Re: [talk-au] farm airstrips
Considering there's also a "hanger" there that doesn't seem to be visible on any aerial imagery I just checked, I'm in favour of deleting it. It just doesn't seem to actually exist, and I question where the name came from. --- Thanks, Andrew Welch m...@andrewwelch.net On 29/04/2024 5:34 pm, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, the DWG was contacted by the owner of some farmland about an aerodrome=airport that was mapped on their property and which they would like to have removed since it was not a published airstrip and while they occasionally used it for take-offs and landings they don't want ir promoted. My standard response in cases like this would be "I can mark it access=private but if something is clearly there, I cannot remove it." I have checked with aerial imagery though and there is absolutely nothing on the aerial imagery that would set this "airstrip" apart from the neighbouring grassland. Yes it looks like I could land a plane there, but I could also land a plane the next field over, or a little bit further east or west - it all looks the same. I assume that there might be a clue locally like a windsock or so, but other than that, nothing. I'd therefore be tempted to delete the airstrip from OSM. Opinions about that? Here's the area: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-38.3681/145.3901 Bye Frederik___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] SA House Numbers
Hi Bryce, Of those datasets, the City of Adelaide one appears to be the only one containing house numbers with some kind of geographical reference, so it's got some potential for an import if someone has the time to go through it. The roads dataset doesn't include house numbers, and the Playford Property Database doesn't have any kind of coordinates so there'd be no way to import those for adding house numbers. I've been using StreetComplete and Every Door on mobile phones to help with mapping house numbers for any buildings drawn into OSM near me while walking, otherwise the best way to help out is just going to be going out and surveying house numbers. Tools like Field Papers could be helpful for this to let you print out a map, write down house numbers as you go, and then bring it back into an editor to add as address nodes in OSM. --- Thanks, Andrew Welch m...@andrewwelch.net On 24/04/2024 9:13 am, Bryce wrote: Hi All, I'm new(ish) to OSM and want to contribute house numbers for South Australia. None exist and it makes it hard to use mobile apps that use OSM data (there are work arounds). OSM only has street names for SA. What format or data is needed? Where do I send it? As a starting point, Data SA has some available data such as: * https://data.sa.gov.au/data/dataset/property-database/resource/f45bd7d0-720d-4206-81c6-2f979a61e674 * https://data.sa.gov.au/data/dataset/property-boundaries * https://data.sa.gov.au/data/dataset/roads Not sure where to go from here. Thanks ___ 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] Mass Edit Proposal - South Australia's Arterial Traffic Network
While the original was closed, a new (and identical) post has been made in the forums: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mass-edit-proposal-south-australias-road-network/110095 Thanks, Andrew Welch m...@andrewwelch.net On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 19:55, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 3/3/24 23:19, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 3/3/24 09:13, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > >> Can't be stuffed registering to add comments on that thread. > > > > Please do. > > That thread is now closed... 'personal attacks'. > > > I don't think the gov data will have 'all roads' ... some of them are > 'private' but still present in OSM. > > > There is considerable variation between what people think is a > particular road classification is. Having said that .. most people are > not too worried about the variation as outback road conditions change so > much with traffic and weather. > > > ___ > 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] Mass Edit Proposal - South Australia's Arterial Traffic Network
It's only occurring again because he's been told that changing roads to DataSA classifications will result in further blocks. And yeah, as Daniel has said, this is a pointless edit that offers no real improvements, and realistically seems like an attempt for one mapper to continue mapping the way they want to, as per previous efforts. The data exists elsewhere in a very usable format, so it's not as if it's helping to put together some kind of dataset that doesn't yet exist, and I don't see it being used by any current or future data consumer outside of some kind of academic/research oriented output (which I would expect would take DataSA's dataset over us). Thanks, Andrew Welch m...@andrewwelch.net On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 at 18:52, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > Sigh, here we go again. > > Can't be stuffed registering to add comments on that thread. > > This proposal goes against the "map what's on the ground" principles that > countless others have surveyed or made good faith judgement calls on. > > I am unclear why we are still attempting to have any conversation about > this: previous efforts to map in the style proposed were to the point we > considered it nearly vandalism. > This only slightly changes the approach. I have no faith this materially > improves the map. > > I don't want to be out on a bike ride and find misclassified tracks > cutting across private property from armchair mapping. I don't want to go > for a drive and end up routed down things that aren't residential streets > because a ghost record of a road that was never built is marked as > residential in a rural council's data set. > > And most specifically for this dataset, I don't want trucks going down > what is at most a highway tertiary but is officially a highway secondary or > similar based on someone who *isn't in the government* trying to push a > government dataset as gospel, ignoring mapping efforts that have preceded > it. > > > > > On Sun, Mar 3, 2024, 6:05 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick > wrote: > >> Please have a look at >> https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mass-edit-proposal-south-australias-arterial-traffic-network/110006/2 >> & comment if you wish. >> >> NB I am only posting this to get the word out, the proposal has nothing >> at all to do with me! >> >> 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
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
I have to disagree with the first part of that. OSM is designed as somewhere where you can map pretty much anything that exists, as long as it can be verified. Part of the reason why we want them to map the way we map is because it shows clearly that while there is a path there, it is informal (so downstream users shouldn't treat it as a path) and usually considered private property (again, so downstream users shouldn't use it as a path). Tagging it that way also stops someone mapping from aerial imagery, previous GPS tracks, and other sources, from going and adding it back in. It's part of the reason why access tagging and lifecycle prefixes exist, to allow those features to be in the OSM database, but still reflect their status so downstream users can correctly represent those features. I'd absolutely love for us to work with more government and non-government organisations to not only make it easier for us to build a more complete map, but to help them reflect information regarding their respective areas as accurately as possible, but that involves both sides working together, not just making changes and telling us how to use our database. The reverts only happen because they're wrong edits by our standards. We want them to edit and contribute in a way that allows them to correctly represent the status of their parks, and ensures that as a collaborative project, we don't go and continue to add in bad data unintentionally. Thanks, Andrew Welch m...@andrewwelch.net On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 22:13, Adam Steer wrote: > 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
I think we have tried to reach out directly in the past but I could be wrong. Communication is 100% the issue, and not for lack of trying. If anyone does have contacts within NPWS or is willing to try and reach out to get a discussion going, it definitely would be worth a shot. Even if it's just to organise some way for one or two of us to sit down with them or jump on a call with them to explain that we want their contributions towards OSM, but there's a right and wrong way to do it, and even just help them to understand how downstream sources use our data is out of our control, that'll hopefully be enough to at least keep both us and them happy. If we're lucky it might even open some doors for us to work with them further and improve OSM further. Thanks, Andrew Welch m...@andrewwelch.net On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 21:41, wrote: > Thanks Adam, well put. > > There are two groups, both trying to be of service to the wider > community. The mappers trying to build better maps and land managers > trying to protect and manage public land well. > > If a land manager sees mappers not respecting their decisions about > managing public land, they will see it as vandalism. If mappers see > Parks deleting map data, they will see that as vandalism too. > > The problem is that there is very little communication between the two > groups. Partly because Parks people are overworked and time poor, at > least in Victoria which I know best. Also because consensus management > and public forums are an unfamiliar form of management for Parks. They > are looking for the person in charge and confidential discussions. > > The paths include high stakes stuff, some trivial, but also tracks > that may lure people over cliffs and environmental damage that may > last forever. We are doing better at communicating than the land > managers are at the moment. That is good. I am glad to be part of this > group which is so patient and so responsible. I want us to keep being > responsible and keep listening. > > And I again invite the land managers to engage with us in discussion, > here or another place of their choice. It is a serious issue that will > only be resolved through discussion. > > Tony > > > 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 < > graemefi...@gmail.com> > >> 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, 2
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
Frederik basically covers what I was trying to say, the edits go against how we map in OSM, and repeated attempts to work with them just haven't worked yet. OSM does not belong to NPWS, they can't just go deleting things like it's their own GIS system. If they have better things to do, then they should stop continuing the edit wars and work with us. We've asked them to edit using our agreed-upon ways, but that only happened for the first time this week after their deletions were immediately reverted. This isn't something that's been going on for a week or two, it's been several months. If they want to help OSM reflect the true status of these tracks, they need to respect how OSM works. We want to work with them, and have been trying to. It's really up to them to come to the table at this point. Thanks, Andrew Welch m...@andrewwelch.net On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 21:12, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 29/02/2024 11:20, Adam Steer wrote: > > Wait ... does the OSM community seriously want to call public land > > managers vandals for attempting to manage access to parts of public land > > effectively? > > You're right that in the strict sense of the word you'd only use it for > someone who damages OSM without gaining anything themselves. > > But deleting tracks that exist on the ground clearly *is* damaging OSM, > so if you want to avoid the "v-word" then at the very least you should > say: These people are willfully damaging OSM in pursuing their own goals. > > And if you repeatedly damage OSM, then we'll kick you out. No matter if > you're Joe Random, or the Emperor of China. > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > 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
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
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
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
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
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
I think it might also be important to state that OSM is a database, so if consumers aren’t rendering tracks properly if tagged as such, the issue is with them not us, and that what they are doing can be considered as vandalism by mappers. We have ways to reflect the current state, and ensure that mappers unaware of these discussions won’t go ahead and re-add the trails. Thanks, Andrew Welch m...@andrewwelch.net On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 3:45 pm, Mark Pulley wrote: > I’ve just had another private message from Stephen Stenberg: > > I had replied privately: > > Prior to reversion, we had been discussing this for several months at the > talk-au mailing list. I had delayed the reversion as I was of the > understanding that someone from NPWS was about to join the discussion, but > that did not eventuate. > For reasons discussed on some of the previous changesets, and on the > mailing list, there should be something present. I’ve added a comment to my > changeset regarding a couple of suitable changes, and have sent a note back > to the mailing list for further discussion. > > I had also added a comment to the most recent changeset. > > He has replied to me: > > I hope this message finds you well. Several months ago, you were informed > about the decision to exclude certain paths near Apsley Falls Campground > from OpenStreetMap. Despite clear communication from the NSW National Parks > and Wildlife Service (NPWS) stating that these tracks, at their request, > have been removed, it appears there is a persistent effort to reintroduce > them. > It is important to emphasize that these paths are situated on NPWS land, > and as part of their management strategy, NPWS no longer wishes for these > paths to be displayed. Reinstating these pathways not only contradicts NPWS > wishes but also requires additional work hours from their end to rectify > the situation. > It is crucial to understand that NPWS has already dedicated resources to > remove these paths, and by reapplying them, it creates unnecessary > challenges. I urge you to respect NPWS’s decision and refrain from adding > these paths back onto OpenStreetMap. > Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated and will contribute > to the effective management of the area. > Thank you for your understanding. > > I have replied back, requesting that he either make comments on the > changeset, or discuss on the mailing list, rather than send private > messages, as I don’t want to be passing messages back and forth. (Thanks > to tonyf1 who has made the same suggestion on the changeset.) > > Mark P. > > On 20 Feb 2024, at 2:13 pm, Mark Pulley wrote: > > I’ve just received a private message from Stephen Stenberg (who had > deleted these last time): > > Contrary to your statement, the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service > has officially closed the track. > “Reasons for reversion: This is still visible on the ground (checked by > myself 30 November 2023) The track is not formally closed.” > Kindly refrain from reinstating this track, as doing so will necessitate > its removal once again by NPWS. > > So far the track hasn’t been deleted again. > I had asked on one of the older changesets about whether this had been > officially closed - didn’t get an answer to that, only "These tracks per > our request have been removed. Please do not add them back on." > It’s a shame that NPWS hadn’t bothered to join the discussion on here. > I’ve added a comment to my reversion changeset, suggesting access=no > (rather than deleting outright). Any relevant comments there are welcome! > > Mark P. > > On 13 Feb 2024, at 11:17 pm, Mark Pulley wrote: > > Done. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147406352 > > Mark P. > > > ___ > 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] Question about using NSW Speed Zone Data in OSM
Bottom of the Speed Zones page has a link to CC-BY 4.0, so it’s okay only if we have a waiver for not being able to directly attribute them. There’s one for DataSA on the wiki as an example. Thanks, Andrew Welch m...@andrewwelch.net On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 at 9:01 pm, Mark Pulley wrote: > Does the NSW Government Speed Zone data have a licence suitable for > importing into OSM? Also, is it generally accurate? > https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/speed-zones > > https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/road-segment-data-from-datansw > > The reason I ask is that I recently came across a few roads with speed > zones updated based on this data. The biggest problem is that the changes > made in these three changesets were incorrect (i.e. the previously surveyed > maxspeeds were updated from this data, but on survey in December 2023 the > original surveyed maxspeed was the correct one). > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129760120 > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129759614 > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129759603 > > Other changesets have been made based on this data, but I haven’t checked > the accuracy of them. > > Mark P. > > ___ > 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] Proposed automated edit - note removal in South Australia
Hi all, I'd like to propose an automated edit to remove a misleading note previously mass added to all ways tagged highway=trunk in South Australia. There is a forum post for any discussion/feedback at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/automated-edit-to-remove-note-on-highway-trunk-in-sa/108612, and the Wiki page for the automated edit is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits/Fortera/Note_on_South_Australian_highway%3Dtrunk Thanks, Andrew Welch m...@andrewwelch.net ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
