across the UK very very wrong because (basically) it applies German defaults. So the idea that every single router is going to write state-specific processing is unrealistic, I'm afraid, whatever you think _should_ happen. (Personally I do have a whole bunch of country, state and even county-specific adaptions for cycle.travel's routing, but I'm very aware that I'm the outlier. And I've never even heard of "def:*" tags.) Richard ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging bicycle on footpath laws Was: Re: HighRouleur edits
On 08/04/2022 06:31, Andrew Harvey wrote: On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 14:53, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 12:50, Andrew Harvey wrote: I think this is getting too much into mapping regulations, we could just have no bicycle tag and leave it to data consumers to apply the regional defaults. What would that do to bike routing? Well your router would need to look up the specific default whether that's something in the routing engine configuration, pulled from the OSM wiki, or pulled from the Victoria state relation def:* tags. Which, practically speaking, will never happen. In OSM terms, that's very much "on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of The Leopard'"** Best Regards, Andy ** Douglas Adams, of course. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] JOSM multipolygon how-to?
The complete download for the coastline of Australia takes ages. The India Pacific train line takes a little less. That is why only 'parts of interest' are downloads automatically - save time and load on the servers. The great thing about computers is you can play with them, provided you don't save, upload, etc the results, you and the computer won't suffer. Just try things out, control+Z to undo the last command .. you can even press it a few times to go back a bit further. On 8/4/22 16:21, Luke Stewart wrote: Hi Graeme, Having downloaded the full relation, the boundary is completely closed and there is nothing wrong with it. It's simply a warning to say that JOSM has not downloaded the whole relation. Unless you right-click > Download members, JOSM only has the tags of the relation and the members within the bounding box that you downloaded. Cheers, Luke On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 15:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 15:36, Andrew Harvey wrote: It means JOSM hasn't downloaded all the member ways, in one of the panels on the right showing the relation, right clicking download incomplete members will fetch them all. Ah, so everything is in fact actually OK, it's just not showing up properly, right now? Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bicycle access tags in Victoria was HighRouleur edits
I am not across the arguments, nor am I local so I cannot asses them. So I will not hazard a 'guess'. Highway=path/footway/sidewalk can all have the same tags so the differences are perceptions as to what the main tag is. That perception is up to the render not the tag nor the mapper. When I first queered the difference between 'path' and 'footway' I was told something about defaults in the UK being different for them and so rather than add tags to all of these ways they chose to have 'paths' with one set of defaults and 'footways' with another set of defaults. In Australia 'footways' were for use in urban areas .. and 'paths' for country areas. highway=cycleway again can be tagged the same as the others and again relies on the perception of the render. Most people would thin that bicycles have some preference here possibly by a larger width, no steps and a paved surface. Return to 'pedantic mode'? NSW has similar exceptions to bicycles riding on the foot path as the Victorian exceptions. The tag bicycle=no allows for the bicycle to be pushed (but not ridden) or carried, at least that is the 'conscientious'. On 7/4/22 18:40, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: Thanks Warin, pedantic mode is appreciated, but what position do you support? Presumably leave a path as a path and do not change it to a footway? Tony Bicycles are allowed on footpaths in Victoria  . . . if rider has a medical or other exemption allowing them to ride on the footpath if the rider is 12 or under if the rider is accompanying a rider entitled too as above if the rider has a child in a child bike seat, or pedaling on a hitch bike https://www.racv.com.au/on-the-road/driving-maintenance/road-safety/road-rules/bicycle-riders.html Anyone want to tag all that? On 7/4/22 17:14, Andrew Harvey wrote: Hi Tony and Sebastian, There's a lot to take in here, but it does look like both of you care deeply about cycle mapping in Melbourne and working with the best intentions to make OSM data as accurate and complete as possible. You're both engaging in discussion of the actual changes so to me everything I see is happening in good faith. From a DWG perspective it doesn't appear there is any malice here. Though there is clearly some disagreement about how certain things should be mapped even when you both have a common agreement of what's on the ground. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions provides some useful definitions of bicycle access tags, personally in my view we should be using bicycle=designated where clearly signposted for bicycles weather that is by paint or signage bicycle=no where there is clear no bicycles signage In the case of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/671174716 it does appear to me to be ambiguous, so perhaps the best is exactly how it's currently mapped without a bicycle tag at all? That said, if there is a signposted bicycle route which takes you through that way I think that should be enough to give it implied bicycle access, therefore bicycle=yes. Is there a wider community view about this? On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 16:20, wrote: Hi Sebastian Thanks for participating in this discussion. You say "Hence by definition in Victoria, bikes aren't explicitly permitted without signage". This is the area where we disagree and I believe you are out of step with the consensus. There are many places where bikes are implicitly permitted without signage. I believe that your retagging, just on the absence of signage is unjustified. The DWG position is that the result could be right or wrong because of other indications which one would need a site inspection to find. You say "Your approach doesn't follow the on the ground rule, as you insist on disputing map updates that are based what's on the ground or lack there of. Any other mapper can visit and verify that there is no signage and SHOULD come to the same conclusion". Again, we disagree and I believe my position is the consensus view, if there is no signage other mappers might come to the same conclusion or to the opposite. I disagree with your reasoning. I think it is a misinterpretation of what is on the ground, that doesn't mean that my approach doesn't follow the on the ground rule. Thanks Tony > Tony > > I don?t understand why you have taken it upon yourself to have to > verify other edits. > > OSM data relies on being verifiable. > You and I recently both visited the same area / way, as I made a > correction to incorrect data from a previous mapper. The Mapillary > data you provided as part of the visit did not provide conclusive > evidence that the way is a cycle/shared path due to a lack of > signage. Hence by definition in Victoria, bikes aren?t explicitly > permitted without signage. > Your approach doesn?t follow the on the ground
Re: [talk-au] JOSM multipolygon how-to?
Hi Graeme, Having downloaded the full relation, the boundary is completely closed and there is nothing wrong with it. It's simply a warning to say that JOSM has not downloaded the whole relation. Unless you right-click > Download members, JOSM only has the tags of the relation and the members within the bounding box that you downloaded. Cheers, Luke On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 15:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 15:36, Andrew Harvey > wrote: > >> >> It means JOSM hasn't downloaded all the member ways, in one of the panels >> on the right showing the relation, right clicking download incomplete >> members will fetch them all. >> > > Ah, so everything is in fact actually OK, it's just not showing up > properly, right now? > > 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
