Re: [talk-au] Head or point on non-coastal land
On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 at 08:15, Tom Brennan wrote: > > natural=point only has some ~400 uses world wide, no wiki page so .. low > > uses = no rendering. Choosing one of the additional tags will get > > rendering .. but it should be appropriate to the feature not just > > 'tagging for the render' > > So from a long term perspective, is it better to just keep marking them > as "natural=point", and once there is a critical mass, pushing for > rendering? I'm not really clear on whether tags are supposed to be > defined first, or if it's just based on use. > > I'm not particularly fussed about whether or not they are rendered in > the map. Rather, I'd like to see them in the data, in the most > appropriate way. > Agreed, natural=point seems good. You can just start using the tag, though is good if we can at some point create a wiki page, even better if we can push it through a tagging proposal. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Head or point on non-coastal land
On 26/07/2022 5:27 pm, Warin wrote: I have done a few of these along the Gross Valley. In many cases there is a peak and I have taken the view that the 'head' is the top of the peak. I did have a look at those. In general I would disagree with the 'head' being the top of the peak, based on Geographic Names Board info. Most of the heads are designated as "BLUFF", which suggests that the named point is where the cliff edge or steepening starts, rather than the peak. The exception was Edgeworth David Head, which is designated as "MOUNTAIN" But marking them as peaks does obviously help with the rendering! natural=point only has some ~400 uses world wide, no wiki page so .. low uses = no rendering. Choosing one of the additional tags will get rendering .. but it should be appropriate to the feature not just 'tagging for the render' So from a long term perspective, is it better to just keep marking them as "natural=point", and once there is a critical mass, pushing for rendering? I'm not really clear on whether tags are supposed to be defined first, or if it's just based on use. I'm not particularly fussed about whether or not they are rendered in the map. Rather, I'd like to see them in the data, in the most appropriate way. Interestingly, it seems to be a showdown between NSW and Somalia as to who has the most "points" :) cheers Tom Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping "secret" facilities?
Jul 27, 2022, 10:40 by stevea...@softworkers.com: > On Jul 27, 2022, at 1:02 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 27/7/22 17:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote: >> >>> is it clearly signposted as cannabis factory farm at its location? >>> > > I sincerely doubt this would ever happen, but if it did, you can bet their > security is much, much better than any bad intentions you might have. BTW, > “mapping” (per se, as we do in OSM), is not a “bad intention.” (I’d say it’s > a GOOD intention). > Mapping secret location of shelter for women / men who are victims of spousal abuse or Christian place of worship in Saudi Arabia would be almost certainly a bad idea. Though if this cannabis growers publish aerial view of own locations then this "secret" is likely more of branding and promotion. (though maybe someone may want to let them know about this inconsistency) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping "secret" facilities?
On 27/7/22 17:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote: If something is not really verifiable at location (anonymous note may be lying!) It's more amusing than that. They left the blinds open and put up the Bat Signal: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jul/21/pink-sky-mildura-victoria-australia-medicinal-cannabis-marijuana-plant The site is so "secret" you can view any number of aerial obliques on their website to figure out where it is: https://www.canngrouplimited.com/facilities ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping "secret" facilities?
On Jul 27, 2022, at 1:02 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27/7/22 17:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote: >> is it clearly signposted as cannabis factory farm at its location? I sincerely doubt this would ever happen, but if it did, you can bet their security is much, much better than any bad intentions you might have. BTW, “mapping” (per se, as we do in OSM), is not a “bad intention.” (I’d say it’s a GOOD intention). > No. A friend of mine went past such a farm on a back road... and was pulled > over for questioning.. just for going past. There are no signs nor any > publicity about there existence. They don't want people to know as as to stop > some people coming by to take some of the crop. If the “farm back road” were private, I can see a landowner / their agent being able to do this or something like it to trespass you. If the road were public, only police could “pull you over for questioning,” and besides, this is bullshit, as you had committed no crime or traffic infraction. Who cares if “they don't want people to know”? There is a farm there: map it. I don’t follow Warin’s story about what his friend did or what happened; something doesn’t sound right about that. > Simply map it as farm land. The crop may change .. e.g. crop rotation. You could. But if it weren’t posted, but, say, you personally know of it otherwise, and it is verifiable (perhaps you could look in local records to find a business license or something like that), you could still map it. It feels like there is a lot that isn’t being said here. Graeme put “secret” in quotes, but there really isn’t such a thing when it comes to mapping, am I not correct? If YOU know "something is right here,” and it is verifiable, there aren’t any secrets. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping "secret" facilities?
On 27/7/22 17:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote: is it clearly signposted as cannabis factory farm at its location? No. A friend of mine went past such a farm on a back road... and was pulled over for questioning.. just for going past. There are no signs nor any publicity about there existence. They don't want people to know as as to stop some people coming by to take some of the crop. Simply map it as farm land. The crop may change .. e.g. crop rotation. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping "secret" facilities?
is it clearly signposted as cannabis factory farm at its location? If yes, then mapping it likely would be fine. If it is clearly signposted but it is not verifiable by survey then some more generic tagging should be fine. If something is not really verifiable at location (anonymous note may be lying!) then it is not really mappable (there are rare exceptions, for example for borders but they do not apply here) Jul 27, 2022, 02:31 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > Have just spotted a Note where an anonymous user has given company name & > address details for a Medicinal Cannabis plant. > > Checking to confirm details & found a news article that said, yes, the plant > is near Mildura, but "Due to the nature of its business, however, it has a > secret location and isn’t open to the public." > > The company involved doesn't have the plant address listed on it's website. > > Should we map it? > > Thanks > > Graeme > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
