Re: [talk-au] Question about using NSW Speed Zone Data in OSM

[Bob Cameron]

Hi Mark

Although not anywhere conclusive I made a Mapillary capture outbound on 
Woore Street Wilcannia 5/2022 that shows what are likely to be the dual 
50/100 transition signs (smudges) well before the changeset. Might be 
useful..


Bob

On 19/2/24 20:19, Mark Pulley wrote:
I haven’t done any reversions yet. I was planning to start from the 
oldest changeset and work forwards, however the oldest changesets 
don’s specify a source. I’ve asked about a couple of these including:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117791362 - first changeset - 
on outskirts of Wilcannia

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117831384 - outskirts of Old Junee

Both of these are claimed to be from information provided by ’someone’ 
who had travelled on those roads. I’ve just asked for more info 
regarding the source of this information.


I also queried a couple of recent edits from 'local information and 
NSW Speed Data’:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147432769 - western edge of 
Kempsey from 'local information and NSW Speed Data’ - also from 
’someone’ who had travelled on those roads.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/146881278 - private driveway 
near Brooms Head from 'local information’ - I had previously surveyed 
this maxspeed, and recent Google imagery showed the same limit. No 
reply regarding this one.


How should I (or we) approach this? Will I need to check available 
imagery for every changeset? Should I go ahead and revert the NSW 
Speed Data ones?


Mark P.

On 12 Feb 2024, at 2:45 pm, Andrew Harvey  
wrote:


No objections from me. They haven't responded yet, and from 
everything we can tell they imported the data without any other cross 
checks and didn't follow the import guidelines.


On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 at 22:00, Mark Pulley  wrote:

I’ve got some spare time (having caught up with the surveys from
my last holidays), so I can go through these and revert them. Any
objections?

Mark P.


On 9 Feb 2024, at 9:57 am, Andrew Harvey
 wrote:

We do have permissions to use this data it's listed in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources#New_South_Wales,
however from looking at their changeset history, it looks like

1. They are conducting an import by en-mass blindly adding and
replacing existing data with the imported data
2. They may be engaging in directed mapping (being employed to
make these changes), since their changesets are all the same,
importing speed limits, except for one Local Knowledge changeset
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131210459 in India.

If they want to conduct an import like this, they need to go
through the proper process, so based on and the issues you've
rased it should be fine to revert all their affected changes and
then ask going forward to go through the import guidelines
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import_guidelines.


On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 at 21:32, 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 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___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Nowra bridge help

[Bob Cameron]

Correct!

On 15/12/23 12:49, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Bob

So the western bridge is now northbound & the "middle" bridge is south?

Thanks

Graeme


On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 at 08:06, Bob Cameron  wrote:

Wonder if someone might fix this one. Don't want to stuff it up

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=17/-34.86388/150.60252

The main crossing over the Shoalhaven River on Princes Hwy

The eastern/old span is no longer in use and gated at the northern
end.
Both "new" spans are in use one way each way 3 lanes each. My (not
overly useful) 11/12/23 southbound Mapillary imagery hasn't merged
yet.
Typically that may take another week. No overhead imagery is current.

I can dig up all the 1FPS 4K photos I have if anyone wants them.

Tnx, Bob


___
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] Nowra bridge help

[Bob Cameron]

Wonder if someone might fix this one. Don't want to stuff it up

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=17/-34.86388/150.60252

The main crossing over the Shoalhaven River on Princes Hwy

The eastern/old span is no longer in use and gated at the northern end. 
Both "new" spans are in use one way each way 3 lanes each. My (not 
overly useful) 11/12/23 southbound Mapillary imagery hasn't merged yet. 
Typically that may take another week. No overhead imagery is current.


I can dig up all the 1FPS 4K photos I have if anyone wants them.

Tnx, Bob


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Maranda or Maranoa Road

[Bob Cameron]

Hi Nev

The Mapillary imagery at the eastern end at Carnarvon Hwy;

https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/bob3bob3?lat=-27.124729889167=149.06543468617=17%5B%5D=bob3bob3=2018-12-01=894202007803486=photo=0.7498372203522408=0.5576487643887181=2.5378590078328984

https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/bob3bob3?lat=-27.124956401538=149.06555451822=17%5B%5D=bob3bob3=2018-12-01=536970883983415=photo=0.5062349898034363=0.4869555951651467=0

The Mapillary interface is far more usable than the tiny OSM-ID window,

Says Maranoa. Maranoa is also the name of a large Qld river and LGA 
centred on Roma.


Pls tell me if the above links work or not. It may get messed up with my 
login name..


Cheers

On 11/12/23 14:02, Nev W wrote:

Thanks Graeme. Will correct it soon.
Nev

On 11 Dec 2023, at 12:49 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
 wrote:


Qld Geocoder says Maranoa



___
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] Overpass question

[Bob Cameron]

Thanks Andrew

Finally got around to trying this, works a treat!

Will also create a POI for the Garmin so I can be alerted if I drive 
past a parking area with data lacking. ie same way I can action fix-me's 
(with a verbal/recorded/georef'd remark). Handy to also be able to 
ignore objects that are data complete.


Cheers

On 17/10/23 18:04, Andrew Davidson wrote:
On 17/10/23 04:58, Bob Cameron wrote:> Ways only? Because the output 
data/list format is different. Nodes

are arranged by objects per co-ordinate, whereas ways are by an ID
that includes a nodes list, with a separate co-ordinate lookup table
for those nodes. My entire workflow is co-ordinate based, Bing etc
overhead, geoencoded ground level photos, plus an audio/voice
annotation, so I need a list of objects by that key. On top of that I
use simple tools to filter the list for specific tags, most often
informal=* being missing.


Don't recurse down from your search results "(._;>;);", rather use out 
center; eg: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1C3T This will return a lat 
and lon that is the centre of the bounding box (which will mostly be 
OK except for the usual doughnut and snake cases).


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Overpass question

[Bob Cameron]

On 16/10/23 20:55, Warin wrote:


No expert ...

Question: why only get the node when you can have the whole thing? I 
think that just adds complexity?
Ways only? Because the output data/list format is different. Nodes are 
arranged by objects per co-ordinate, whereas ways are by an ID that 
includes a nodes list, with a separate co-ordinate lookup table for 
those nodes. My entire workflow is co-ordinate based, Bing etc overhead, 
geoencoded ground level photos, plus an audio/voice annotation, so I 
need a list of objects by that key. On top of that I use simple tools to 
filter the list for specific tags, most often informal=* being missing.



Me? I'd simply get all of it .. For a way (closed or open)

[out:xml][timeout:90][bbox:{{bbox}}];
(
  way(user:"bobC")["amenity"="parking"];
);
(._;>;);
out meta;

For relations - replace 'way' with 'relation' ...


Replace 'bobC' with the user name that you want..



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Overpass question

[Bob Cameron]

A question for an overpass expert.

I am cleaning up a lot of the parking tags I have created so they follow 
the same rules etc. I have successfully generated a text list of nodes 
where I can cut/paste the co-ords into the ID editor to research/fix as 
needed. This was done with a gpsbabel command line on the exported gpx 
into unicsv.


Way/area tags are not so simple. gpsbbel yields zero output. Is there 
function in overpass that will just extract the first node of the way, 
or possibly the centre co-ords of the polygon? That will be good enough 
to get me close enough.


Tnx


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Filling in blank space (Was Re: Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size)

[Bob Cameron]

A lady served me a burger and coffee at Windorah Roadhouse. I think I 
remember the supermarket also had some limited fast food. I had a sit 
down feed at the pub in a prior visit.


Was eaten alive by mozzies at Stonehenge (Qld) pub. The visitors centre 
there (also a RTC and small supermarket) did coffee and cake. Last visit 
there was a fly-in RFDS clinic in progress. Their plane was parked at 
the airstrip.


Stayed at the Stonehenge farm (stay) in Vic near Bruthen. There is an 
odd sight of 2 vans and a station wagon stacked on an inverted "U" frame 
there.


I use Healthdirect for occasional hospital/chemist lookups. Activity on 
FB walls is a far more accurate measure of other major use current 
services. There is a lot of old data out there and dated references are 
sorely needed. I have tagged a few RFDS clinic sites.


I tend to do mass data filterings in my head rather than rely on a 
summary spiel. I seriously think that presenting summary info as an OSM 
object is not a good idea and should be left to the data consumer to 
calculate for a given area. A population qty tag would be one of inputs. 
The concept of (size/services) hamlets, towns etc might even be dropped? 
IMO of course!


On 1/10/23 21:16, Warin wrote:


Most useful to most, most of the time? Pubs? Source of refreshments 
and information. Maybe there should be a tag for pub population?


Windorah has one. Is the blind fellow still serving in the petrol 
station?


Only one Pub in Stonehenge .. Queensland. The one in Tassie is a farm 
.. no pubs etc.



Today medical services are scares. Might even have to list the regular 
RFDS visits as being useful to some. Easier to find wielders .. the 
bigger outback stations have them, oil/gas fields have mobile ones.



I did have to look up Birdun Northern Territory, most of the others 
I've either been to or been past at some time. Somewhere I have a tee 
shirt from Rabbit Flat (no longer there) and Giles (no longer allowed 
to sell them)...




___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Filling in blank space (Was Re: Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size)

[Bob Cameron]

To be honest Graeme I look at key services specific to my need. Kind of 
like a weighted value that only applies to me. The use of a macro label 
hamlet, village, town are kind of too open ended. Population does 
roughly track with services so I tend to use that as  rough start, but 
never a decision.


I would actually rate the local mobile phone signal/bandwidth as the 
most important service. 


The problem is how to define what is most useful for the end data 
consumer that doesn't want to line up the details for comparison. How 
does one define "most useful" that suits most? (This having been 
mentioned in prior posts)


Bob

On 1/10/23 17:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Good to hear from you, Bob.

As somebody who spends a lot of time out in remote places, what's your 
thoughts on the concept?


Thanks

Graeme


On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 at 15:45, Bob Cameron  wrote:

I managed (to buy) a coffee in Windorah two years ago.. That has
to count for something..

They have spent a lot on the campsite too. Newish amenities and
hot showers for $5/n in 5/21.

Cheers Bob

On 1/10/23 10:31, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Oh look - Windorah is there, so it must be important after all! :-)

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

Re: [talk-au] Filling in blank space (Was Re: Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size)

[Bob Cameron]

I managed (to buy) a coffee in Windorah two years ago..  That has to 
count for something..


They have spent a lot on the campsite too. Newish amenities and hot 
showers for $5/n in 5/21.


Cheers Bob

On 1/10/23 10:31, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Oh look - Windorah is there, so it must be important after all! :-)

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] New MapRoulette Challenges - Add Highways & Isolated

[Bob Cameron]

Just a thought Salim

You might like to add street imagery and GPS tracks based on that as an 
extra data source. This has a date stamp that much of the overhead 
imagery does not.


Cheers Bob

On 17/3/23 02:55, Salim Baidoun wrote:


Hello Australia community,

We are releasing a challenge refill (Australia - Add Highways - 
Queensland :) that 
includes Brisbane and surrounding areas, plus (Australia - Add 
Highways - New South Wales 
) & (Australia - 
Isolated Highways - Queensland 
), in which our team 
has conducted a spatial analysis internally to indicate potential 
issues in the OSM map.


The GitHub 
 page: 
and challenge description contain information that may help you 
resolve the tasks, but please don't hesitate to contact me if you have 
any questions, remarks, or concerns.


Have a wonderful time and Happy Editing!

Salim A. Baidoun / Community & Partnerships - Global / Community 
Engagement



___
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 Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears"

[Bob Cameron]

Some Mapillary "data rich" slow vehicle locations. (ie for 
checking/testing sign recognition)


- Dorrigo mountain - Waterfall Way. (Just west/north of Thora) NSW
- Bendemeer to Moonbi - New England Hwy NSW
- Black Mountain south - New England Hwy NSW

On 22/1/23 15:01, Andrew Harvey wrote:


Would anyone like me to create a mapillary challenge so we can tag
a few of these examples?


Looks like Mapillary does detect some of this signage, under signs 
"Trucks rollover" and "Steep descent", a MapRoulette challenge would 
be a great idea.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Links in Australian_Data_Sources - Western Australia

[Bob Cameron]

Dian?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources

Just noticed that some of the Main Roads links for WA are coming up 404. 
eg Speed Limits, Speed Zones, Control of Access & Road Stopping Places. 
Some still work. I did not check them all.


I get the impression that searching of the catalogue online is also 
missing these (I was looking for rest areas)


Also - using 
https://portal-mainroads.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets..(long link for 
rest areas kml) comes up with an API error. I would guess it is trying 
to access the same data endpoint.



Cheers


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Dogleg Drive Warialda NSW - Restricted vehicle Road Route.

[Bob Cameron]

I wonder if someone with better knowledge on primary etc 
routes/relations/sources might tackle this.


Was in Warialda NSW recently and noted that the HGV bypass barrier (east 
of town) near the washdown facility has been removed, but didn't think 
to check the formal route from there north. I know from various lookups 
that this is an approved RMS restricted vehicle route, so I assume the 
project has been complete. The "old" route (relation Road Route T4) down 
the main street also now has "no stock crate vehicles" signs, so there 
is proof another way is being used.


I have left the entire way with FixMe's, asphalt and minor/unclassified.

Would appreciate if someone in the know could fix/update this correctly.

Tnx


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging fire stations

[Bob Cameron]

Hi Y'all. (So lived in Texas in a past life..)

Possibly also worth noting

- Many a rural/remote site has an ill defined block boundary. Some are 
tucked in corners of rec reserves and some are even on private land. 
(which affects road access tags)


- Naming (on signs etc) may be problematic. Service vs Brigade vs 
Station for example. ie is it a concern that using the name from an 
allowed database contras what locals use. To add confusion I have seen a 
crop of fairly new buildings with "official" signage, but the existing 
(still in use) sheds (now with a 2nd appliance) retain the old.


Cheers, Bob

On 10/10/22 16:49, Phil Wyatt wrote:


Hi Folks,

Well I am not too sure that the correct tagging of buildings is 
applied at all in Australia as I can only see about 200 uses of 
building:use=* in all of Oz! Seems most folks use the building tag to 
denote current use rather than initial construction intention. I am 
sure there are more than 200 building adaptations across the country.


I could think of several building in my state that have had second or 
third lives from the original intention and none have building:use 
tagging and there must be 10,000’s across the country. I also 
understand that the fire station tagging will likely be much harder in 
cities than in rural areas where most will be a shed on a block 
somewhere. Also the more recent trend of combining fire, ambulance and 
maybe SES is also something that sort of hinders a ‘generic’ standard 
approach but nodes really help for each of these functions across a 
single site with combined building use.


I am inclined to think that the gold standard for a standalone fire 
station would be


  * amenity=fire_station for the block of land on which it stands
  * operator, wikidata etc and all other details on the block rather
than the building
  * combined with building=fire_station (if built specifically) or
building:use=fire_station if its known that it was built for
another purpose

Sample – standalone = https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1102488871

and the gold standard for a combined facility

  * amenity=emergency_service on the block (no tagging for the 
renderer by using amenity=fire_station!)
  * building tags of building=government (if not specific buildings
for each service)
  * nodes for each service if there are not specific buildings
dedicated to each service and include all the operator, wikidate
etc on these nodes
  * If specific buildings then tag the buildings (operator, wikidata
etc) instead of individual nodes

Sample – separate buildings = https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1102327375

Sample – combined buildings = https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1102321688

More thoughts?

Cheers - Phil

*From:*Mark Rattigan 
*Sent:* Monday, 10 October 2022 10:24 AM
*To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org
*Cc:* p...@wyatt-family.com
*Subject:* Re: Tagging fire stations

Hi Phil

I suspect that 'cleaning-up' these tags would require local knowledge 
for each location, and is certainly not as clean-cut as making sure 
that either one or the other is used.


There are cases when only the building tag should be used, and some 
when only the amenity tag should be used. And others when both are 
appropriate.


The building tag is intended for the original purpose of the building 
- ie, built as/to be a fire station. A historical/defunct fire station 
is still tagged as building=fire_station, even when it's no longer in 
use as such. (The same philosophy applies to building=church, even 
when it's no longer a place of worship)


The amenity=fire_station indicates a location from which fire brigades 
(currently) operate.


For example, the DFES Education and Heritage Centre in Perth could be 
tagged as building=fire_station because that was its original purpose 
- it was originally No. 1 Fire Station. It couldn't be 
amenity=fire_station as it's not used as a fire station.


There are also plenty of minor RFS brigades which operate out of 
buildings that weren't originally built to be fire stations.


As for the amenity and whether it's an area or a point - it could 
possibly depend on whether the facility is solely for a fire brigade.


For example, my local emergency service building houses all of Police, 
Ambulance, Fire, RFS and SES. It seems to have the following tags:


For the building (perhaps this is incorrect though!)

building=government

amenity=fire_station

Within this building there are separate nodes:

1: emergency=ambulance_station (for Ambulance)

2: amenity=fire_station (for RFS)

3: amenity=emergency_service and emergency=ses_station (for SES)

4: amenity=police

(I thought there used to be a node tagged amenity=fire_station for
Fire, but it's no-longer.)

Cheers

Mark

Message: 4

Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2022 20:10:15 +1100

From: "Phil Wyatt" 

To: "OSM-Au" 
Subject: [talk-au] Next tagging clean up project
Message-ID: 

[talk-au] OSM Attribution Q

[Bob Cameron]

I likely have this wrong, but worth a question.

Looking at petrolspy.com.au website for Theodore Qld and note that the 
sport and rec ground shows a remarkable similarity to the 
changes/updates I did 10 months ago, right down to the service road loop 
around the RV dump. In addition the petrolspy map has copied the 
campsite rather than the reserve name.


There is no attribution I can see, but the site does have Google ads. 
The contact domain (email) is MX'd to Google.


The Google map is nothing like the petrolspy one...

The mobile/phone app seems to not have OSM data as the roads are named 
St, Rd. etc


Thoughts? Worth contacting them?

Cheers Bob


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Adding river crossings to Guidelines "road quality / 4wd-only"?

[Bob Cameron]

I'd like to see some ford node vs way and culvert detail Dian. Took me a 
while to understand it all, so may help a newbie.


eg a section of road (as a ford way - often concrete) has to be joined 
to the crossing stream. If there is a "low water level" pipe/culvert 
that is an additional tunnel.


And not just accept the ID editor suggestion of a node ford

Bob

On 10/8/22 12:25, Dian Ågesson wrote:


Hey Graeme,

The 4WD_only tags and track types are already documented on the roads 
subpage of the Tagging Guidelines. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads



Do you think we should be adding detail for fords specifically?




___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Adding river crossings to Guidelines "road quality / 4wd-only"?

[Bob Cameron]

The Gregory River Doomadgee Road crossing near Tirranna Springs Qld has 
a "not on foot" warning sign as the water over the causeway runs very 
fast. Hard to know if it's a legal direction though.


On 10/8/22 20:58, Adam Steer wrote:
A little note to the discussion - the foot/ animal traffic modes = no 
are crocodile related, right?





___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Well I bought an L1/L5 Mouse GPS

[Bob Cameron]

One of the cross checks I do is to use a bidirectional Mapillary track 
layer. I'd suggest fairly good for road centering in open places (ie no 
phase delay GPS reflections). No good for non covered cross street 
positioning of course.


Bob

On 23/6/22 11:45, Alex Sims wrote:


Hi,

I’ve now got a relatively (<$100 + postage) Mouse GPS. It is amazingly 
accurate. That’s the good news.


Now I can see a whole bunch of streets, buildings etc out by 1-5 
meters as **some** features were traced without correcting the image 
offset. Also found my cheap GPS and an OSX machine are not a great 
combination. GPSD gets confused and ends up with mojibake most times. 
Virtual serial port is fine in screen, QGIS etc.


Still fun

Alex


___
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 suggestions please - parking formal vs informal

[Bob Cameron]

Thanks all for your ideas (sorry a bit slow)

Going for major use of "informal", making sure that there is a way route 
to/through "surface" features, stopping bays and super small LV stops as 
"laybys" and a stock(ish) description for uncommon situations. Also 
adding capacity:hgv based on a drive in/out 20x4m block.


I also add the presence (or not) of a rubbish bin!

What makes a park formal being signage or obvious ground/area works. The 
distinction is sometimes a bit grey.


Will be a one by one fix of my past efforts!

Cheers

On 20/4/22 18:32, Bob Cameron wrote:

Only about regional areas, not urban

There are well used informal parks everywhere. Many used by trucks as 
rest areas. Some are tiny, some are huge, some are gravel pits, some 
are the NHVR green dot things.. Some councils even setup bins in them.


I'd like a way to tag any informal area. No extra tag would imply 
formal (signs)


Something like;

source:parking=sign (the blank default)
source:parking=informal
source:parking=stockpile (Possibly with the stockpile number in 
description=)

source:parking=nhvr

These informals are all about judgement and evidence of use.

Non standard examples. Will any existing tags cover them?

Tnxs



___
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] Country homesteads?

[Bob Cameron]

Hi Phil

Well they are all scattered plus/minus the road I travelled/captured on 
in the last week or two.


Tnx

On 27/4/22 17:44, Phil Wyatt wrote:

Hi Bob,

I have changed all the South Australian locations for you. I checked a few
random locations and they all looked to be placed within a farm type cluster
of buildings.

If anyone spots any problems - let me know. I will move to other states in
the next few days

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1hZS

Cheers - Phil




___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Country homesteads?

[Bob Cameron]

So I'll ask some assistance from a mass edit guru here...

I'd like to change all my own landuse:farm nodes to place:farm, leaving 
all child keys as they are. Since I only use ID is there anyone can help 
do this? Does it require any kind of formal control?


Oh and I have found that DCS base and topo is sometimes dated with 
station/farm names, so much so that I include a fixme to that effect if 
I use it as single data source. That way I get to wander down remote 
farm roads (re)checking on the mailbox signs!



On 22/4/22 18:34, cleary wrote:

Generally, I would suggest a node at the hub of the farm (usually in the 
vicinity of the main residence)
place=farm
name=*
operator=*

--snip--


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Country homesteads?

[Bob Cameron]

Remote areas and larger farms generally have been troubling me too 
Graeme. I make no distinction about numbers of people, just a 
landuse=farm node. (so I copied a very prolific mapper!) Recently I 
noted that landuse:farm has been deprecated and to use landuse:farmland, 
but that complains about being a node. There is no easy way to define a 
farm boundary. I think in terms of the mailbox, driveway and largest 
concentration of activity being the node centre.


And the name is the farm name, not the house name.. maybe!

Remote cattle stations can support an extended family (in more than one 
homestead) and other many onsite (staff) people. Are the working farm 
staff include in any people sizing calculations? ouch!


Personally I don't think it a good idea to tag a farm that creates 
commercial income with any notion of the number of people. It gets a bit 
blurry when it is an unusual group like a religious order or non profit 
retreat, but they already have other tags.


Cheers Bob

On 22/4/22 14:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Also bringing discussion out here from Discord.

An anonymous user is hitting Notes with quite a few entries yesterday 
to say that remote homesteads are incorrectly tagged as hamlets eg 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3145380 
, but looking at this 
particular place 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?node=1829712552#map=17/-21.96106/148.80882 
, 
I'd say that "hamlet" was probably correct in that there could well be 
a couple of families living there?


Other suggestions that have been made are place=isolated_dwelling or 
place=farm.


Bit of a grey area, I guess? Isolated-dwelling says 1-2 families only, 
hamlet says 100-200 people, while place=farm says "a family of 
farmers". Guess it really depends on the particular property involved, 
which would require detailed local knowledge?


Thoughts?

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] Tagging suggestions please - parking formal vs informal

[Bob Cameron]

Only about regional areas, not urban

There are well used informal parks everywhere. Many used by trucks as 
rest areas. Some are tiny, some are huge, some are gravel pits, some are 
the NHVR green dot things.. Some councils even setup bins in them.


I'd like a way to tag any informal area. No extra tag would imply formal 
(signs)


Something like;

source:parking=sign (the blank default)
source:parking=informal
source:parking=stockpile (Possibly with the stockpile number in 
description=)

source:parking=nhvr

These informals are all about judgement and evidence of use.

Non standard examples. Will any existing tags cover them?

Tnxs



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Wiki Clean Up Progress Update

[Bob Cameron]

Good stuff Dian!

I don't know how widespread the problem is, but Garmin GPS navigation 
devices see no road surface tag as sealed. This can create routing 
stress for the driver and possibly safety issues. Might be worth 
mentioning that it's far better to default tag new roads in non urban 
areas as unpaved than no tag, if the surface is unknown.


I use surface:fine_gravel in places. Problem is that the gravel 
eventually wears off and it becomes.. unpaved! Unpaved is also what one 
would use if sourcing only from overhead imagery. This all for another 
discussion though.


Cheers Bob

On 18/4/22 19:43, Dian Ågesson wrote:
We should discourage the vague surface values of "paved" and 
"unpaved", instead using more specific tags like asphalt and 
compacted. Can we replace the example with something more specific 
than "surface=unpaved"?


surface=gravel has it's own problems given the common use in 
Australia is different to the wiki description. I'm not sure the best 
way to address this.


I agree with you that we would want to encourage a more accurate tag. 
From what I could see on the wiki and in overpass queries, there is a 
lot of confusion about the surface tag. I would definitely welcome 
this list revisiting the discussion, but I didn't feel confident 
changing what was already there.


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Tagging guidelines points - rest/parking/camping/hgv

[Bob Cameron]

Sorry I cant see where to add these points to the wiki, nor see the edit 
evolution. No doubt I'll see some disagreements, but anyway!


- Regarding "No Camping" signs within the rest area category. (Although 
it could apply to any location)
It seems a bit long winded and not really useful for rendering 
(boo-hiss-grin) that there is no direct correlation with camping keys. 
The general "on the ground" camping  that happens seems to be a case of 
"anywhere that isn't excluded", so it makes logical sense to "name" a 
(non) camping site, who says so,  then mark it as access=no. 
Rendering/reporting (boo/hiss) should exclude access=no from viable sites.


No doubt it contras the ROW wiki but things are not the same everywhere. 
And realising that camping/staying is an incredibly complex subject that 
will get even worse as more population elects to stay mobile. People 
will need to know what public places they aren't welcome in.


Also in rest areas section

- One of the dramas with local council (ie not highway) rest areas as 
leisure=park is that the name is often the park name (only/already), so 
the existence of the blue rest area "picnic table and tree" sign doesn't 
really correlate. Naming a parking area works, but it isn't a rest area. 
I don't have an answer for that one, although keep in mind that one of 
the standard sub tags in "rest area" is operator.


- Designated vs yes for hgv. I seem to remember that we don't input 
legislation "stuff", but what is on the ground. I would prefer to think 
"designated" (always) means there is a P+truck sign up, whereas "yes" 
means it happens or is (judgement) possible. Informal parking/rest areas 
would only ever have yes or no. This doesn't change the tagging so much 
in the guidelines but the prewording to what the tag and road signs 
actually equate to. I wonder if it is worth a few graphics?


- Vehicle parking sizes have worried me for a while. hgv's can double in 
size. Perhaps it should be a based on B-Double sizes? I don't have a 
viable answer for this as there will be data out there already. What 
does NHVR do for its informal (green dot) rest areas? (To do with 
capacity or size)


Cheers


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Precedence of alt naming

[Bob Cameron]

This might have been covered before..

What is the consensus on precedence of alt_names, more for roads and 
waterways.


Example, I sometimes come across (NSW) creek name formal signs that are 
quite different from what is shown on the DCS overlays. Is the primary 
name the "on the ground" one and the DCS one alt? or the reverse.


It is also quite common to see suffixed "s" on names. Probably not that 
important, but worth asking.


Tnx


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Recommended CB radio channel for road

[Bob Cameron]

As I understand it the ACMA license database POI is waiting for a 
waiver. A query of that will yield all repeater licenses, site locations 
(lat/lon/elev etc) . I actually use it to populate my navigation GPS


The general rule for emergency use is to try all the lower half 
repeaters (kerchunking them), rather than trying short range simplex. 
The closest is not necessarily the right one to use.


Bob

On 22/3/22 16:45, Stephen Backway wrote:
I wonder if this could be expanded to also capture the relevant 
emergency use channel for the area.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Recommended CB radio channel for road

[Bob Cameron]

Keep in mind to also not run afoul with legislation. That might seem to 
be about emergency use (UHF 5/35) or telemetry (UHF 22-23), but using 
simplex on the input frequencies of UHF repeaters (31-38 & 71-78) that 
one is within the operational range of is not allowed. Many contract 
roadwork gangs for example use these and jam repeaters up.


There are also roadsigns out in country areas that suggest 5/35 for 
general information rather than the legislated "emergency use only".


Suggesting one be careful creating features that specify these channels.


On 22/3/22 10:03, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 18:42, Brendan Barnes  wrote:


Other than a one-off traffic_sign=*, is there a relational way to
advise which CB radio channel to use on a specific road?


Interesting idea, Brendan!

I've often thought it would be a handy thing to have, rather than just 
working on the standby of 18 / 40 for caravans, + 29, but which then 
changes depending on the highway you're travelling.


For example, Great Alpine Road advises users to operate on UHF 29
(verifiable at
https://kartaview.org/details/3545149/1056/track-info) and I was
just curious to see if that data has ever been mapped before.


As far as I can see, no, it hasn't?

I can find a few mentions of "radio" & such like, but they're not what 
we're talking about here:


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:communication:radio

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:communication:amateur_radio

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Communications

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/radio_communication

TI isn't much help either:

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=radio

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/communication%3Aradio#values

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/radio_frequency#values

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/communication%3Acb_radio#values

So lot's of negative results :-(

Maybe modify 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:communication:radio so that 
it's not just talking about radio towers, but also other types of 
radio comms?


then possibly have something like
communication:radio=CB + CB_channel=*, possibly attached to the 
relation for the particular highway you're on?


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

Re: [talk-au] 2377 occurrences of fixme="unknown type of water crossing"

[Bob Cameron]

Would you mind elaborating?

With the stream under a road (way) as tunnel and the default culvert;

The road over the top has either a node or way ford
Or
is the road/way flood_prone yes
Or
is the stream culvert section additionally ford yes

Tnx

On 23/2/22 19:08, Warin wrote:


Where these are in NSW the DCS Base Map shows where bridges are present.

Some culverts become fords in flood situations, and floods are quite 
possible with intermittent waterways so tagging as both a culvert and 
food way may be best where this occurs.


Personally I'd leave them alone, other than the obvious bridges they 
may not be resolved by imagery alone. I can see them being important 
on main roads .. so possibly those should be done.


On 23/2/22 13:59, Ewen Hill wrote:

Hi,
  A lot of you may have seen and fixed a node on a road adjacent to a 
stream with a single key of fixme="unknown type of water crossing", 
what I didn't realise until I ran an overpass  query 
 was 
that there were 2377 of these fixme remaining in Australia and they 
were all added by a single organisation.


   A lot of these are clearly fords on dry/intermittent creeks and I 
can't see the reason for not mapping these as fords instead of adding 
the fixme note to limit the amount of editing now required to fix 
these imported fixme notes, most from 2018 and 2019.


Row Labels  Count of @version
1   1649
2   604
3   104
4   12
5   5
6   1
7   1
13  1


As the node is adjacent to the stream, I can't see how to easily edit 
these where it is clear it is a bridge or predominantly a ford in an 
easy process. e,g, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6839769585


Any thoughts?

Ewen




___
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] Information source question - sorry kind of lengthy.

[Bob Cameron]

Finally got around to doing these changes. 10 ways were affected

The signs at Willow Tree and just out of Merriwa only say that there is 
no access to the other town. I doesn't say where the actual closure is, 
so I relied on my pre closure drive Mapillary imagery.


I vaguely remember that dating a fixme for action is possible, but I 
didn't do that, just described what happened and what has to be done. Is 
there a way to cause some kind of auto prompt to happen?


Tnx

On 3/2/22 11:32, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote:


On 3/2/22 09:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 22:18, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au 
 wrote:


update a short section of road there with access=no.


=no or =private, because work crews can still drive in there to do 
repairs?
Either would be fine as far as I'm concerned. Both achieve the primary 
objective of stopping routing engines from using this road.


This achieves the main objective of stopping OSM from routing
along the
way. 



& would you also add noexit=yes to each end of the blocked section?
noexit isn't a tag I've used. According to 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noexit "It must be ignored by 
routing (GPS)." - which means its use shouldn't affect routing.


Also, if you use access=private then noexit=yes is wrong because 
"other modes can continue".


If you are using a map checking tool which complains if it doesn't 
have a noexit=yes tag then add it. Personally, I don't normally add 
tags which have no practical effect on how I use the map, and only 
affect a tool which: I haven't used, don't have experience with, and 
therefore can't verify if I'm using the tag correctly.



& in regard to "Local Knowledge" ^^

So you're standing in the pub having a cold beer & the two blokes 
beside you are talking.


"Jeez, Coulsons Creek Road is a mess. Had to go to Merriwa yesterday 
but it's closed from a landslide, so I had to go all the way to Woop 
Woop & back".


"Yep, my sons part of the Main Roads crew looking at the repairs. 
"Very Bad Spot" has gone completely & he reckons it's going to be out 
for at least 2 years"


Does that count as Local Knowledge?


There will always be sources which require a subjective decision on 
what is sufficiently verifiable to justify mapping it. Are the two 
blokes beside you people who you know previously to be reliable 
sources? Or are they the local drunks who are known to tell tall tales?



___
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] Information source question - sorry kind of lengthy.

[Bob Cameron]

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

- There are indeed numerous sources that say the road is closed, for 
more than one year.

- To avoid routing yes I could pick a likely spot and make in Access:No
- Livetraffic also have a text view that is end points specific, so any 
Google Maps issue are probably moot.
- The problem is if I want to do the job properly I would like to place 
the road barrier locations. When I went through the road was open only 
at specific times and I have the barrier locations on Mapillary. I doubt 
they would move the barriers as they had done extensive work on turning 
(around) circles and the like.
- I would use the Mapillary image points initially then check any 
wording on the signage in the next week.


I have never mapped closed roads before, but since it is supposedly 
temporary I think Access:No with a date action fix_me that described 
why, what and when to review. I would suspect perhaps half a dozen ways 
are affected so a cross ref in the fix_me might be prudent. To make it 
obvious to downstream users I am thinking "- section closed for repair" 
suffix the highway name. I would appreciate a consensus on this from the 
list. (3 field changes per way)


Yes work crew access may need "private" but as it stands I believe the 
slip gap is quite wide and usual vehicle access not possible. "No exit" 
is similarly cloudy.


I am happy to leave it in a "providing as much info as possible" state, 
if need be.


On 2/2/22 20:50, Warin wrote:


The 'facts cannot be copyright' may be a USA thing that does not work 
elsewhere. Don't know but I would not rely on it alone.



Other sources of 'information'? Newspapers, radio and TV ... a quick 
google search gets a few of these.. and local council notices too. I 
would think these sources want the information used, so would not 
claim copyright on the information itself.



The next question is .. how will you map it? Put 'disused:' in front 
of it and add a 'comment=land slip - under repair. expected opening in 
2024'?




___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Information source question - sorry kind of lengthy.

[Bob Cameron]

MR358 or Coulsons Creek Road between Willow Tree and Merriwa NSW is 
closed for repair of major slippage as it crosses the Liverpool Ranges. 
"Livetraffic" (Traffic for NSW govt site) says not reopening until late 
2023. A reference on that to a local govt site is devoid of any current 
information.


In the OSM data catalogue Wiki thare are a number of TFNSW waivers but I 
dont see anything obvious that would allow me to copy the "Livetraffic" 
closed road section.


Livetraffic uses Google maps. It is quite explicit as to what 
length/location is closed.


As it turns out I'll be at the Willow Tree and Merriwa ends of this road 
in a week so can view any closure signs. I also know the slippage 
section as I drove on it just before it was closed a year ago. There are 
even Mapillary images of same. I don't however plan to drive up to the 
closure barriers at each end to check for sure!


Do I have enough to make an educated guess as to what section would be 
deemed closed without violating any copy-write etc stuff.


Tnx


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] NSW Spatial Services offline

[Bob Cameron]

Note msg on their website

https://www.spatial.nsw.gov.au/

Basically anything DCS in the OSM ID map overlays died late Mon afternoon.

Also mentions holiday closure 27/12 to 10/1.


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Gas mining area - road access tags

[Bob Cameron]

Farm tracks too could be access=private.


While the well head can be a small area, the actual mining lease can 
be large.   The large area could be mapped with layer=-1,-2,-3,-4 or 
-5. But what source are you going to use for the area?


My general workflow is more about driven road features and landuse=farm 
with access=private roads. Based on my own street imagery, (usage) 
observations and overheads.


I am not doing farm or gas-field areas, or any other gas-field features. 
There are however a lot of gas-field roads that have no access tag and 
wonder if I should make them as private when I am working in the same 
area. I am only asking about changing road tags (either service or track)


Sorry, I should have made that clearer.



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Gas mining area - road access tags

[Bob Cameron]

Would it be a fair statement to say that gas mining areas are all 
private access?


eg. around Condamine Qld there are a lot of them that often co-exist 
with farmland. Are the mining area leases "well area" only or cover a 
wider area?


The concern is that with many service roads crossing between public 
roads, routing engines may take one down through well areas. A similar 
problem to large cattle stations.


Tnx


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Way errors in Quilpie Qld

[Bob Cameron]

Thanks Andrew, looks excellent.

I did record 2 full GPX tracks for all streets. Would you like me to 
send them to you at your gmail acct for a cross check?


I also covered the laneway and access to the railway station from the 
Brolga Street side and Murana Road on the other. I have dashcam imagery 
for the whole route as well. (Which I will use to fix site/name 
buildings and businesses) Shout if you need any of these.


Cheers Bob

On 3/10/21 12:58 pm, Andrew Davidson wrote:

On Sat, Oct 2, 2021 at 10:46 PM Thorsten Engler via Talk-au
 wrote:

I would assume that the lot boundaries recorded in DCDB are "exact" and any
discrepancy between them and the physical world come down to the margin of
errors the surveyors did when placing boundary pegs at some point.

I tried to check against any survey marks that you might be able to
locate on the imagery. Unfortunately there are no survey marks in
Quilpie from the GNSS era of surveying. I did manage to find one near
town that you can just make out where it would be on Bing:

https://qspatial.information.qld.gov.au/SurveyReport/SCR183342.pdf


Bing is almost right: -0.15; 1.79

I get -0.10;1.50 which, considering that we are looking at aerial
imagery with a pixel size of ~0.15m, is the same thing. This is all
based on GDA94, so in theory all of the GPX traces will be offset by
about 1.63 m

I have done a best-fit and moved the town about 11 m to the west.
There are some things (e.g. the rail line near the sale yards) that
need to be better traced. I will have a look at these later.

___
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] Way errors in Quilpie Qld

[Bob Cameron]

Wow, what a changeset!

Bing was 2010-2012. The Maxar Premium seems the most recent.

Whatever the case with the buildings, the roads tend to be used as 
anchors for many features. I guess the opinion I am looking for is that 
if a formal source can't be found/used, will my GPS run tomorrow (plus 
the existing traces) be acceptable? I can make a point driving a set 
centre distance but errors will still happen. The current trace/way 
error is in the region of 8-20m.


Being Sunday too the dashcam view wont be too obscured by parked cars. 
Also worth a walk to see if any businesses are closed.


On 2/10/21 7:01 pm, Warin wrote:






Note the changeset comment in 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/58251817#map=16/-26.6197/144.2679...


"l know these places are in the right place now as l have lived here 
all my life." He used bing as a source .. so I think that may mean 
they are ok in relation to one another ..




___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Way errors in Quilpie Qld

[Bob Cameron]

I am currently near this nice quiet place and am leaving shortly.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-26.6176/144.2666

I note that there is a fairly large discrepancy between some of the 
roads and the public GPS traces. The main E-W highway is also split, but 
not in OSM. Imagery and GPS traces are however close.


I am very reluctant to move ways as I really don't have a good reference 
source. I understand that Qld Globe cadastral data is far more accurate 
than their roads, and OSM has a waiver to use. It isn't however a non 
custom ID editor layer?


Would anyone with the knowledge as to how be interested in 
checking/realigning the streets? (about 4x5 blocks) I mighty drive up 
and down all the streets here (both directions - 2x GPS units) as I 
leave, as an additional check..


Quilpie is the town (council) that complained about Eromanga being in 
the wrong place on GM. Apparently they have signs around here suggesting 
one should ignore G based GPS navigation information!


The town features are also a bit messy. Duplication of points vs area. 
Fixing the way alignment first though might be a good idea.


Cheers


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Audible fences

[Bob Cameron]

Hi Warin

Stock or pest control barriers that are somewhat replacing (and 
sometimes doubling up on) road cattle grids.


The ones I have mapped commonly comprise a fence line very close to 
(both sides of) the road edge of maybe 5-10m length and parallel, then 
two audible sonalert boxes (often with a solar panel/supply) at one end, 
or middle off the close in fence. The boxes are usually mounted on poles 
less than a metre high but I have seen some attached to the fence hardware.


Some confining fence lines I have seen are angled rather than parallel.

Any stock or pest that wants to wander through gets channelled onto the 
narrower road between the fences then blasted with sound when it gets 
within maybe 5 metres. Vehicles also set off the alarms from perhaps 
20-30m away. Some (less than 10%?) of the barriers have sound warning 
signs.


In terms of a driving hazard there is the quite loud high frequency 
sound and no road shoulder at the barrier.


Since they are becoming more and more common I'd like to see the 
consensus placed in the Aus taglines wiki


Cheers

On 1/8/21 5:32 pm, Warin wrote:

On 31/7/21 8:59 am, Bob Cameron wrote:

Info only

barrier=fence
sensory=audible

ie the squeaking screeching fences that supposedly replace cattle 
grids. I asked for input some months ago on how to map.


With the recent ID editor update there is now a warning that a fence 
has to be a line, even though it is placed on the road.



The OSM wiki also claims a fence must be a line.


What physically is this 'screeching fence'?


Is it in the middle of the road like a cattle grid, or along the edge 
of the road?


A single pole with the device on it?

Or is it 2 poles on opposite sides of the road with devices mounted 
one them?


Or is it a series of poles along both sides of the road with devices 
on them?



While for simplicity using a node on the road is good for the mapper 
it is not good for the data consumer when used as a 'fence'. I would 
think it is more of a different kind of 'cattle grid'. If you want 
something that 'works' then use barrier=cattle_grid with 
method=acoustic, assuming this will be used instead of a cattle grid 
and possibly a replacement in future ... square peg in a round hole.


Or come up with something new

barrier=animal

method=acoustic


???



___
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] Audible fences

[Bob Cameron]

Info only

barrier=fence
sensory=audible

ie the squeaking screeching fences that supposedly replace cattle grids. 
I asked for input some months ago on how to map.


With the recent ID editor update there is now a warning that a fence has 
to be a line, even though it is placed on the road.


Cheers


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Roads in Industrial Estates: Residential, Unclassified or Service?

[Bob Cameron]

Task Manager (ctrl-alt-del and select) will show process/ram hogs. sort 
by cpu usage then memory, grab the process name and search on it...


4GB may be a little light too.. If your hard drive flogs (swaps) a lot 
that may be worth a look.


G'luck!


On 28/7/21 3:22 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 at 16:57, Adam Horan > wrote:


I've hit quota blocks so many times in the last few days trying to
get these queries working at all


Another question, possibly re this?, for you & anybody else who may be 
working Roulette.


These last few days, while I've been working on Roulette problems, my 
laptop (Win 8.1, Firefox 90.0.2, 4GB Ram) has been absolutely chewing 
CPU & Memory. ATM with only Roulette & GMail open, it's sitting on 40% 
CPU & 90+% Memory usage :-(, while actually editing OSM is painfully slow.


I've cleared the cache, restarted, run a MalwareBytes scan & all 
normal troubleshooting but no go.


 Anybody else had similar issues, or any suggestions?

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

Re: [talk-au] Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal

[Bob Cameron]

Hi Andrew

Wonder if you might add the following to your later communications with 
NHVR. Not pressing, just an inclusion.


As I understand it formal heavy vehicle rest area locations are more a 
state database system. The "three green dot" informal rest areas however 
were/are a NHVR initiative. If they have a (changing) data base of these 
locations It might be handy if they were also imported.


Tnx Bob

On 18/5/21 10:23 pm, Andrew Harvey via Talk-au wrote:


I'm working with the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR) on a 
proposal to import Vicmap addresses for Victoria into OSM. For 
context, here is the statement from the NHVR.




___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Snapping Major regional roads to GPS traces

[Bob Cameron]

Thanks all for your comments;

- Yes I am aware of multipath phase errors, HDOP and VDOP problems etc. 
My imagery camera also has excessive averaging and interpolation, so I 
not only upload its trace but also that from a separate roof mounted GPS 
sender unit.


- Re old traces. I can "cheat" a little by also turning on the Mapillary 
layer, thus identifying the age.


- My big concern is more long straight or shallow corner roads that 
differ from reality. ie is it smart to fix (or at east reduce) the road 
error before placing new features that are relative to it. A long 
straight GPS trace probably only has a small lateral error.


- Yes I have used the DCS base maps, but unfortunately I see most 
problems in Qld.


- I am surprised by the suggestion to fix the overhead imagery instead. 
I would have assumed that OSM/ID editor references another website via 
an API by co-ordinates etc and any error correction of tiles would be on 
that site, not OSM's? Is there really an offsets database in use? I 
would expect that it would be far more important to fix errors in 
densely populated areas before rural/sparse ones though.


Cheers



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Snapping Major regional roads to GPS traces

[Bob Cameron]

Just checking if this is an okay thing to do. ie moving a major road so 
it is centred on GPS traces - assuming there enough data for accuracy 
(eg bidirectional, multi trace etc)


The traces are probably more accurate than overhead imagery.

Other features placed relative to roads will also need moving?

Reason I ask is a concern that there may be an automated process that 
adjusts existing roads.


Tnx


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Camp_sites discussion WOOPS

[Bob Cameron]

Woops

Sent the last rather than just saving the draft Pls ignore



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Camp_sites discussion

[Bob Cameron]

Hi Graeme

Admitting ashamedly that I like nothing better than my OSM mkgmap Garmin 
GPS device come up with any overnight viable stopping place nearby.. 
This of course makes me biased, so I apologise for that...


On 22/4/21 11:05 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 at 18:46, Bob Cameron <mailto:bob3b...@skymesh.com.au>> wrote:


tourism:camp_site.


I was looking at this just a couple of days ago, so thanks for 
bringing it up, Bob.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site> "is used 
to map a *campsite* (UK) or *campground* (North American): an area, 
usually divided into a number of pitches 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_pitch>, where 
people can camp overnight using tents, camper vans or caravans (aka 
RVs or motorhomes)"


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcaravan_site 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcaravan_site> "is a 
place where people with caravans / motorhomes / recreational vehicles 
can stay overnight, or longer, in allotted spaces known as "pitches" 
or "sites" ... They may also have some space for tents. If a site is 
primarily for tents, it should be tagged as tourism 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tourism>=camp_site 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site>."


To me, that suggests that camp-site should be taken to be tents only, 
& if you've got wheels of any sort between you & the ground, so car / 
camper trailer / caravan / motorhome etc, it should be a caravan-site?


I find it quite frustrating to see a caravan_site and camp_site come up 
for the same entity. I get the impression that caravan_site is in fact a 
subset of camp_site and that table list tags under it (camp_site) would 
cover any caravan use. One major difference is that the wiki also lists 
toilets/showers as keys rather than just relying in amenity, whereas 
caravan_site doesn't. Perhaps it is inferred?


I tend to add individual amenity:toilet, amenity:shower etc as many 
camping areas make these facilities available for non campers, sometimes 
with a fee. It is not so common with more commercial caravan parks, some 
even refuse to sell a (paid) shower from the insurance liability 
standpoint. The same kind of variation happens with coin-op laundries at 
caravan parks.


I'd actually like to see the use of caravan_site discouraged but that's 
probably more my bias peeking through.. Would some fast query coder 
please get me the number of au camp_site and caravan_site objects please.


Cheers
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Camp_sites discussion

[Bob Cameron]

I wanted to ask for ideas and discussion related to tourism:camp_site. 
Noting that there is also a wiki on this;


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site

Some general things. (Much from my own experience)

- Do we need to be extensive in our data detail given that there are a 
plethora of other online databases available?


- Recent world changes and trends have seen employment and "just living" 
whilst NFA far more common, so I think it is worth getting this working 
well.


Detail

- In my experience there is now a large-ish proportion of population 
that follows the rule, "stop/camp at any public place where it is not 
expressly prohibited". The list of where it is not allowed is as 
important as where it is. People quite literally stop anywhere. Many 
towns are now entry signed something like "No camping within town 
boundary except at authorised establishments".


- The previous implies that every camp sites will never be mapped. It 
also means many wont have names.


- There is a confusion between "camping" and "overnight stays" when it 
comes to signage. Since many now have both prohibited (eg remote Qld 
highway truck parking areas) it is more or less (conveniently) assumed 
that "no camping" (only) allows staying overnight in vehicles.


- Pretty well every camp site can have a maximum stay period defined. 
Rest areas range between 8 and 48 hours. Most rest areas are 20 hours 
and of course there are truck parking ONLY places.


- An aside... It isn't clear whether a car driver can use a toilet at a 
truck rest area in Qld. 
(https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/holiday-travel/stops/rest) That 
would make toilets hgv:designated... (Insert laugh here)


My questions for starters

- How to define where camping is prohibited. Either by actual location 
or (say) a larger area like a town/shire. I have been adding camp_site 
names NO CAMPING and/or NO OVERNIGHT VEHICLES, the sign authority 
(operator) and access=no , after we had a talk_au discussion on rest 
areas some months ago. I don't like it, but I had to put the data 
somewhere in the interim.


- Maximum length of stay would be a golden/useful key. That will cover 
rest areas (hours) as well as those small community camps that only 
allow 3 days or so. opening_hours doesn't cover it.


- Does capacity:tents=yes/no capacity:caravans=yes/no help the overnight 
vs "camping" question. Keep in mind that people also travel around 
sleeping in cars (capacity:motor_cars=yes/no), panel vans and grounded 
sleeping bags beside motorbikes!


Tnx


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Audible stock control fences - mapping

[Bob Cameron]

Thanks All

Have gone with barrier:fence fence_type:audio.

As an aside. When I was around Isisford Qld a few years ago there was a 
fairly big financial commitment going on replacing simple stock fences 
with dog ones. About 1.5-2m high of mesh construction that was also 
buried. As I recall it was horribly expensive, but one station owner had 
recouped his expense (sheep not attacked) after about 18 months. The 
audible/screamers sections on roads were very low cost in comparison.


Cheers

On 19/4/21 4:05 pm, Bob Cameron wrote:

Opinions/ideas please

On a substantial number of roads I have encountered "fences" with 
motion detecting squealers that deter stock not unlike a cattle grid. 
In fact cattle grids on major roads are sometimes replaced by them.


I have only ever seen one with a warning sign despite the noise 
sometimes sounding like a wheel bearing screech...


They are also often integrated into wild dog barrier (higher) fences 
and are reputed to have prevented a lot of sheep deaths.


What to map them as, if at all?

barrier:fence plus?

I saw a proposal in the wiki to use a sensory:audible tag for 
playground equipment but that doesn't seem valid.


Tnx


___
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] Aus tagging guidelines on highway surface tags

[Bob Cameron]

Ian/all

I have been boldly marking paved and no-tag as asphalt, 
causeways/fords/bridges as concrete (etc) as a result of examining my 
own Mapillary imagery, sometimes dovetailing that with the DCS data. 
These are not only regional highways, but backroads and most of small 
towns.


I actually use the overpass query to help route plan, deliberately 
checking those with no tag. The query also showed a number of really 
strange errors, like only the ends of a rural road are paved in real 
life, yet an entire road was paved (with a surface tag) on OSM (West 
Wilcannia Rd from Menindee to Wilcannia for example)


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/98337907

My Garmin GPS unit with an OSM based map tries to route me down unpaved 
roads too.. Good surface information will give credibility to OSM map 
data for general navigating.


I'll admit I have concerns that my surface tags for a paved highway 
might be removed, so I welcome the change.


Bob

On 31/1/21 3:13 pm, Little Maps wrote:
Hi folks, wondering if I can promote some discussion about the section 
of the Aus tagging guidelines on adding surface tags on roads. The 
text currently reads,


“For most types of highway=* tags you don't need to specify the 
surface=paved key/value pair as this is assumed, however make sure you 
tag the road surface when it isn't a paved road.”


This assumption is fine in large cities but is problematic in rural 
and regional Australia. Can I suggest that it is replaced by something 
like the following...


"Surface tags should be added to roads wherever possible, especially 
in regional areas. This advice differs from that on the international 
key:surface wiki page, which states that, 'there is normally an 
assumption that the surface is surface=paved unless otherwise stated.' 
However this assumption is not valid across regional Australia as: (1) 
most roads, including many major roads, are unpaved, and (2) mapping 
intensity varies greatly among regions. Many roads that do not have a 
surface tag may not have been examined by mappers. Adding a surface 
tag will assist data users and help mappers to further refine the 
regional road network."


Long rationale (not for posting on the oz tagging guidelines page)...

Surface tags have been added to relatively few rural roads in many 
regions. Hence, the most prudent assumption is that the absence of a 
surface tag means that the road surface has not received attention 
from mappers. A default assumption that any road without a surface tag 
is actually paved is most likely wrong.


Efficiency of mapping. Even if one has no interest in adding tags to 
paved roads, the most efficient way to refine surface tags is to 
interrogate untagged roads and tag them (e.g. by using an overpass 
query that distinguishes untagged, paved and unpaved roads, and 
variants thereof. Untagged roads can be inspected and tagged as 
appropriate.) However, if mappers are advised to not tag paved roads, 
then every paved road that is untagged needs to be re-examined each 
time this is attempted. This wastes a lot of effort.


Some apps — especially routing and cycling apps (e.g. Osmand and 
Komoot) — allow users to request paved or unpaved routes. Regardless 
of the (unknown) assumptions that routers make about road surfaces 
when creating routes, apps like Osmand present the data back to users. 
The suggested route may be X% paved, Y% unpaved and Z% unknown. In 
many regions, Unknown is the largest category. This doesn’t inspire 
confidence in the route or underlying data.


Some assumptions about road surfaces can obviously be made. For 
example, a primary road is more likely to be paved than an 
unclassified road. However, most roads in rural areas are tertiary or 
unclassified. Some are paved, many not; the ratio varies unpredictably 
across regions and it is impossible to predict which roads are paved 
unless they are tagged.


Perhaps not surprisingly, the OSM wiki on key:surface gives 
conflicting advice, beginning with the (European?) position that 
“there is normally an assumption that the surface is surface=paved 
unless otherwise stated” and later adding an (American?) view that, 
“There are no default values for surface, it is generally considered 
as OK and desirable to tag it explicitly for all roads.” The latter 
approach seems most appropriate in regional Australia.


Adding surface tags to both paved and unpaved ways is the most 
efficient method to: (1) allow data users to accurately predict road 
conditions (this benefits users) and (2) improve the rate at which 
unpaved roads can be reliably distinguished from paved roads (this 
helps future mappers). They may be redundant on motorways, trunk and 
primary roads, but these make up a tiny proportion of roads in 
regional Australia and can all be coded with a minimum of effort.


Advising mappers to not add a meaningful tag would appear to be 
counter to the goals of accurate tagging. Can we change our advice to 
encourage 

Re: [talk-au] How to map around blocked roads

[Bob Cameron]

I don't know sorry. Given that it is located in a large pasture rural 
area I would expect that it would never be enforced. Farm workers will 
drive by the easiest route.


As I understand it when a rural road is closed it is often handed back 
to the owner of the surrounding or adjacent land, thence making it 
private property. In that case fencing and signage would be expected 
which this hasn't.


I will email the District Council of Kimba for clarification out of 
interest. If I get a timely reply I will post here.


For the moment I have created a point - barrier:debris tag and altered 
the way to side step it.


On 4/12/20 11:08 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote:
What is the legal situation? Can you legally use that bypass and 
continue on

the blocked road?


Dec 4, 2020, 03:19 by bob3b...@skymesh.com.au:

I don't do a lot of mapping, so thought I'd better check.

Where a road has been closed by a barrier, but people have driven
around it, making their own road.

Example - Far left of this frame, intersection of Eyre Highway and
(unsealed) Cows Head Corner Rd, SA - south side of Eyre.


https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/bob3bob3?lat=-33.20304604612525=136.1608876148938=17=44LIDXGpBljYGVWNj26uIw=photo=0.2439527070079778=0.6356433099503748=2.001460004581609

Reflective barrier warning sign in place, two mounds of dirt.

Have looked at the tagging guidelines for regional "not there"
roads. I am guessing that I should cut the minor road short of the
highway, then add in a short section with a allowed access tag for
something?

Advice please.

Cheers Bob





___
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

[talk-au] How to map around blocked roads

[Bob Cameron]

I don't do a lot of mapping, so thought I'd better check.

Where a road has been closed by a barrier, but people have driven around 
it, making their own road.


Example - Far left of this frame, intersection of Eyre Highway and 
(unsealed) Cows Head Corner Rd, SA - south side of Eyre.


https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/bob3bob3?lat=-33.20304604612525=136.1608876148938=17=44LIDXGpBljYGVWNj26uIw=photo=0.2439527070079778=0.6356433099503748=2.001460004581609

Reflective barrier warning sign in place, two mounds of dirt.

Have looked at the tagging guidelines for regional "not there" roads. I 
am guessing that I should cut the minor road short of the highway, then 
add in a short section with a allowed access tag for something?


Advice please.

Cheers Bob





___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Re-tag rural residential roads to unclassified?

[Bob Cameron]

For interest Ian. I am in that council area right now doing Mapillary 
stuff as I travel. Heading roughly from Daysdale to Jerilderie via 
Oakland on Monday if you'd like me to check anything! The current 
imagery wont be uploaded for a month or so.


Bob

On 2/10/20 2:43 pm, Little Maps wrote:


Hi everyone, I was reviewing highway tags in south-central NSW 
(initially to add in missing paved and unpaved tags) and noted that 
road classification differ greatly between adjacent local gov areas. 
In central Federation Shire Council, north of Mulwala and Corowa, the 
bulk of rural roads are tagged as residential whereas in all 
surrounding LGAs they are tagged as unclassified, as shown in this 
Overpass query: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/YCa


(the query shows 4 adjacent LGAs, with the Federation Shire in 
the lower centre).


This is a rural cropping /grazing region, not a densely settled 
irrigation area. Is it appropriate to re-tag the rural "residential" 
roads as "unclassified'' for consistency, after inspecting each on 
satellite images, leaving residential roads in and around small towns 
only? Thanks for your help, Ian




___
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] OSM automation projects? (Road surface)

[Bob Cameron]

This is just a being inquisitive question.

Today I marked paved (was unpaved) route from Laggan to Taralga NSW 
after I drove it. I note that the underlying map (LPI?) actually showed 
the sections paved.


Am I correct in assuming that there as a first pass project that marked 
paved roads from imagery? if not how did it happen?


Is there an automation project in place that looks at imagery changes 
(by date) and pushes them for review or similar? (I'd be interested in 
review of rural areas as I travel often)


There doesn't seem to be much info at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australia (NSW is particularly old - 
my link is also really slow so I cant easily search)


If there is a link to check please advise.

Thanks


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Question re tagging unpaved vs paved roads

[Bob Cameron]

Okay thanks all.

Surprisingly the Snowy Mountains Hwy between Dalgety and (almost) 
Bombala NSW had 3 unpaved sections near the wind turbine ridge. It has 
all been fully paved through for more than 3 years.


As I drive I use an OSM based map set on my Garmin GPS to route sealed 
only, so I can discover these map errors. (Garmin doesn't display paved 
vs not)


Bob

On 30/12/19 11:14 am, cleary wrote:

If you just delete the tag, someone might interpret it as an accidental 
deletion.  A changed tag is clearly a deliberate decision based on new 
information.




On Sun, 29 Dec 2019, at 8:52 AM, Bob Cameron wrote:

Hi

The tagging guidelines don't quite seem to over this. I'd like to do it
correctly.

When a road is unpaved we use the surface=unpaved tag, the default (no
tag) being paved.

When an unpaved road is (roadwork) paved, should the tag be deleted or
changed to paved?

Thanks


___




___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Question re tagging unpaved vs paved roads

[Bob Cameron]

Hi

The tagging guidelines don't quite seem to over this. I'd like to do it 
correctly.


When a road is unpaved we use the surface=unpaved tag, the default (no 
tag) being paved.


When an unpaved road is (roadwork) paved, should the tag be deleted or 
changed to paved?


Thanks


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] New imageries in AU

[Bob Cameron]

I don't know how useful/relevant this will be, but I am about 3 weeks 
from starting an upload of around 1.3TB Mapillary layer dashcam images. 
(4K size, at around 2FPS road speed) These are mainly sealed country 
roads (not a lot of urban data) around the continent.


Where a town/village is small enough I usually try to cover most of it. 
(eg Mendooran NSW - already available) Some major-ish dirt roads also 
covered (like the west end of Gibb River Rd and Norseman-Hyden Rd WA. 
The latter already available)


Cheers Bob

On 8/11/19 1:55 am, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au wrote:


Hi all,

Do we have any possibility to be informed once there is a new imagery 
published by other providers (Maxar, Esri, Mapbox, etc.)?


We are trying to develop the process which will involve constant 
update of AU map, but we are not sure how to focus to areas which 
might have most recent imagery?


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

Re: [talk-au] What data is useful - request for ideas

[Bob Cameron]

Hi Phil

My old 1280x720 was setup for a rear quarter view for traffic sign 
capture. I was advised that the angle and shutter raster delay (slant) 
made detection problematic so I don't upload. I will however give it a 
try at 90 degrees. It's a USB webcam


On 8/5/19 9:44 am, Phil Wyatt wrote:


Nice work bob3bob3,

I wish I could spend that much time on the road. I also prefer the 
backroads rather than main drags and shoot with a GoPro at 0.5 second 
intervals. I also have Garmin Virbs which I have used for Mapillary. 
One thing that is useful in small towns is a cruise around the main 
and back streets with a camera at 90 degrees (I shoot over the road 
from the drivers side) to capture shop fronts etc. This can be useful 
for business points - the local butcher, hardware shop, addresses etc.


I tend to map randomly in OSM. Sometimes its mapping towns facing 
natural disasters (ie fires, floods, cyclones etc) and at other times 
just areas of interest - Outback stations I find on satellite imagery 
or obscure routes I have travelled in the past. Having Mapillary 
images helps immensely in these obscure places. It’s a way to pick up 
station names, road names and especially road surfaces.


Keep up the good word

Phil (aka tastrax)

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] What data is useful - request for ideas

[Bob Cameron]

Thanks Andrew

I capture at 2fps with a BlackVue (via 30fps mp4). That was 
unfortunately a hard choice to do with the cost of the Internet 
connection. 5fps would have been nicer. Road name signs are then 
problematic not only from the framerate perspective, but that 
compression artefacts glug the image up somewhat. I have some more tests 
to do that might help that.


It should be relatively simple to code up for road surface type and 
width. I wonder if a tool will ever appear that allows autoregen on a 
per road segment basis? It would also have to know what do do about 
single lane sealed roads with large gravel shoulders. (common in many 
rural areas) When the sealed section goes it suddenly becomes dual lane 
gravel!


I am considering doing entire towns if they are 10 streets or less. I 
have to do it in both directions if sign data is needed though. I am 
also happy to do a more intense capture of a small area (say 5 or 10fps) 
on request.


On 7/5/19 11:34 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
The higher resolution images and more frequent capture when at highway 
speeds are very helpful for making sure street name signs get captured 
and are readable, often I see reports from downstream users about a 
street name being wrong in OSM, so having this in Mapillary helps 
provide some ground truth so we can update this in OSM.


Just having the street level imagery is very useful for validating 
edits and mapping road features like surface, speed limits, 
restrictions, turn lanes, lane counts, etc.


That said, having recent imagery is useful, so re-capturing existing 
areas every few months is helpful.


Only uploading every 3 months when you have a good connection is okay, 
I'll do the same, sometimes uploading imagery that's older than a few 
months since I'll hold it for upload until I have access to a faster 
upload connection.



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au