Re: [talk-au] Track route names used to name paths

[Ewen Hill]

Hi,
  This sounds similar to the Munda Biddi and Bibblimum 1000km trails (WA)
and 900km Mawson Trail (SA), both of which use a collection of existing
roads/paths/trails along with some purpose built link sections.

Think about Donnelly River Village. South of the town the Munda Biddi is on
Jeffries Road, North is on Willow Springs Road and it makes far more sense
to have these local names rather than having it tagged as the Munda Biddi.
The Munda Biddi and Bibblimum both use Jefferies track for a short section
so we could have three tracks on top of each other. This occurs again and
again with the local Waterous loop trail.

The issues are we don't know which will render first or any other side
effects and that if I select the top one to edit to change an attribute
then the editor may not be aware of the other two underneath potentially.
If we continue this line, then is there a problem with adding a separate
road called Old Belgrave Road under Belgrave-Ferny Creek Rd and under
Terrys Avenue, it gets unwieldy very quickly/.

Ewen



On Thu, 16 May 2024 at 20:29,  wrote:

> Hi Warin
>
> I would expect the highest order entity, the longest or biggest
> entity, to be the primary name. For example the Hume Highway will
> include a lot of High Streets, Station Streets or Main streets of
> country towns. In my mind its first the Hume Highway and secondly High
> Street wherever. I havent given it a lot of thought, its just how it
> feels.
>
> Tony
>
> > HI,
> >
> > On some paths route signs have been used to 'name' the path.
> >
> >
> > One example is the 'Great North Walk', a Sydney to Newcastle walking
> > route, where many of the paths existed before the route was created. I
> > think this is a combination of mistaking the route signage as the track
> > name and route relations not rendering.
> >
> >
> > In the Blue Mountains some paths have more than one OSM way - each with
> > different 'name', at least some of these are routes that may, I repeat
> > may, not be the true path name.
> >
> >
> > Example
> >
> > Way 1199677262 - 'Grand Clifftop Walk'
> >
> > Way 22761613 - 'Overcliff Track' Note NPWS route 'Overcliff-Undercliff
> > track' .. the over cliff track is mapped separately in OSM. A route
> > relation could be made with both these tracks and a website link..
> >
> > --
> >
> > In the Blue Mts where there are overlayed ways and one of them is a
> > route I think it would be best to remove that way and include the
> > remaining way in a route relation .. I think most of this is the 'Great
> > Cliff Top Walk' route and that would then remove the double overlayed
> > ways. .
> >
> >
> > Thoughts/comments ???
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> >
> > _
> > This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
> > see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] farm airstrips

[Ewen Hill]

Hi...
and this is the CASA public report (sadly in an old limited format)
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1990/aair/aair199001173

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 at 19:47, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Especially with the "runway" apparently going through a tree & 2 fences!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 at 18:36, Andrew Welch via Talk-au <
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] farm airstrips

[Ewen Hill]

Hi all,
  There was a proposal of an air bnb and hangar and is next to a house on
Grand Designs TV Show however the runway was never really specced for the
type of aircraft that would want to use the runway. So it really is for
very small or ultralights only on a 540m and 47m wide with prevailing
winds, uneven surface, marine birdlife and ~3% gradient. Warin, any air
evacs of the 100 are via HEMS helicopter or boat. Tyabb airport is just
north of the Island and so there is probably not a lot of interest in an
airfield for the 100 or so residents. I don't know if this proposal got up
or as Andrew stated, it had stalled post incident or property sale.

Finally, there is a barge service that runs from Corinella to nearby
properties with a pier so I would personally take the extra hour and arrive
safely without meeting a bin chicken or other wildlife close up at the
wrong time.

I'm inclined to bin chicken it

Ewen

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 at 18:51, Phil Wyatt via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> May have been an eager mapper after this incident but certainly no sign of
> a formal or informal strip there
>
>
>
>
> https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/plane-flips-after-landing-gear-malfunctions-on-victorias-french-island/video/f61a249832fb86f3fad6be0aa92c3ce6
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew Welch via Talk-au 
> *Sent:* Monday, April 29, 2024 6:32 PM
> *To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* 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
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] New tags for Vic State Forests

[Ewen Hill]

Hi Ian,
   I fully concur with your suggestion. I was in the Wombat State Forest
and found the map didn't necessarily match the ground truth, possibly due
to abutting landowners being geographically challenged when adding fencing
so it would be great if state forests could be simplified so it is easier
to see when the track finishes at a brand new fence!

Ewen

On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 at 11:52, Little Maps  wrote:

> Hi all, landuse=forest is widely used to denote State Forests in OSM, due
> to legislated landuse of timber harvesting. However, from 1 Jan this year,
> timber harvesting is now banned in all native forests in Victoria, so the
> problematic landuse=forest tag is no longer appropriate.
>
> I’m seeking feedback on the most appropriate tag to use now. Down the
> track, individual decisions will be made on conservation / recreation /
> Indigenous management priorities in each reserve. In the interim, are there
> any objections to replacing landuse=forest with the following tags…
>
> boundary=protected_area
> leisure=nature_reserve
>
> plus name tags etc, and mapping separate natural=wood etc boundaries as
> needed. Among other advantages, getting rid of landuse=forest will make
> vegetation mapping a lot simpler in State Forests in Vic.  Cheers Ian
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] Road corridors with no road - what access?

[Ewen Hill]

Hi Tom and a great question,
I think a lot of this dates back to soldier resettlements after the
first and second wars and that these farmlets were too small to operate
successfully and thus were merged into larger farms so some roads that may
have been required in the past were no longer required and some roads
slated to be developed over time were found to not be required. This has
continued as farms have merged due to improved machinery or that there are
cheaper options to improve other roads to spec by councils.

How to map them? I would be looking at the Strava heatmap to see if there
is any athletic usage but that is not 100% proof. So if there is no path,
no Strava action and little to go on, I would map the area as
grassland/scrub/wood and show the bordering fence lines and perhaps add a
note. In SA, you can clearly see wide corridors for the movement of stock
but is each one still in use on a regular basis? Unfortunately, I don't
think there is a set way to map these so I would map what is on the ground.

Ewen




On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 23:16, Tom Brennan  wrote:

> In NSW these are known as Crown Roads, or 'paper roads' (where they are
> not constructed). They are administered by the state government, and in
> theory, access is public. It can be hard to tell just by looking at
> parcel data whether something is a Crown Road or not.
>
> There has been a program in recent years of selling these off to the
> adjacent landholder.
>
> In some cases these provide access to parks and reserves, and letters
> have needed to be written to the Dept of Planning to protest the
> relevant sale.
>
> I assume Victoria probably has a similar system to NSW
>
> cheers
> Tom
> 
> Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
> Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com
>
> On 11/12/2023 5:40 pm, Adam Horan wrote:
> > When comparing satellite imagery and various maps on Vic Maps, you can
> find
> > what seem to be road corridors that don't have roads in them. (I'm
> looking
> > on https://vic.digitaltwin.terria.io/ and
> > https://mapshare.vic.gov.au/mapsharevic/ and when you show parcel data
> you
> > can see these linear areas that extend off the end of roads, usually in
> > rural areas. These linear areas do not show parcel information, unlike
> the
> > surrounding blocks)
> >
> > They tend to be visible in sat imagery too as scrubby or rougher land
> > compared to the fields and paddocks around them.
> >
> > I would love to be able to legally (and safely) use these as walking and
> > running routes in my  surrounding countryside, and also allow others to
> do
> > so. They're attractive as they're traffic free.
> >
> > I'll link to some examples below, but I'll ask my questions here:
> > 1. How can I validate if these are unbuilt roads, and how can I check
> what
> > the access is?
> > 1a. I guess as these aren't main roads that they belong to the local
> > council?
> > 2. If a path is already present then I can map that as a simple path, but
> > how could I map and tag the land?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Adam
> >
> > Example 1 :  Lambert Road, Pearcedale
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-38.1829/145.2334
> > If you look on VicMap you can see the corridor extends to the west to
> meet
> > with Middle Road.
> > https://vic.digitaltwin.terria.io/#share=s-2TIhhoK5rNdNfc4m2WxVtMMraiG
> > https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=-38.182821%7E145.233097=17.8=h
> > This one seems pretty clear to me as there's a nice clear wooded line,
> when
> > I recently passed this on Middle Rd you could see an unfenced section.
> >
> > Example 2 : NW extension of 'Favorite Hill Rd' to North Road
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-38.17566/145.23470
> > https://vic.digitaltwin.terria.io/#share=s-5PIrhAi6EP5M1ivchIyH9lfyGxF
> > https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=-38.174379%7E145.236276=17.3=h
> >
> > This one is visible on sat imagery, however it does seem to be fenced off
> > from the established road.
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
___
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

[Ewen Hill]

t representing the access
> restriction, then we should put pressure on them to make use of the access
> tag. It is a very established tag, and it is the correct solution for many
> sensitive situations like this, including private property, etc.
>
> Finally, it would be somewhat helpful to mention in the description=* tag
> that use of the track is discouraged/banned for rehabilitation.
> Justification for reinstating the OSM features could also be documented in
> the notes=* tag to minimise the risk of this discussion coming up again.
>
> Cheers,
> Ben
>
>> ___
> 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
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] Tasmania Spatial Data

[Ewen Hill]

Superb work again Phil, one dataset at a time, you are slowly making
Tasmania the leader of the state pack!

Regards

Ewen

On Fri, 5 May 2023 at 10:09, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
>
>
> Just a heads up that we have recently obtained a waiver for *a limited
> subset of* data from the LIST Open Data portal (
> https://listdata.thelist.tas.gov.au/opendata/). Data for which Land
> Tasmania is the custodian is now available for use in OpenStreetMap (
> waiver
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Land_Tasmania_Signed_Waivers.pdf>).
> You need to check the metadata of individual layers to ensure the custodian
> is Land Tasmania. We also obtained a waiver for the Topographic Basemap
> tiles and have commenced the process to get that available in editors.
>
>
>
> The wiki has been updated to indicate layers that may be useful to mappers.
>
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources#Tasmania
>
>
>
> The usual caveats apply – some data is old and no longer maintained so be
> careful with its use. Also please follow all community and import
> guidelines if considering any mass imports.
>
>
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping tracks from Strava heatmap

[Ewen Hill]

Hi,
  Having a look at the Strava heat map, I can't see any activity at all.
Select labels and hybrid to see the OSM layer,
https://www.strava.com/heatmap#17.00/150.12413/-33.87746/hot/all
https://www.strava.com/heatmap#15.99/150.14939/-33.91318/hot/all

Nor can I see any sort of trail using the imagery available to us and the
fact that one of the paths clearly crosses a cliff is showing it doesn't
exist so Is this mapping from a bushfire response or where a cool burn took
place with  small 4wd track or firebreak or was the editor thinking
something existed?

To take Tony's comment about ground truthing... I have recently been
looking for supposed osm tracks in a particular area without success
however the strava heatmap now shows my meanderings around these now
removed trails so while the Strava heat layer is fantastic for aligning
known tracks, it shouldn't be used for the creation of new tracks without
other validation and I do get geographically challenged in the bush... a
lot!

Ewen



On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 at 20:55, Tom Brennan  wrote:

> Sorry, my bad! I should have linked the "track" on the other side of
> Whalania Creek:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/963735356
>
> cheers
> Tom
> 
> Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
> Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com
>
> On 26/02/2023 8:20 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Am I missing something? I looked at way 952248376 and found a user
> > Pieseczek with 2 changesets and 4 new ways over a year old. If there was
> > any reference to Strava heat maps then I missed it. Is there any
> > indication whether Pieseczek is resident in Australia apart from the
> > likely origin of the name?
> >
> > If the ways are solely based on heatmaps, they should be deleted because
> > they can not be ground truthed. But they appear to map ridge lines. Were
> > they made from the satellite photos or contours? Ridge lines can be
> > ground truthed and belong on OSM.
> >
> > I agree with Cleary on mapping of illegal trails but that may not be
> > relevant in this case.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >> Do people have a view on the armchair mapping of tracks from Strava
> >> heatmaps?
> >>
> >> I can see a bunch of tracks in Kanangra-Boyd NP that have been mapped
> >> by an overseas mapper off Strava heatmap.
> >>
> >> They almost certainly don't exist on the ground. They are known
> >> bushwalking routes (off track), but would be very unlikely to have a
> >> track even in good times, let along after the fires and 3 years of La
> >> Nina!
> >>
> >> Example:
> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/952248376
> >>
> >> cheers
> >> Tom
> >> 
> >> Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
> >> Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Talk-au mailing list
> >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> >>
> >> _
> >> This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
> >> see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging fire stations

[Ewen Hill]

rship)
>
>
>
> 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: <000401d8dbbe$f3cbf990$db63ecb0$@wyatt-family.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi Folks,
>
>
>
> I am looking for my next tagging clean-up project and wondered about
> amenity
> and building tags for fire stations
>
>
>
> amenity=fire_station -
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dfire_station -
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1mAq
>
>
>
> building=fire_station -
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dfire_station -
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1mAr
>
>
>
> This is partly in response to an issue logged for the ID editor requesting
> a
> preset for fire stations buildings.
>
>
>
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/pull/603
>
>
>
> There is already an ID preset for 'Fire Station' that uses the
> amenity=fire_station key/value but it did get me looking at the differences
> and how its been applied in Australia. There is a clear mix of buildings
> and
> amenity tagging on both station areas and buildings, and some with both
> tags!
>
>
>
>
> https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/australia-oceania/australia/tags/amenity=fire_s
> tation#combinations
>
>
>
> Should it always be the case that the 'plot' on which the fire station
> building resides is the 'amenity' and the 'building' should be separate
> within the plot? To me, its not 100% clear in the wiki's.
>
>
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing 
> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] Cycle permissions by a user

[Ewen Hill]

Hi Tony,
   The area
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=1008258040#map=21/-38.08893/145.12596>
in
question is certainly what I wouldn't call a footpath being a wide grass
only area but what is a footpath? I think of a footpath mainly in urban
areas being just wider than a large pram (wider in shopping precincts),
either concrete or asphalt. In rural areas, I see footpaths also being
longer gravel versions that allow primary school kids safe access to the
local school or bus stop. Anything else is a path, track or shared footpath
however

 In Victoria (as with other states) the road safety rules
<http://legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/statutory-rules/road-safety-road-rules-2017/009>
say
throughout ... "Bicycle, footpath, motor bike, nature strip and postal
vehicle are defined in the dictionary. ". I can't find a precise well-used
definition but the WA Road Traffic Rules
<https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/prod/filestore.nsf/FileURL/mrdoc_44431.pdf/$FILE/Road%20Traffic%20Code%202000%20-%20%5B05-w0-00%5D.pdf?OpenElement>
say "footpath means an area that is open to the public that is designated
for, or has as one of its main uses, use by pedestrians;"

Things get murkier if you pop over  to Macquarie Dictionary
<https://www.macquariedictionary.com.au/resources/aus/word/map/search/word/footpath/Central%20West%20NSW/>
and
see that Footpath can be inferred by some, as the entire area from
residential boundary to road so that includes the grass, trees, crossovers
and potentially, a "sidewalk". This is what I would call a naturestrip or
roadside verge.

I see the WA definition of "designated for" as important. I also see
potential risk to pedestrians and cyclists (reversing cars out of
driveways) being key and the length of footpath as important as a long path
without many exits would suggest cycling as a key option. In his instance,
the footpath is on private land, has not been designated as a footpath and
isn't signposted so I see this as a perfectly legitimate to cycle.

I know this hasn't answered your question however I would consider a
footpath is only when a path runs parallel to a road and is in very close
proximity to that road i.e. a sidewalk, Everything else is a path.

Regards

Ewen



On Fri, 7 Oct 2022 at 20:26,  wrote:

> Hi
> I have been monitoring the edits by a user who still "changes shared
> paths to footpaths as no signs present to indicated bikes are
> permitted" in Victoria Australia.
>
> Most of these changes are small ways where there are unlikely to be
> serious consequences, its not worth the petrol (or electricity in this
> case for my Nissan Leaf) to go out and inspect the way and I have said
> nothing.
>
> I have commented on way 1008258040 in Changeset: 126886850 where
> bicycle=yes by the previous editor has been removed because there were
> "no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted"
>
> There is good street level imagery. It is not a footpath in the
> sidewalk sense. It looks OK for bicycles to me. Sorry to bother but I
> request a clear community consensus again on whether "no signs present
> to indicated bikes are permitted" is of itself  sufficient evidence
> that bicycles are disallowed.
>
> Sorry to bother you all
> Tony
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] Usage of Openstreetmap at EMSINA

[Ewen Hill]

uality emergency-services geo data?  Those seem to be kept on
> the top shelf of a locked cabinet in a room I can't enter.  I suppose
> that's OK, but in some sense, it doesn't feel OK.  I mean, in a "public"
> sense, those are my (our) data.  Are they sensitive, and therefore out of
> my reach?  Wow, it sure seems like it, in a big, big way.
>
> So, sometimes "we use theirs," and sometimes "they use ours" (I've seen
> and participated in the former and noticed that they participate in the
> latter) — which is cool, because over years, the data "get better towards
> each other" — but other times, "never the twain shall meet."  Quite
> intentionally.  I'm sure there are good reasons for this, and it's legal,
> of course.  And such people are trained to "talk about it" by "not talking
> about it" in that skilled way he did, it was amazing.



-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?

[Ewen Hill]

Ian,
  That sounds like a plan and perhaps a final sub or a separate
relationship for the huts. I am still not 100% sure that the continuous
alignment will work overtime without Ian's eagle eye as other users not
aware of the MB can make significant changes.

Ewen

On Sat, 10 Sept 2022 at 19:59, stevea  wrote:

> On Sep 10, 2022, at 2:21 AM, Ian Steer  wrote:
> >> What would people think about a structure that had a Munda Biddi
> ...
> > - and I would give the winter section, and northbound one-way sections
> in the main route relation a role of “alternative"
>
> Outstanding!  I step further aside and let you masters craft such a thing,
> marvel from afar, nod my head and smile.
>
> Happy mapping.
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?

[Ewen Hill]

Hi Ian,
   Firstly, thank you to you and the Munda Biddi (MB) elves for providing
an amazing 1000km cycling route, mainly off-road, sometimes on ball
bearings, other times on sand and the rest mainly on fire trails and single
track. It is an amazing asset and something that I will cherish completing.

   I have been thinking of this with the new Collie township spur and the
other oddities and especially the huts that scatter the route which apart
from one amazing hut that is smack bang in the middle of the trail, are
normally just off the trail on short spurs. Please note that this route is
not set in stone and sections are replaced on a regular basis.

  Where it started with two relationships of MB-Main and MB-Alternative, I
believe a master MB would be preferable containing all the huts, spurs,
winter/summer variations and the main route. Where there is a spur like
Collie (~16km?), an additional MB-Collie-Spur might be worthwhile.

Having a single master would allow users to easily extract the entire route
and huts in one go and prepare them for their garmin and whatever GIS
software they use.It would also give councils, emergency services, tourism
operators etc. easy access to all of the relevant data.  I don't see the
need to maintain any other spur relationships unless the spur is ~> 2km as
it's probably overkill and makes it more complex to maintain.

Next time you are over east, let's have a chat about a MB east coast
equivalent between Orbost and Canberra - and apols for my route checker
code failing back in 2019. ;)

Ewen

On Mon, 5 Sept 2022 at 13:15, Ian Steer  wrote:

> I am a volunteer with the Munda Biddi Trail Foundation, and do my best to
> keep the Munda Biddi Trail route relation (5810814) up-to-date.  The trail
> is 1,000km from Perth to Albany.
>
>
>
> There is a child route relation (Munda Biddi Alternate, 8900679) that
> contains “odds and sods” not on the main route (typically spur trails into
> overnight huts).
>
>
>
> There are a few sections of the main trail that have alternate routes –
> some for north-bound/south-bound, and one for summer/winter routes.
>
>
>
> I don’t know enough about the potential consumers of route relation data
> to answer the following question:
>
> - should the sections of track with alternate routes (eg north/south,
> summer/winter) be in the main route relation? – or should I randomly select
> (say) north-bound and summer routes so as to keep the main route strictly a
> simple, point-to-point route (and shift the south-bound and winter routes
> into the Munda Biddi Alternate relation) ?
>
>
>
> My suspicion is that they should stay in the main route relation.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Ian
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] TomTom - OSM Collaboration

[Ewen Hill]

Hi Will,
   Welcome to the list and I concur with the previous respondents and
working through some of the projects initially is an excellent starting
point. Whilst not in Australia, the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team
(HOTOSM) needs a bit of assistance with one of our neighbours at
https://tasks.hotosm.org/projects/12728 and that also would be an excellent
place to delve into.

 With automated or semi automated asset creation, one key concern is
uploading content that needs to be removed after a shift in policy or
should not have been loaded in the first place. If going down this path,
can we ask for a plan and within that plan, a process to update a small
area that can be socialised.

There is also OSGeo Oceania <https://osgeo-oceania.org/>  that you may be
interested in joining (yes, I do have a conflict of interest here) and
the Pacific
Geospatial Conference 2022
<https://ti.to/foss4g-oceania/pacific-geospatial-conference-2022> in late
November (oops, another conflict here as well) will offer you a lot of
insight into the community and processes.

Once again welcome!

Ewen

On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 09:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
> Hi Will
>
> On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 10:14, William Ireland 
> wrote:
>
>> Some initial ideas include but are not limited to providing leads from
>> media sources extracted by our web scraping tool or locating missing
>> highways from new housing developments.
>>
>>
>>
>> We would love to hear from you. What do you think of these ideas?
>>
>
>  I brought it up on Discord, & concerns were raised over whether we can
> legally use "scraped" data, due to licensing copyright etc?
>
> And are there any other areas where you need assistance or fields we can
>> collaborate on?
>>
>
> A couple of suggestions that were made were
>
> 1. Perhaps getting higher quality, more frequent, more wide-spread street
> view 360 imagery; &
>
> 2. Using your influence, which is probably greater than OSM itself, to try
> to convince various Federal & State Govt departments to allow us access to
> their data
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] Usage of Openstreetmap at EMSINA

[Ewen Hill]

A really great thread. Sometime early this century, the Victorian CFA used
local brigades to confirm mapping. This became the original
paperbasedSpatial Vision Maps. We now have the Common Operating Platform or
EM-COP that does much the same as Graeme's QFES above but has a
proprietary basemap.

   It works really well and allows updates by the Fire Behavioural Analysts
(FBANS) and other Intel staff, BOM staff, warnings officers and  local
incident controllers as well as strike team leaders commanding 4 or so fire
tankers.

Now, if we could not put transmission towers on top of hills because there
is one flaw in all of this.

Ewen

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 10:10, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 at 20:42, Michael Collinson  wrote:
>
>>
>>  I'll ask a mate in the Victoria CFA.
>>
>
> Son has a mate in Qld RFS so got him to ask last night.
>
> "It's a QFES app for iPads, that's slowly rolling out to RFS as well.
> Fully interactive, they can draw fire fronts over a map and other units can
> see it in real time. Prior to that though, they get around by GPS and mud
> maps"
>
> No more info than that, but if it's on an iPad, I'd assume it's using
> Apple Maps? & I believe Apple are starting to use OSM info?
>
> I know that when the fires were all happening, there were a lot of
> complaints that the publicly-accessible QFES maps were woeful, with regard
> to location & frequency of being updated, & they made the comment that they
> use a much better system themselves "but it would be too complicated for
> civilian viewers to understand"! :roll eyes:
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging silos?

[Ewen Hill]

Wow, that's a lot of small silos in several clumps. Surely you could call
it silo (albeit with multiple skins) when they are so closely
packed together?

Ewen

On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 at 20:11, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 10/8/22 09:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Just been adding some details around here:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-26.55047/151.82936.
>
> They should all be tagged as silos, but I'm not sure about mapping every
> one of them individually, as it'll be *very* crowded?
>
> Would it work just putting one silo tag in the middle of each group?
>
> Is there such a thing as a "quantity" tag to say there's 10 silos here?
>
>
> Individually ...
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/689552470#map=19/-36.37656/142.99683
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/684276590
>
>
> The map handles the crowd.
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "secret" facilities?

[Ewen Hill]

Graeme and Steve,    I think Steve is pretty close to my thoughts in his last para. My thoughts are ... Is it generally known?Has it been verifiedCould publication on OSM pose a risk I think keeping it as a general tag for the time being sounds reasonable. Ewen Sent from Mail for Windows From: steveaSent: Wednesday, 27 July 2022 10:44 AMTo: Graeme FitzpatrickCc: OSM-AuSubject: Re: [talk-au] Mapping "secret" facilities? On Jul 26, 2022, at 5:31 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:> Have just spotted a Note where an anonymous user has given company name & address details for a Medicinal Cannabis plant.> > Checking to confirm details & found a news article that said, yes, the plant is near Mildura, but "Due to the nature of its business, however, it has a secret location and isn’t open to the public." > > The company involved doesn't have the plant address listed on it's website.> > Should we map it? We map cannabis facilities in California; cannabis is legal here. I am of the opinion that "if it is in the world, it can be mapped."  There are things that people say we SHOULD not map, and I have even seen some well-reasoned arguments which cause me to nod my head.  For example, I once mapped some hiking trails (as access=no) on closed-to-the-public land.  I was asked by the owner (land steward, really; ownership is a "public land trust") to remove them, as he convinced me that "these trails are still under development, they are not yet 'real' trails, but will be after they are developed and the land is properly opened to the public." You might choose to use "more generic" tags, like building=industrial and "leave it at that."  (I note with some amusement that you cay "Cannabis 'plant'" and that could be a manufacturing facility, or a rooted dicotyledon growing in the earth — I assume the former).  Adding something like access=private couldn't hurt (if true).___Talk-au mailing listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au 

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

Re: [talk-au] Bicycle access tags in Victoria and other edits edits

[Ewen Hill]

Hi Highrouleur,
   Re Changeset 120382605, I am not comfortable that this is not a shared
path. This route is used by many families and sports people using the route
to get to a number of sporting grounds and is called "Survey Paddock
Trail" rather than a path - The signage clearly shows that it is intended
to be part of the cycling/walking network, linking to the CCT. Can I ask
for this to be reverted please.

See trailhead sign: https://www.flickr.com/photos/philipmallis/46268682255

Ewen


On Sun, 15 May 2022 at 13:59,  wrote:

> Hi Sebastian and list
>
> Today I did a number of edits relating to whether a lack of bicycle
> signage, on its own, is sufficient grounds to remove
> bicycle=yes/designated or cycleway. Most of my edits though relate to
> cases where there is signage that had not been noticed by an editor.
>
> I invite anybody with an opinion on this to discuss here (talk-au). So
> far I have two, reproduced below:
>
> _
> This is one of two cases of questions that had been asked but not
> answered, I don't have an opinion on this one. Changeset: 115626232,
> Sebastian's answer below
>
> Bob42nd we shouldn?t be mapping based on a Strava heat map as it
> doesn?t not determine that transiting in permissible. The heat map
> indicates that people have used it but we should be mapping on the
> ground with what form of transport is permitted.
> _
> changeset/120382941 This one had been changed from a cycleway to a
> footway on the basis of no signage indicating that bicycles were
> allowed. Lots of paths have been changed to foot on the basis of no
> signage and I have let many go uncommented because I am not familiar
> with them.
>
> I know  this one well. My understanding is that you have to wheel your
> bike across Macrobertson Bridge but otherwise its OK to ride. I
> signaled my intent to edit 2 weeks ago and got no reply so I made the
> changes. Sebastian's reply below:
>
> The Mapillary link you provided included a big picture of a bike with
> a cross through it painted on the ground indicating that bikes are not
> permitted. Not sure how you have have come to the conclusion that
> bikes are permitted.
>
>   The bridge way that diverts north and follows Yarra Boulevard is not
> part of the Main Yarra Trail.
>
> Please revert the change.
> __
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] Mass fix-me's with very strange comments

[Ewen Hill]

Thanks Phil,
   I never knew you could use NWR for all elements so thank you for that
gem. I would probably agree to remove in bulk the at least 5216 fixme's
with a value = '20', '21' and '22' and keep the remaining couple of hundred
others he has raised or review these further.

Thanks Graeme and Phil for spotting and identifying this.

Ewen

On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 at 14:01, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> There's also a heap of his other changes where he has deleted the entered
> Source, but hasn't fixed existing Fix-Me's (apparently mainly created by
> the Microsoft Team) asking for street & roundabout names.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 at 11:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Resulting in: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gC0 :-(
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 at 11:23, Phil Wyatt  wrote:
>>
>>> This might help for a start via overpass
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [out:json][timeout:25];
>>>
>>> (
>>>
>>>   nwr["fixme"](user:"aaronsta")({{bbox}});
>>>
>>> );
>>>
>>> out meta;
>>>
>>> >;
>>>
>>> out skel qt;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Graeme Fitzpatrick 
>>> *Sent:* Friday, 4 March 2022 11:09 AM
>>> *To:* OSM-Au 
>>> *Subject:* [talk-au] Mass fix-me's with very strange comments
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Fixing a note yesterday arvo to add a cafe in Perth
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118044124#map=19/-31.90414/115.86993=N,
>>> but when I moused over the next house just to check the street number, it
>>> had a Fix-Me on it, saying "21".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thinking that may be a street address, despite being next door to Number
>>> 4, I checked further along the street & all the mapped houses have Fix-Me
>>> 21 on them, while across the street has Fix-Me 22?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Having a good look this morning & there are apparently 1000+ of them! :-(
>>>
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-31.90392/115.87030
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Checking one of them further, & what do we find?:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/424520629#map=19/-31.90435/115.87189=N
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Does the name aaronsta mean anything to anybody? /s :-(
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Any way of clearing 1000+, on the surface, apparently pointless Fix-Me
>>> comments? 5 years old so they may be difficult to just wind back?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Graeme
>>>
>> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] OSM Notes

[Ewen Hill]

Hi Graeme,
   A lot of these notes are anonymous and therefore reminders will go into
the ether. A significant proportion more are businesses via a third party
app or two, once again, the chances of a response is slim which leaves
travellers who flag places via OSMAND who wont be able to assist and those
planning to update an area. The legendary Pakenhamin, who was a courier,
used OSMAND to flag thousands of notes, all valid change requests whilst he
was travelling and the QA of the map was worth updating the notes so I
don't see a six month reminder assisting in all but a small proportion.

   I would like to see a colour change or starred note for a note < 30 days
old so that you can easily identify new comments. I would also like to see
the notes appear in the ID edit mode by default to prompt people editing

Ewen

On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 at 19:04, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 at 16:16, Andrew Davidson  wrote:
>
>> an active mapper
>
>
> I've actually just raised a suggestion in Github that the system may be
> able to be modified to send reminders that your notes are still active "6"
> months after you raised them:
>
>
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/3477#issuecomment-1053954755
>
> Unfortunately, the powers that be don't seem very interested in the
> proposal.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] Driver-Reviver?

[Ewen Hill]

As Cleary said, I think most are for the holiday period and key long
weekends and are staffed by vols from the Red Cross/SES etc. There is more
chance of it not being open and the only food is normally two biscuits in a
pack.

Most are well signed that they are in operation (in Victoria anyway) so I
am not certain if mapping them is more confusing than not.

Ewen

On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 at 16:04, cleary  wrote:

> Perhaps others have different perceptions but the driver reviver places
> I've seen in NSW operated only for limited hours on certain days such as
> until mid-afternoon on weekends and public holidays.  I was so disappointed
> that I have not stopped at one for a while.  I do not recall any food being
> available and the coffee was undrinkable (by me, at least) - I recall a
> hot-water urn and tin of coffee powder on one occasion. Unless you can add
> days and hours of operation and be clear about what is offered, I would be
> reluctant to map them.  The ones I have seen are not permanent and are
> often just vans that are parked at the locations for a few hours. Anyone
> expecting a "cafe" would be very disappointed.
>
>
>
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2022, at 12:34 PM, Dian Ågesson wrote:
> > Perhaps a simple food=yes on highway=rest_area?
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2022-02-26 11:52, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> >
> >> Just spotted one of these on a Note.
> >>
> >> Do we map them at all, & if so how?
> >>
> >> Cafe perhaps, possibly together with rest-area?
> >>
> >> 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
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
___
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"

[Ewen Hill]

Graeme,
   I'm with you for sending it back to them Graeme. I'm trying to clean up
the Mawson and the Heyson trails where there are clearly no culverts and
you wouldn't expect a culvert at all. Warin is correct that there can be a
small pipe or two under the road in some instances to allow limited flow
under the road but when it rains, it is designed primarily as a ford. You
would only see this on key roads and not the tracks that most of these are
on.

   I'm hoping that there can be better due diligence when uploading
significant changes by adding a small set and requesting feedback.

Ewen

On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 14:11, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 13:02, Ewen Hill  wrote:
>
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>
> Giving it back to "the Organisation" responsible, telling them that's not
> acceptable & asking them to fix it?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>

-- 
Warm Regards

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

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

[Ewen Hill]

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

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Ewen Hill]

Hi Justin,
   I see a single batch change as the preferred route as it has no logic
other than swapping the values of Victoria and VIC and there is no reason
why you would want to revert this at all.

Thanks for fixing this anomaly Australia wide and the time you have spent
on this.

Ewen

On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 08:26, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Can't see it being an issue?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 22:30, tabjsina  wrote:
>
>> So all of Australia with the exception of Victoria is now fixed to use
>> capitalized state abbreviations. As mentioned before, Victoria was the
>> state that had a much closer (though still not entirely close) split
>> between "Victoria" and "VIC", which leaves a whopping 32k addresses that
>> need to be updated to "VIC".
>>
>> While it is entirely possible (and easy) to do this via maproulette,
>> I've removed the challenge as someone had pointed out to me that 32k
>> individual changes might be a bit much as far as changesets go.
>>
>> Are there any concerns with me doing this as a single batch change?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] Anyone mind if I tidy the wiki a bit?

[Ewen Hill]

Hi Tony,
  I wholeheartedly agree with this process and thank you Dian for making it
easier for new editors.

Ewen

On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 06:28,  wrote:

> Hi all
> Can I suggest the following
>
> 1 get community support from talk au for this process
> 2 Contact Aaron and get his agreement
> 3 Thorsten rolls back the wiki to an agreed state
> 4 Dian tidys up the wiki
> 5 Aaron does not edit the wiki until Dian has finished
> 6 we do not call for DWG intervention unless a party will not follow
> the agreed process
>
> Tony
> Quoting osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au:
>
> > Well, rearranging and editing, on top of the questionable edits that
> >  are currently on top of the stack of revisions, will cement these
> > changes and make it harder to revert them.
> >
> >
> >
> > Some of the changes have completely replaced what previously was
> > listed as correct tagging practice with something totally different.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Dian Ã…gesson 
> > Sent: Wednesday, 23 February 2022 03:04
> > To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
> > Cc: 'OSM Australian Talk List' 
> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Anyone mind if I tidy the wiki a bit?
> >
> >
> >
> > Hey Thorsten,
> >
> > While I don’t intend to simply rearrange sections verbatim, I want
> >  to focus on tidying, copy editing for spelling/grammar, and
> > consolidating rather than making editorial decisions.
> >
> > As Andrew suggested, I will reach out if there is something
> > egregiously incorrect or contradictory, but I’m not intending to
> > validate the entire wiki for correctness: I feel as though that
> > would be beyond the remit of “tidying†.
> >
> > More than happy to work with simultaneous updates and additions
> > though—I don’t think it’s a task that can be done in one edit!
> >
> > Dian
> >
> > On 2022-02-22 18:54, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
> > <mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au>  wrote:
> >
> > If you do, please make sure to not just incorporate the recent
> > undiscussed, subjective, if not outright wrong changes by Aaronsta.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Dian Ã…gesson mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz> >
> > Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2022 17:00
> > To: OSM Australian Talk List  > <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
> > Subject: [talk-au] Anyone mind if I tidy the wiki a bit?
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > The wiki contains loads of really good information, but it's a
> > little bit hard to navigate: the Australian Tagging Guidelines page
> > seems to contain the most current information but is getting very
> > long. There are a lot of state-specific articles that don't seem to
> > have been updated since 2009.
> >
> > I'd like to do a bit of housekeeping: tidy up some of the sections,
> > mark some of the pages as archived, etc, to try and make it more
> > approachable for newbies and more maintainable. Nothing substantive
> > would change, nothing would be deleted. Does anyone have any
> > objections, thoughts or concerns with regard to this?
> >
> >
> >
> > dian
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] New blogs on unsealed roads in Victoria

[Ewen Hill]

Ian,
   I posted this to a private bikepacking group to see if there was any
interest. In 12 hours you had 235 likes, 6 shares and 58 comments all
positive and most putting their hand up. This is a fantastic use of OSM and
the tools around it and will show that OSM is just not a map on their
Strava App. Chapeau!

"Impressive that someone is able to use available resources to put this
together. I have wondered if such a route was possible, but gave up after
10 minutes of searching."
"Im in. Ive done north to south. East to West has to be done! Then we can
turn around and ride home"
"That's fantastic. I've added it to my to-do list - it might take a few
years to get around to it though.. or maybe to be done in sections. The
documentation and blogging on the process looks great - a lot of work."
"jeepers, won’t have legs after something like this"

On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 at 15:59, Little Maps  wrote:

> Hi folks, for everyone interested in OpenStreetMap's fantastic road data…
> I've just posted a series of blogs about unsealed roads in Victoria. I've
> pitched it at cyclists rather than mappers to widen the audience, but you
> should still find lots of interest I hope.
>
>
> https://little-maps.com/2022/01/12/the-great-vic-gravel-route-exploring-victoria-on-unsealed-roads/
>
> It starts with the question, how far can you ride across Victoria without
> hitting a paved road? Then displays Victoria's major 'gravel zones', and
> plots the route that crosses Victoria from west to east which contains the
> shortest possible distance of paved roads. It's very circuitous.
>
> A series of supplementary posts expand on the main theme and describe how
> the maps and routes were made. I hope you find it interesting. Best wishes
> Ian
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging "boundary" roads with addr:*

[Ewen Hill]

Hi Graeme and happy new year,
   How much can you datamine from a suburb:left , suburb:right ? I would
suggest suburb polygons and street names only which would cover all
eventualities and allow for the change in the suburb area without having to
touch each road affected

Ewen



On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 at 15:13, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Would left / right help at all?
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forward_%26_backward,_left_%26_right#Left_and_right
>
> Contemplating something like:
> addr:name=Sandgate Road + addr:suburb:left=Clayfield +
> addr:suburb:right=Albion
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 at 13:52, Andrew Davidson  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 1:42 PM Andrew Hughes  wrote:
>> > In the interest of stirring up a hornets nest (jokes). I'd like to know
>> what could be said for tagging ways (streets/roads) with add:suburb (or
>> addr:county...) where the suburb (or other region/area) the road "belongs"
>> to can NOT be spatially determined (i.e. typically runs along or forms the
>> boundary of the suburb/area).
>> >
>> > I'll leave it at that (purposely open ended).
>>
>> The addr:* namespace is for recording physical addresses ie: along
>> with a house number. What you are looking for is the is_in:*
>> namespace.
>>
>> I will leave it up to the reader to figure out how useful this type of
>> tagging is.
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?

[Ewen Hill]

Hi all,
  A great discussion and can I thank Dian for raising this.

*Postcodes*
As well as SteveA's comments, postcode boundaries are proprietary and
Auspost are never going to sign a waiver or have it as an open source
service and no, I don't really understand this logic. The best you can get
is an "interpretation" of postcodes every 5 years from the ABS. Auspost
don't have a process to identify alterations within those five years
(assuming the ABS postcodes are very close) so we are really up a creek
without a paddle postcode wise.

*Indigenous nations/country*
I have a strong belief that we should allocate an entry around level three
to six for indigenous country. There will be discussion on fuzziness of
boundaries and ownership, a number of these have been resolved already by
the Registered Aboriginal Parties (RAP) for an area however I don't see
that being a huge issue. My key issue is appropriation of the country and
area polygons for the ability for others to commercialise this or reduce
the purchasing of indigenous materials.

I don't see that all RAPs and others would update the map, however I see
having the ability to add this data and be able to index it, is important
to OSM in Australia.

Ewen



On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 at 10:53, stevea  wrote:

> I will and do (cautiously, as an "outsider" from the USA, but as an
> "insider" being one who seriously coordinated the USA [1] getting our 4-10
> admin_level table(s) [2] about as hammered-into-submission-and-consensus as
> is humanly OSM-possible, over months and years and sweat and tears) say one
> thing:
>
> Assigning admin_level=8 to Postcode Borders simply isn't correct.  Mail
> delivery areas are not administrative boundaries.  They might be
> convenient, but they should be boundary=postal_code, not
> boundary=admin_level (see, that is a direct collision in the key boundary
> for exactly the right reason:  one is not the other).
>
> (In the USA, postal_codes, what we call ZIP Codes — Zone/Improvement/Plan
> — are more like routing algorithms for efficient mail delivery.  They
> absolutely do not describe geographic regions and it is essentially
> geographically impossible to make them do so).
>
> The other proposed changes to Australia's table?  I step aside, good
> Australian OSM Contributors.
>
> SteveA
>
> [1] https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States_admin_level
> [2] https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States/Boundaries
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] M11 naming

[Ewen Hill]

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
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] Importing 200 emergency markers?

[Ewen Hill]

  Hi Kim,
   I don't think these are standard emergency markers as per EMV/ETSA. They
are normally green with white writing with the three letter id and are one
of two specific styles
<https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/tastrax?lat=-37.04417778025=146.0444333006=17=578355906539998=photo=Mapillary+satellite=0.3424026028529852=0.6120759619632152=0.9900049233549993>(this
one is just outside Mansfield). Whilst the local fire brigades and Belgrave
/ Emerald ambulance stations may have local instructions, I don't think
these are generally available on all emergency services platforms. These
appear to be more internal references for PBR and at eight locations per km
approximately, they are significantly more densely packed than any other
emergency marker identifier.

   It might be worthwhile obtaining the standard waver from PBR which could
confirm the status of the markers as well. As they are not standard,
perhaps consider adding a few more fields, colour=white, source= and if
they are all on the telephone poles, perhaps identify this as well as
man_made=utility_pole, utility=telecom.

This is a good exercise and I hope you are not deterred.

and this is a trestle bridge!
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.74395556=148.0465833=17=4226447237419785=photo

Ewen


On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 22:12, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 26/11/21 9:09 pm, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> > On 26/11/21 18:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> The markers were installed by the railway, and are maintained by the
> >> railway. They are pole numbers attached to each telegraph pole along
> >> the railway.
> >
> > So they are pole reference numbers that are being used as emergency
> > markers?
>
> Yes.
>
> Being used by the Railway and ESTA as emergency markers.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] Service Roads?

[Ewen Hill]

Hi,   I found the page somewhat difficult to understand the logic of frontage road by tagging it with nothing. It was a bit about face compared to other pages. If Frontage Roads can be the whole gamut of road types (residential, service, unclassified etc.) then perhaps frontage_road=yes would be a preferable solution however I don’t see much to datamine with this element.  Whilst a lot of Frontage Roads are easy to identify along dual carriageways, this may be more difficult at a more granular level.  Sent from Mail for Windows From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.auSent: Tuesday, 23 November 2021 11:55 PMTo: talk-au@openstreetmap.orgSubject: Re: [talk-au] Service Roads? The point of that link was that most of them aren’t highway=service to start with, so service=* wouldn’t apply to most of them. From: Andrew Hughes  Sent: Tuesday, 23 November 2021 08:55To: Dian Ågesson Cc: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: Re: [talk-au] Service Roads? Thanks All, Graeme: naming might help, but I am not sure if they would conflict with an official signposted name. Dian: Interesting with the "frontage road". Yes, that is suitable but the tagging guidelines do not have anything unique about these roads. They are simply the standard (non _link) highway=* tags. Perhaps "service"="frontage road" would help, but I don't know if this would collide with other conventions. Thanks all! On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 22:13, Dian Ågesson  wrote:Hi Andrew,From your description in example A, it sounds like you are describing frontage roads (what we would call service roads in Australia). Rather confusingly, the service tag isn’t the best tag for these roads; https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Frontage_road has a good explanation.DianOn 2021-11-19 15:56, Andrew Hughes wrote:Hi Again,  With regards to service roads. I would like to know if there is a tagging convention that would provide a distinction between roads that appear to all fall under highway=service for the following examples: Example A: This is what is referred to "traditionally" as a "service road" (outside the OSM world that is). I'd describe it as,a minor road that is associated with a major road, it runs parallel to its major road counterpart and gives general access to the local area so that the major road is occupied by traffic that does not want to stop in the local area https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/118171809 Example B: A way (perhaps even a driveway or parking_isle?) that provides access to a carpark. It's not really paired with a major road and is not designed to "split" the local traffic from traffic passing through as per A  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28262128  The main difference I feel between A and B is that A is really part of a major/bigger arterial way and services the local needs that the arterial way will not. B is not really a thoroughfare and is more in line with the "destination" rather than a thoroughfare. You only use the B way to access the carpark(s). Someone else might have a better interpretation however I do feel like on the ground they are very different roads and tagging with highway=services alone doesn't reflect that. Thanks in advance,Andrew ___Talk-au mailing listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au 

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

[talk-au] Update on South Australian Road Classifications.

[Ewen Hill]

Hi all,
  I have reviewed portions of 1998 changesets that had new roads added in
South Australia at the time with only a handful of non-commercial editors
creating highways.

Of 2673 new highways extracted by Overpass that were reviewed,

   - 77% appear to be private farm roads rather than residential or
   unclassified roads,
   - 6% appear to be alleys or lanes that should have their highway type
   reduced to avoid routing down the lane and
   - 2% had other issues.

A further 3% were difficult to determine but caused no real concern
including old road alignments that may have been reclaimed by the farmer. I
reviewed each highway in JOSM using Bing / Maxar to determine what I
thought each highway should be. My thoughts may not be the same as others
on some highways however I believe I have identified the majority correctly
without local knowledge.

 I have now altered the highways as indicated above and manually altered
the 2% with other issues. This may mean there are a few islands of
access=all, or where Right Of Way or livestock routes might have been set
to private however I hope this is an improvement overall.

Before embarking on a large number of additions, it might be worthwhile
flagging this here and running some small batches. I am now seeing lots of
changes in the Victorian high country by the same commercial team and
removing surface type. It's hard to keep track of a very fast paced team
making one or two edits in a changeset.

-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification

[Ewen Hill]

Hi Oisin,
  Thanks for your email. As per the listing as well as service and
residential roads, I have altered the vast majority to highway=service,
service=driveway, access=private. I have also altered another 200 or so
roads that had other issues. I am now noticing the surface being removed
off tracks in Victoria e.g. https://osmcha.org/changesets/65812923/

  What appears on the official government datasets may not be what is on
the ground so take your time and perhaps raise a comment or raise a
question in talk-au.

All the best

Ewen

On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 at 21:53, Oisin Herriott (Insight Global Inc) <
v-oi...@microsoft.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Thank you to Ewen for taking the time to review these ways and providing
> us with the excel sheet with all the relevant information to return to our
> edits and update them, and to Graeme and Michael for the insights and
> suggestions! We'll take the opportunity to update the team on the local
> characteristics that require a closer attention to detail and submit these
> individually rather than as a bulk upload. We're always looking to improve
> the quality of edits and the time people have taken to share their local
> knowledge and experience here is much appreciated.
>
> Thanks again,
> Oisin
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Oisin Herriott (Insight Global Inc)
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 8:31 AM
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Cc: Ewen Hill 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification
>
> Hi Ewen,
>
> Nemanja is out on holidays for a couple weeks, so I'll jump in here.
> Thanks for taking the time to go through all these issues. We are still
> very much ready to proceed with the communities' decision on updates to
> tagging accordingly. In that regard we're glad to take the list of changes
> you propose in the form of a spreadsheet, or if you choose to use
> mapnotes/fixme's we can process them quick enough to have them resolved
> quickly. Feel free to reach out to me directly and we can get the team to
> prioritize this work.
>
> In terms of how to improve the mapping, Graeme has summarized Michael's
> proposal below as follows - " if it's named on the Govt data, then
> highway=unclassified + access=public; if not named  highway=unclassified
> + access=private." Would this be the best approach going forward when SA
> has newly published Open datasets? Then local surveyors can adjust
> individual roads, as necessary.
>
> Thanks again,
> Oisin
>
> -Original Message-
> From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org  >
> Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2021 6:48 AM
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Talk-au Digest, Vol 172, Issue 37
>
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk-audata=04%7C01%7Cv-oiher%40microsoft.com%7C6aafb7e6bda04edb68eb08d991759bc3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637700756595701348%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=HCO%2FC9h7phH3473DnbMhrVptw1bZlKJQwPWn0mQ4QAI%3Dreserved=0
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
> "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification
>   contributions in SA via Microsoft Open Maps Team - contact point?
>   (Ewen Hill)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 00:46:17 +1100
> From: Ewen Hill 
> To: o...@97k.com
> Cc: "Nemanja Bracko (E-Search)" , Graeme
> Fitzpatrick ,  OpenStreetMap
> 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification
> contributions in SA via Microsoft Open Maps Team - contact point?
> Message-ID:
>  so8-hf_vq2lb3nxnyu9dwkxpie08a684fr7copcuda5k...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Nemanja,
>Thank you for improving the mapping of Australian roads and tracks. I
> have reviewed 1649 unclassified roads that have been added in South
> Australia and I believe over 1500 are private driveways, farm access or
> roads that have been decommissioned. I have significant concern that an
> active army barracks has had access=all created for all internal roads and
> 

Re: [talk-au] No attribution on map

[Ewen Hill]

Hi Graeme,
   This is Mapbox Streets-v11 tileset and requires attribution and is part
derived by our good volunteer work. Mapbox have a fantastic doc
<https://docs.mapbox.com/help/getting-started/attribution/#reporting-attribution-problems>
about attribution at
https://docs.mapbox.com/help/getting-started/attribution/ which has a link
to reporting attribution abuse
<https://docs.mapbox.com/help/getting-started/attribution/#reporting-attribution-problems>


Regards

Ewen

On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 12:28, Sigurjon Runarsson via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Looks like they are using Mapbox tile service which is mostly based on OSM
> data combined with Mapbox data sources ie buildings.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Sigurjon
>
>
>
> *From:* Graeme Fitzpatrick [mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 28 October 2021 12:15 PM
> *To:* Bob Cameron ; OSM-Au <
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] No attribution on map
>
>
>
> *CAUTION*: This email is sent from an external source. Do not click any
> links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the
> content is safe.
>
>
>
>
> Thanks Bob.
>
>
>
> Taking another look at it though, it appears that it must be sourced from
> a combination of places?
>
>
>
> Yes, things are named from OSM, but here on the GC, every building is
> shown, which certainly isn't the case in OSM!
>
>
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 10:46, Bob Cameron  wrote:
>
> Agreed Graeme
>
> The business premises and other features I recently added in Quilpie Qld
> (including omissions) show on their map.
>
> Cheers Bob
>
> On 28/10/21 10:50 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Spotted this site a couple of days ago:
> https://easypark.com.au/parking/en_au/
> <https://clicktime.symantec.com/3KwgCT5yWfVRUqH58pGdJpz7Vc?u=https%3A%2F%2Feasypark.com.au%2Fparking%2Fen_au%2F>,
> that certainly appears to be using OSM with no attribution.
>
>
>
> Sent them an email, but no response as yet.
>
>
>
> On the site that they say they also operate in NZ & 15 countries around
> Europe, but not sure if they're also using OSM there?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
> ___
>
> Talk-au mailing list
>
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au 
> <https://clicktime.symantec.com/3C6g1mk6cKwwTSuZdaBXJme7Vc?u=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk-au>
>
> This email is intended only for the addressee and may contain confidential
> information. If you receive this email in error please delete it and any
> attachments and notify the sender immediately by reply email. Transport for
> NSW takes all care to ensure that attachments are free from viruses or
> other defects. Transport for NSW assume no liability for any loss, damage
> or other consequences which may arise from opening or using an attachment.
>
> P *Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless really
> necessary.*
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] Vic State Forest Boundary Files

[Ewen Hill]

Thank you Ian and Andrew!
   Excellent news and hopefully someone will run with this in DELWP

Regards

Ewen

On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 at 16:02, Little Maps  wrote:

> Thanks Andrew, I've submitted the data request to DELWP and updated the
> Aus data catalogue wiki. Cheers Ian
>
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 9:26 PM Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>> Ian, yes templates are at
>> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates
>> which includes a generic cover letter. It would be a good idea to reference
>> the existing Vicmap specific waiver we have and link to
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Vicmap_CCBYPermission_OSM_Final_Jan2018_Ltr.pdf
>> (maybe even quote the original request number SRQ0062658), as asking for an
>> updated one would be easier than starting from scratch again.
>>
>> I would try asking for the waiver to cover all CC BY 4.0 licensed
>> datasets from DELWP.
>>
>> ie. instead of
>>
>> With respect to Vicmap Datasets made available under Creative Commons
>> Attribution 4.0 International Public License (“the License”) for the
>> purposes of the OpenStreetMap Project, the State of Victoria agrees to the
>> following:
>>
>> we request
>>
>> With respect to DELWP open data made available under Creative Commons
>> Attribution 4.0 International Public License (“the License”) for the
>> purposes of the OpenStreetMap Project, the State of Victoria agrees to the
>> following:
>>
>> On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 at 08:43, Little Maps  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Andrew, yes, happy to take it on. Is there a template for data
>>> requests online somewhere that explains why the waiver is needed, that I
>>> can use as an example?
>>>
>>> Do you think we should try an ambit request for all DELWP CC datasets
>>> that are available online, on sites like Data Vic and MapShare, or should
>>> we be a bit more restrictive? Given your comments it seems worthwhile
>>> trying for the lot, it might just take a bit longer to get a reply. Cheers
>>> Ian
>>
>> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] Service road highway areas as frontage road access

[Ewen Hill]

Hi Dian,
   I know the area well and this is my Mapillary
<https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=912845149571145=photo=-37.893471866062=145.31094951001=17=NaN=NaN=0>showing
access to the shops in the service road. Rose Street is very narrow and
appears to have had a bit of a makeover at that intersection during
clockdown. I don't think there are any signs stating you can't go all the
way north to the railway station carpark or east bound on Burwood Hwy but
very few would and would be slower and more dangerous than using the
traffic lights just to the west. I believe a straight bi-directional route
Rose street to the carpark entrance would do the trick and take the service
area out the back to be humanely put down as Thorsten suggests.


Ewen

On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 at 17:22,  wrote:

> Looking on mapillary, it seems you can also enter there, so the current
> mapping is wrong.
>
>
>
> Also, I can’t see any legal reason, besides it being dangerous if there is
> traffic, to cross all the way from the parking lot at the top to that
> Burnwood Highway Service Road at the bottom, or the other way around.
>
>
>
> I’m not going to actually touch it, as it’s way outside my usual mapping
> area, but personally I would map it like this:
>
>
>
>
> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/901351143542784050/unknown.png
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thorsten
>
>
>
> *From:* Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> *Sent:* Saturday, 23 October 2021 14:23
> *To:* Dian Ågesson 
> *Cc:* OSM-Au 
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Service road highway areas as frontage road
> access
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 at 13:54, Dian Ågesson  wrote:
>
> On the most recent edit, a highway=service area has been introduced for a
> roadway between a main road, a frontage road and a side street
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/995553123
>
> I have not seen this before, and it doesn’t strike me as correct.
>
>
>
> No, I would agree that it is not correct, & there's no real need for it to
> be there.
>
>
>
> From looking at what's already mapped, it would appear to be OK, with one
> possible exception?
>
>
>
> Can traffic from the Hwy enter the service road at the Rose St
> intersection, or is it one-way outwards only?
>
>
>
> If it's two-way, then Rose St should be broken, & the section between the
> service road & the Hwy made two-way. At the same time, you could also move
> it to the middle of the intersection, but that's only my OCD neatness
> coming out! :-)
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Graeme
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification

[Ewen Hill]

Hi Oisin,
  Thank you for your reply.
   This relates to 1609 unclassified roads out of the 2603 additions added
during this period  and I believe 1497 "roads" (status=200*) are in fact
farm tracks and driveways and are on the Government dataset as part of
emergency service mapping support rather than being a road and the best
approach is as follows. There are 39 entries (status=255*) that require
manual edits. I do not believe these are gazetted roads at all.

highway=service
service=driveway (A driveway is a service road leading to a residence,
property or place of business (Wiki))
access=private
Some examples are ...

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/955298540
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/954868318
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/954877319
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/955216220

* From the table provided

There maybe some exclusions where there are Right of Ways (ROWS) or where
livestock are allowed to use the corridor. These will be infrequent and it
would be improbable that these could be identified remotely.

I suggest that rather than re-editing each entry, that the team perform a
bulk update of the 1497 roads and review the others manually. The additions
your team have performed do improve the map, we just need to finesse this
now. I will report back on the other roads created when time permits.


Regards

Ewen



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

Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification contributions in SA via Microsoft Open Maps Team - contact point?

[Ewen Hill]

Nemanja,
   Thank you for improving the mapping of Australian roads and tracks. I
have reviewed 1649 unclassified roads that have been added in South
Australia and I believe over 1500 are private driveways, farm access or
roads that have been decommissioned. I have significant concern that an
active army barracks has had access=all created for all internal roads and
there is the possibility of routing through the barracks. Similar to some
biohazard facilities which are used for testing on crops. How would you
like the list to be provided to you and how can we have these fixed
urgently and finally how do we improve the mapping?

During the bushfire season, we do not want a family thinking that a
driveway that goes nowhere is the correct path to take and it would be
fantastic to have this resolved in the next month or so.

Ewen

On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 at 22:48, cleary  wrote:

> Nemanja
>
> Logic suggests that a road that is intended for public use would have
> access from another public road. Even if I, or someone else, were to drive
> in that area in the future to re-survey, it is unlikely that the road
> identified as "Loutts Road" could be accessed without trespassing on
> private property, suggesting it cannot really be a public road.
>
> In more remote parts of Australia, there are fewer people than in past
> years. Whole towns have disappeared and smaller farms have been
> consolidated into much larger ones, often operated by corporations. In the
> process, roads that were once public have gradually been made private and
> responsibility for maintenance falls to landholders rather than government
> authorities. Quite a few roads that once were public roads are now
> private.  I suspect that Loutts Road is in that category.  One possibility
> is that only part of Loutts Road was privatised  but the remaining section,
> although theoretically public, is inaccessible. Another possibility is
> that, when it was made private, the name was intended to be removed.
> Although removed in the database from the section which provides access
> from Parnaroo Road, the name for the more distant section might have been
> accidentally left in the database.
>
> As it cannot be accessed, there is probably no harm in showing it as a
> public road. But, on balance, I think access=private is more prudent.
>
> Thanks again for your thorough consultation.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2021, at 8:42 PM, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Thanks for the replies!
> > Before we start, please confirm one last thing.
> > Since we were able to find many cases like this:
> > https://prntscr.com/1b1ktyz
> > what would you suggest to do in the shown example?
> >
> > Please note that it might be the case that we are unable to find any
> > gates or barriers on the aerial imagery.
> >
> > I suppose that *access=public* is here just to emphasize that road is
> > public, but it is an implicit tag.
> >
> > Thanks once again,
> > Nemanja
> >
> > *From:* Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 13, 2021 5:20 AM
> > *To:* o...@97k.com
> > *Cc:* OpenStreetMap 
> > *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification
> > contributions in SA via Microsoft Open Maps Team - contact point?
> >
> > Hi Nemanja
> >
> > Sorry, been busy packing to go away!
> >
> > Thanks for asking for further feedback :-)
> >
> > Yep, I'd go along with Michael - if it's named on the Govt data, then
> > highway=unclassified + access=public; if not named highway=unclassified
> > + access=private.
> >
> > You'd probably also be able to add surface=unpaved to just about all of
> them.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Graeme
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 09:56, cleary  wrote:
> > > Hello again Nemanja
> > >
> > > I response to your question, based on my experience, I still have the
> view that unnamed roads in South Australia are not intended for public
> access. Therefore, if mapped, they should be tagged as access=private. I
> don't think there would be any exceptions but, if there are, individual
> mappers who survey such areas could later amend the access tags and/or add
> names as appropriate.
> > >
> > > If the roads actually exist then I have no problem with mapping them.
> My particular concern is that failing to tag them as private could endanger
> lives and livelihoods.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your diligence in following up this issue
> > >
> > > Michael Cleary
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 12 J

Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification contributions in SA via Microsoft Open Maps Team - contact point?

[Ewen Hill]

t; Most of these outside of townships appear to be still very poorly
> classified, and last edited 2 months ago.
>
>
> Has any correction been done whatsoever?
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 3:39 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks everybody for your comments.
>
>
>
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 at 16:23, cleary  wrote:
>
>
> I am insanely jealous that you can go driving in the countryside.
>
>
>
> Sorry to make you feel bad! :-(
>
>
>
>  Thanks
>
>
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk-au=04%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C9178a128b6d84cc0f48a08d96b036217%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637658484587233959%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=%2FeOUccgI5vaN54kDuxsbAbKfiLfj5UfzMnw97vvrOZ4%3D=0>
>
>
>
> ___
>
> Talk-au mailing list
>
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au 
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk-au=04%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C9178a128b6d84cc0f48a08d96b036217%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637658484587233959%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=%2FeOUccgI5vaN54kDuxsbAbKfiLfj5UfzMnw97vvrOZ4%3D=0>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] Australian road review

[Ewen Hill]

Wow Ian,  and I totally agree with Graeme about your time!

The cycling App Strava uses OSM data for their route creation tool and over
the past year or two, I've noticed the percentage of my routes that are
tagged "undefined" has reduced to just a few percent. This might be down to
you in part so thank you and all the other editors.

Well worth the read if you haven't already/

Ewen

On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 at 13:00, Little Maps  wrote:

> Hi folks, I've written an overview of the patterns of major roads across
> Australia, based on OpenStreetMap data.
> https://littlemaps692810600.wordpress.com/2021/06/21/australian-roads-in-openstreetmap/
>
> There's lots of colourful maps, charts and tables. It's a deep dive that
> breaks down the total length of motorways, trunk, primary, secondary and
> tertiary roads in all Australian states, and the proportion of each that is
> paved and unpaved. (With two big exceptions, virtually all of these roads
> now have surface tags.) It focuses on the patterns of the roads themselves,
> not tagging patterns. So, if you've ever wondered: (1) what proportion of
> all major roads is unsealed and unsealed; (2) how the Tasmanian road
> network varies from that in other states; (3) where to find the longest,
> unpaved, trunk road in Australia; and (4) many other nerdy road facts,
> please take a read. Cheers Ian
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] OSGeo Oceania tree planting and mapping day

[Ewen Hill]

Thank you Luke.
   As a resident for many a year in Ferny Creek, I have never seen damage
like it and my former street is still on generators with power and
telephone lines littered all over the road. I wish everyone up there on the
mountain the best in exceedingly tough conditions. OSGeo-Oceania thank the
South Dandenong Community Nursery (SDCN) for the saplings and the work so
far under trying COVID-19 conditions. Stay safe Luke!

Ewen

On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 at 20:26, Luke  wrote:

> Hey All
>
> As a Osgeo Oceania member, Victorian, local of dandenongs, SDCN member, I
> am super sad to say I can’t make it as I have a family function.
>
> If there are any pre or post events to complete the planting I am happy to
> put my hand up! Please let me know!
>
> Of note the area has suffered a lot of damage. Ensure you don’t get too
> close to large fallen trees, especially the roots!
>
> Luke Bassett
>
>
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 at 11:19 am,  wrote:
>
>> Hi Victorians
>>
>> OSGeo Oceania tree planting and mapping day is coming up on
>> 17-Jul-2021. It was canceled in 2020 because of Covid19
>>
>> FOSS4G SotM Oceania 2019 conference chose to do an environmental
>> planting in lieu of purchasing carbon offsets for the 2019 NZ
>> conference. More background at
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BbmRF241Vd4QWZRt6l6FBWwtklzhg-ghgbnm2N9YQ6M/edit
>>
>> Churchill National Park is part of Greater Melbourne, the planting and
>> mapping will proceed subject to Covid19 rules on that day.
>>
>> If attending, please register at
>>
>> https://www.parkconnect.vic.gov.au/Volunteer/public-planned-activity/?id=c38ff798-914c-ea11-b698-0003ff6f5db4
>>
>> Thanks
>> Tony Forster
>> Friends of Lysterfield Park
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
> --
>
> *Luke Bassett*
> * *Melbourne Australia
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] Street Lamps

[Ewen Hill]

Hi Andrew,
   You might have some luck with Mapillary that you can use as the cheat
sheet which you are able to use. It's probably best you see if you can get
the waiver process through and whilst it may take some time, this will be
in the long term the best path forward for both you and the OSM community.

Regards

Ewen

On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 at 19:38, Andrew Munday  wrote:

> Thanks for the tip on responding. I have been mapping street lamps based
> on my own knowledge and the ones that I can spot on the aerial photography.
> Would it be allowed to use the dataset as a kind of "cheat sheet" as in to
> see where they are roughly and then use the aerial imagery to line them up
> exactly?
>
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 12:27 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 at 11:08, Andrew Munday 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry again for not really knowing what I'm doing with the mailing list
>>> thing. I hope this doesn't start a new thread.
>>>
>>
>> Don't worry, Andrew! We've all had an oops moment :-)
>>
>> To keep everything together, find the post that you want to respond to,
>> click on "Reply - All" & go to it.
>>
>> It's entirely up to you just how you want to format it:
>>
>> - just type on the blank page you've been given, which will leave the
>> previous message/s attached down the bottom of your post
>>
>> - do as I've done here, & insert your reply into the body of the previous
>> message, by picking a spot that you want to comment on, hit "Enter", which
>> will give you a new line, & go from there
>>
>> - go down to the bottom of the message & put your reply there - any of
>> them are perfectly acceptable.
>>
>> I reverted the automated changesets that I did using the reverter plugin
>>> on JOSM (that's how the wiki said to do it).
>>>
>>
>> An alternative (& possibly easier?) way, is to find the changes that you
>> made, then simply undo them eg delete the light pole node that you put in,
>> then add a comment "Light pole deleted as copied from unavailable data" or
>> similar.
>>
>> & there's nothing at all to stop you from mapping street lights (or
>> anything else!) from personal knowledge! If you're working in your local
>> area, have a walk around the block & make note that there are lights
>> outside #4, 12 & 20. Depending on how good the available overhead imagery
>> is in your area, you can sometimes even do the same by mapping the lights
>> that are visible.
>>
>> Keep having fun, & ask as many questions as you want / need to!
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] OSGeo Oceania tree planting and mapping day

[Ewen Hill]

 Thank you Tony for announcing this.
   This will hopefully be a wonderful day for the Wellington FOSS4G/SOTM
conference carbon offsetting initiative. FOSS4G stands for  "Free and Open
Source for Geospatial Conference" and SOTM is "State of the Map" and both
designed to improve the usage of OSM and genuine open source tools.

   The next local FOSS4G/SOTM conference, run by OSGEO-Oceania, is in
November with most capital cities hopefully having a local site.

For those of us in Victoria, Tony and the OSGEO-Oceania board would
love to see you there to catch up and talk all things Geo whilst planting a
dozen trees each. These trees are not higher than about a foot so planting
will be a doddle.

  The area 10km north of the planting site has gone through
significant damage to the tree canopy. This is a shot of one of 47 mature
fallen trees I counted in a normal 35 minute walk yesterday and some of
these at 75-85mtrs long. See
https://twitter.com/SkillsyV2/status/1406517300103024643?s=20

   If you need a lift from Melbourne or the Belgrave Railway Station, give
a shout out to Tony or myself and let's get out there and shrug off the
last lock down.

Ewen Hill
OSGeo-Oceania Board Member



On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 at 11:19,  wrote:

> Hi Victorians
>
> OSGeo Oceania tree planting and mapping day is coming up on
> 17-Jul-2021. It was canceled in 2020 because of Covid19
>
> FOSS4G SotM Oceania 2019 conference chose to do an environmental
> planting in lieu of purchasing carbon offsets for the 2019 NZ
> conference. More background at
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BbmRF241Vd4QWZRt6l6FBWwtklzhg-ghgbnm2N9YQ6M/edit
>
> Churchill National Park is part of Greater Melbourne, the planting and
> mapping will proceed subject to Covid19 rules on that day.
>
> If attending, please register at
>
> https://www.parkconnect.vic.gov.au/Volunteer/public-planned-activity/?id=c38ff798-914c-ea11-b698-0003ff6f5db4
>
> Thanks
> Tony Forster
> Friends of Lysterfield Park
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] Tags for bike tail you allowed to ride on?

[Ewen Hill]

Interesting conundrum Kim. Setting bicycle=no would probably route cyclists
onto busy roads and setting bicycle=yes is not legal so use
bicycle=dismount instead.

Ewen

On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 at 18:35, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> What is an appropriate set of tags for a bike path you aren't allowed to
> ride on?
>
> Specifically https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25313938 has signs saying
> that cycling is prohibited. It is also part of the "EastLink Trail" bicycle
> route.
>
> Presumably it should have bicycle=dismount, and not the current
> bicycle=designated. I have not received a reply from HighRouleur
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/HighRouleur> as to why it was changed
> in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88285752
>
> Should it be highway=cycleway as it is part of the EastLink Trail, or
> highway=footway as you are not allowed to ride on it, or something else?
>
> Regards,
> Kim
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

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

[talk-au] ACT Local Government Areas - Are there any?

[Ewen Hill]

Just a quick query, does the ACT have Local Government Areas or are these
called Divisions and smaller than the LGA's in other states?


-- 
Warm Regards

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

[talk-au] Question: This Friday, will you be having a GeoParma, GeoParmy or even a GeoParmi at the local State of the Map (SOTM) conference?

[Ewen Hill]

Sorry for intrusion.however it is OSM related...

This is the third year of the Oceania *State of the (OSM) Map* and *FOSS4G
(Free and Open Source for Geospatial) *conference which was to be in Fiji
after sold out years in Melbourne and Wellington. This year we are bringing
it to Melbourne along with Apia (Samoa), Auckland, Christchurch &
Wellington, Bairiki (Kiribati), Cairns, Canberra, Hobart & Perth, Majuro
(Marshall Islands), Rarotonga (Cook Islands) and of course our original
hosts, Suva in Fiji. Each

Please consider joining us this *Friday, November 20th *- Hub details are
at *https://2020.foss4g-oceania.org/index.html#map
 *

In *Melbourne *we have an interesting collection of speakers and we have
included lunch. It is a 10am start for four hours at the magnificent Mint
in the Melbourne CBD. Tickets ($25) are extremely limited and sadly
interactions will be somewhat restricted however join like minded people
from the community and enjoy the first conference back in Melbourne.

Finally - have you done something amazing this year with opensource
software and can talk for either 5 or 20 minutes then we would love to hear
from you before COB Tuesday. Other hubs are also keen to have short talks
as well. Get 2020 back on track and we hope to see you at one of the hubs.

Ewen, Ed, Henry and Phil
Melbourne Hub coordinators
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] A geospatial conference that comes to you - This November 20th

[Ewen Hill]

Some of you may know two terms

*SOTM*  - State of the Map which is normally an annual conference around
OpenStreetMap. Sitting under that are SOTM annual conferences in regions,
ours is Oceania

*FOSS4G* - Free and Open Source Software 4 Geospatial and these are also
normally annual conferences and yes Oceania is covered.

Oceania decided to merge both of these into one conference. It sold out in
Melbourne in 2018 and sold out again in Wellington 2019 and we want to sell
it out in the year 2020.

This year, the plan was Fiji, however the FOSS4G-SOTM crew are agile and
responsive and have opened up 13 hubs around the pacific for a one day get
together including three in New Zealand, Perth, Canberra, Hobart, Cairns
and Melbourne and all the hubs would welcome you on Friday November 20th.

*Melbourne *are hosting their conference at the Mint directly opposite the
Flagstaff Gardens train station. For $25 you not only get lunch and a drink
but you get to listen to local speakers before all hubs join together for
the keynote speakers on the big screen. We hope that the day will also
allow you to unpack some of the baggage from the last seven months and
enjoy discussing all things Geo. This appears to be the first conference to
be held in Melbourne since lock down so do yourself a favour as Molly would
say. Melbourne tickets are limited and we cannot expand the size sadly.

All the information for all the hubs is located at
https://2020.foss4g-oceania.org/index.html#map and if you are keen on Geo,
OSM or both then the FOSS4G crew would love to see you there. Let's make it
a big day!

Feel free to email directly for any queries or contact the hubs directly

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

Re: [talk-au] Port Phillip Steer Clear Areas Proposed Import

[Ewen Hill]

Andrew,
  As usual, a well executed plan and addition to OSM that both values adds
and increases the chances of more of these types of government datasets
becoming available..

Ewen

On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 at 17:42, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Great work Andrew,
>
>
>
> I cant think of any objections at all!
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew Harvey 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 28 October 2020 4:28 PM
> *To:* OSM Australian Talk List 
> *Subject:* [talk-au] Port Phillip Steer Clear Areas Proposed Import
>
>
>
> The Victorian Ports Corporation (Melbourne) contacted me about adding
> their Steer Clear Areas into OpenStreetMap/OpenSeaMap.
>
>
>
> I worked through with them to get this dataset as open data
> https://discover.data.vic.gov.au/dataset/steer-clear-areas-in-port-phillip and
> to get the waiver in place
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:VPCM_OpenStreetMap_Approval.pdf.
>
>
>
> I've prepared this data for import at
> https://gist.github.com/andrewharvey/12e5753086585279d398f48035368876.
>
>
>
> These are areas where it is illegal to anchor and identified by VicPorts
> as Steer Clear areas
> https://www.vicports.vic.gov.au/community-and-bay-users/recreational-boating/Pages/boating-on-the-bay.aspx
> .
>
>
>
> I'm proposing we apply the
> seamark:precautionary_area:restriction=no_anchoring tag per
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Seamark_Objects. This is
> also what VicPorts have requested to use for tags.
>
>
>
> Are there any objections, questions, concerns, suggestions about importing
> this into OpenStreetMap?
>
>
>
> If I don't hear back I'll go ahead in a week.
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping each lane as a new way

[Ewen Hill]

Nemanja,
Hi, have those you mentioned responded and how did you contact them?
Was it via changeset comments or via an OSM message?

   It's probably best you contact *data**[image: ,
“ат”]**openstreetmap**[image:
“ԁοт”]**org *(see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group)
and explain the situation and this group may place a temporary block on
them until they have read a message from them..

   I am not a huge fan of naming individuals here unless it is blatant and
obvious vandalism

Ewen

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 at 07:32, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> My team has recognized that there are a couple of users who are repeatedly
> making questionable modeling choices.
>
> We’ve contacted them, and while some specific issues were fixed, new ones
> kept appearing. We wanted to reach out and to hear your opinions on this
> matter.
>
>
>
> User *Supt_of_Printing
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Supt_of_Printing>*
>
> This user is not using existing ways but he adds a new way on top of the
> existing one, making a lot of duplicates. The example can be:
>
> *https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/819833424
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/819833424>*
>
> There is a way that is classified as track, but just over the existing one
> he added a new unclassified road.
>
>
>
> *https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/746933130
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/746933130>*
>
> The other type of issue that we recognized is roundabout modeling.
>
> You can see in the provided example that way goes as a part of the
> roundabout. Also, it is noticeable that half of the roundabout has a
> [oneway] tag, but the other doesn’t.
>
>
>
> Users *Map_baker <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Map_baker>* and 
> *Supt_of_Printing
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Supt_of_Printing>*
>
> They have remodeled a couple of junctions so each lane is one way, like
> here:
>
> *https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/746563860/history
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/746563860/history>*
>
>
>
> What’s happening with this remodeling:
>
>- Destination relations are broken;
>- Bus routes are not connected properly;
>- For navigation purposes additional turn restrictions would be needed
>to avoid unpleasant turn suggestions;
>- In some cases, roads cross each other without an intersection point;
>- It is impossible to apply correct lane information.
>
>
>
> Another example of remodeling:
>
> *https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/789300431
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/789300431>*
>
> There are no physical barriers, so it should be modeled as a single way,
> but the actual osm data is currently divided based on lane information.
>
> Although we recognize that there are different approaches to modeling
> junctions, these users are creating a lot of issues by remodeling in this
> way.
>
> Please can you advise what to do now since I believe that all osm users
> need to spend a significant amount of time checking all their previous
> edits?
>
> Users *Map_baker <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Map_baker>* and 
> *travaudat
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/travaudat>*
>
> They are going across Australia and converting multiple way roundabouts
> into one. We had a discussion on Talk-AU about that, where I have tried to
> explain why it is not okay to do (since attributes may change within the
> roundabout), but I can see that practice has continued.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Nemanja
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Admin_level discussion for Australia

[Ewen Hill]

Thank you Andrew H for your un-waivering (sic) efforts and changing the
entire way the Australian map is developing. Chapeau!

Andrew's last message in part, discussed how the admin_levels are defined
as and prompted for some suggestions, namely level 9 and 10 and if we
should include electoral boundaries.

I have set up a quick spreadsheet outlining the admin_levels and I think I
have transcribed Andrew's thoughts on how it may work and added mine.

Feel free to add your preferred layout in the next available col and add a
comment if you wish.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dzOJoOL6sVLinzqZDcC2wOj-e_2BNz5QFkI-xGnpJXI/edit?usp=sharing

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

Re: [talk-au] Are Health Centres, hospitals

[Ewen Hill]

Hi Graeme,
  You may also want to look at the National Health Services Directory
operated by Health Direct which maybe where this information comes from.
See https://about.healthdirect.gov.au/nhsd however the chances of getting a
waiver has about the same probability of me getting a beer over a bar atm.

Ewen

On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 10:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Continuing on with this, I've started looking at hospitals shown on the
> Overpass search & updating their details based purely on a search for
> "Whichever Hospital" (& have so far already found another normal medical
> centre tagged as a hospital!).
>
> All of the search results that I've looked at so far have referred back to
> this Qld Health page:https://www.health.qld.gov.au/services, so I'm
> wondering whether we're allowed to use it, to access details of all Qld
> hospitals?
>
> Health copyright (https://www.health.qld.gov.au/global/copyright-statement)
> is shown as being under a Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives 3.0
> Australia <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/au/deed.en>
> licence, & states
> "In essence, you are free to copy and communicate the work in its current
> form, as long as you attribute Queensland Health as the source of the
> copyright material and abide by the licence terms".
>
> The link for further permission to use their copyright material says:
>
> "Queensland Health permission is required to:
>
>-
>
>adapt material from the Queensland Health website or other source
>where it is not expressly permitted by a copyright notice or Creative
>Commons licence.
>-
>
>use material from the Queensland Health website or other source in a
>manner that is expressly prohibited by the copyright notice or Creative
>Commons licence.
>
> Queensland Health permission is *not required to: *
>
>-
>
>* provide a hyperlink to any Queensland Health internet page from
>another website*
>-
>
>do any act that is expressly permitted by a copyright notice or
>creative commons licence on the material.
>-
>
>print, download or *communicate whole or parts of documents sourced
>from any Queensland Health internet page*, provided that it is not
>expressly prohibited by a copyright notice or Creative Commons licence, the
>source is attributed (see below) and the material remains unaltered."
>
> So, would we need to go through the full permission & waiver process to
> use data off that Health page?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 at 09:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 20:25, Ewen Hill  wrote:
>>
>>> We also have the grey area of Bush Nursing Centres that are clearly not
>>> hospitals but are the best place to head to in an emergency and may be the
>>> difference when you are looking at two equal sized communities. The ten
>>> staff sounds arbitrary.
>>>
>>> Shouldn't the difference be based on the capability of the premises to
>>> resuscitate, handle compound fractures and prolong life until the patient
>>> can be moved to a more appropriate facility rather than a "must have ten
>>> medical staff"?
>>>
>>
>> Good points, Ewen.
>>
>> Thanks, everyone - you've convinced me that I was looking at it the wrong
>> way & that these type of facilities should stay as hospitals.
>>
>>   Further more, should it be defined as "an official hospital or the
>>> first place of medical support in a rural setting"?
>>>
>>
>> You're probably correct but I think we'd have issues changing the main
>> definition of hospital, as it wouldn't suit the Western European / US point
>> of view :-(
>>
>> As Cleary mentioned earlier: "Perhaps the Australian Guidelines should
>> permit the "hospital" tag where that is consistent with usage of the term
>> by the local community, would be a lot easier to do, so I'll make that
>> amendment if there's no major objection?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Are Health Centres, hospitals

[Ewen Hill]

We also have the grey area of Bush Nursing Centres that are clearly not
hospitals but are the best place to head to in an emergency and may be the
difference when you are looking at two equal sized communities. The ten
staff sounds arbitrary.

Shouldn't the difference be based on the capability of the premises to
resuscitate, handle compound fractures and prolong life until the patient
can be moved to a more appropriate facility rather than a "must have ten
medical staff"?  Further more, should it be defined as "an official
hospital or the first place of medical support in a rural setting"?

Ewen



On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 18:02, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> On 4/9/20 3:55 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > So does that make 2255 / 222 / or a different tally?
>
> It's 222 but I'm not sure how you got that, I get 200. Did you use
> "amenity=hospital in Queensland" in the wizard?
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] OSM Way & Govt Street (centerline) Correlation, how?

[Ewen Hill]

Agreed Ben,
   There may be ways to warn in ID if a field is set. My concern would be
traffic islands that  probably don't align so there may be two centrelines
where OSM has one or vice versa. Any way, lot's to discuss at some point.

Ewen

On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 12:19, Ben Kelley  wrote:

> At some level you will need to deal with the fact that people edit ways,
> generally based on orthorectified photos, but also based on GPS traces.
>
> Even if the correlation started out good, it could change over time as
> people edit the map.
>
> I guess it depends how much correlation you need.
>
>  - Ben.
>
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 12:00, Andrew Hughes  wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> First time poster and very new to OSM so please feel free to throw
>> anything at me you think I should educate myself on.
>>
>> I'm currently the GIS Lead at the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator
>> (HNVR). We're very serious about adopting OSM for some of our needs.
>> However, our OSM adoption is largely dependent on a minimum correlation
>> between the OSM ways and the streets found in Government centerline/road
>> datasets (States and/or LGAs).
>>
>> Q: Would anyone be able to provide me with some insight as to what we
>> might expect when looking to achieve the correlation we need? Please be
>> aware, our intent is to contribute and "close the gap" but we need to know
>> if/how this can best be done in a cohesive way within the OSM community. *I'm
>> also aware there may be licensing issues, please overlook these for now.*
>>
>> The NHVR are quite serious about what it hopes to achieve in the next 12
>> -24 months through GIS and we are very enthusiastic to learn and contribute
>> to OSM. I hope to be speaking with you a lot more in the near future.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Andrew Hughes
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>
>
> --
> Ben Kelley
> ben.kel...@gmail.com
> https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
> This message was sent on my Atari 400
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Restricted postcodes due to Covid-19

[Ewen Hill]

Good morning,
   You may still travel through these zones to get to your destination.
Trains, trams and buses stil ply the routes so extensibly nothing has
altered.

Ewen

On Fri, 3 Jul 2020, 11:58 PM Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 03.07.20 15:46, Bren Barnes wrote:
> > Perhaps more of a thought experiment at this time, but how would
> > "restricted postcodes" interact with OSM routing? Example:
> >
> > boundary=administrative
> > name=brooklyn
> > access:covid19=private
> > or?
> > opening_hours:covid19=restricted @ (Jul 02-Jul 29)
> >
> > I'm just wondering if any current OSM routing software would utilise the
> > tags on a relation which is bounding a lockdown area?
>
> Sounds more like a task for a routing engine that supports "avoid
> areas", e.g. ORS. With a little coding you could build a version of that
> that would always draw on the latest list of blocked areas without
> having to mirror day-to-day policy changes in OSM.
>
> 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] Uncredited use of OSM map

[Ewen Hill]

Top work Charles and Phil. Keeping 'em honest.


On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, 5:47 PM Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> I have sent an appropriate message to the agency and the appropriate
> Government Minister and requested an update to the website and map with the
> correct attribution.
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
>
>
> *From:* Charles Gregory 
> *Sent:* Friday, 19 June 2020 5:13 PM
> *To:* talk-au 
> *Subject:* [talk-au] Uncredited use of OSM map
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> The map rendering used by the Tasmanian Government in a recent
> announcement about a new prison site in Northern Tasmania looked familiar..
>
>
> https://www.justice.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/571540/Northern-Regional-Prison-map.pdf
>
>
>
> Compared to OSM, there are some features missing, some other features are
> rendered differently.  It could well be a different site/source with
> similar rendering:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-41.5123/146.7475
>
>
>
> (Screenshots of both: https://imgur.com/a/7EE2GXV)
>
>
>
> Just sharing for interest's sake - not sure if it is worth following up
> on, or making a big deal about?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Charles
> ___
> 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] T-Intersection signs - how to map a sign at 90 degrees

[Ewen Hill]

Thanks Luke and Alex - I appreciate such a rapid response.
AU:W2-4 (L)  it is

Ewen

On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 at 21:56, Alex Sims  wrote:

> The sign on the main road will be W2-4 (L), Side road entering on left,
> one day.
>
>
>
> When conventions change, signs aren’t changed overnight, road authorities
> replace them as needed. You are looking at an older sign. At some point the
> arrow was added to the standard.
>
>
>
> Alex
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Ewen Hill 
> *Date: *Saturday, 13 June 2020 at 8:38 pm
> *To: *OSM-Au 
> *Subject: *[talk-au] T-Intersection signs - how to map a sign at 90
> degrees
>
>
>
> Hi, I have a straight main road and a 90 degree road to the left that
> stops at the main road.  A yellow t-junction diamond precedes the
> intersection on the main through road so the T has been rotated 90 degrees.
>
>
>
> The intersection in question is at
> openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-34.35067/142.03662
>
>
>
> How do I represent this please as the only sign appears to be AU:W2-3
> which is an upright "T" ...
>
> https://www.artcraft.com.au/catalogsearch/result/?q=W2-3
>
>
>
>
>
> Ewen
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] T-Intersection signs - how to map a sign at 90 degrees

[Ewen Hill]

Hi, I have a straight main road and a 90 degree road to the left that stops
at the main road.  A yellow t-junction diamond precedes the intersection on
the main through road so the T has been rotated 90 degrees.

The intersection in question is at
openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-34.35067/142.03662

How do I represent this please as the only sign appears to be AU:W2-3 which
is an upright "T" ...
https://www.artcraft.com.au/catalogsearch/result/?q=W2-3


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

Re: [talk-au] Aboriginal languages

[Ewen Hill]

Hi Graham and Ben,
   Thanks for bringing up the topic and expect some interesting debates.

*Naming places and natural elements*
  There is a thought by some that people arriving post 1769 have stolen
everything from the First Nations, and the only thing left they have is
their language. Now we want to use and distribute this without any
consideration. This is actually covered by heritage legislation to some
extent from what I have been told.

Others see using and understanding some of the words in these languages as
assisting in the further understanding of 80,000 years of culture, caring
and understanding for the environment.

I see several layers of availability. Where a town, or natural element uses
a local language and it is in common usage, then we should be using the
name and local name e.g. name:ntj or the generic name:aus along with the
standard name. You can see what has been mapped in most original languages
at  http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/UAl so far.

Where a name is not in common use then we could consider talking to the
local Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) which are the authority of the
area. Some states may have a different name for a RAP and some areas may
not have a nominated RAP. Much like the waiver we need for other databases,
perhaps we need to have written approval in a standard pro-forma. This
leads us to areas

*Areas*
A great place to start seeing what is already available is at
https://www.spatialsource.com.au/gis-data/4-maps-uncovering-aboriginal-history-culture


Unfortunately we don't have a clear definition of the boundaries and some
are in significant dispute. Some of these are areas are based on the
excellent work of Norman Tindale and his map of 1940
 although this is open to
contention. Tindale did most of his recording at outstations and so is not
an exact match for territory. There are also some issues about his
languages and if they were just minor dialects rather than an entire
different family culture. However what Tindale did is give us an
extremely good basis that we can map to. Massacres, small pox/other
diseases and displacement are never going to give us the full picture
sadly.

Between OSM admin_level 3 (States/Territories) and admin_level 5 (LGA's) is
the currently unused level 4 and this would be wonderful to set this as
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Nations admin level. Under Nations, we have
clans which are a bit more difficult to map but we could also juggle the
unused admin_level 2

I don't see that mapping Nations is an option, I see it as almost criminal
that we don't already.

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

Re: [talk-au] How to label ill-defined places?

[Ewen Hill]

Hi Ian and belated welcome aboard.
 Your tagging logic looks great, better than most. Whilst most prefer
natural features to not use place:locality, I believe that this is the
perfect fit where the name is used colloquially for that area of land
surrounding the river.
Perhaps consider when it slightly confusing to use
note: location approximate or,
note: location not clearly defined
(or similar) so the next mapper who may have more local knowledge knows
that the node can be moved or improved.

All the best with the Murray river, a nice short water way to get start off
with ;)

Ewen



On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 12:57, Little Maps  wrote:

> Hi again everyone, hope you’re all enjoying Easter. A simple newbie
> question...
>
> How do you label localities that have no precise boundaries? I’m working
> on part of the Murray River and adding locality names from Vic Gov data.
> Many can be placed on mapped features (e.g. campsites and beaches) but lots
> cannot.
>
> The most common examples are ‘bends’ and ‘points’, such as Horseshoe Bend,
> Hideaway Bend, Cray Point, Killers Point, etc. These areas have no mapped
> boundaries. Should these be added by placing a node / point in the
> appropriate place and labelled it as follows, or is there a better way?
>
> Place:locality
> Name: Killers Point
> Source geometry:
> Source name: xxx
>
> Thanks again, and thanks too to Warin for answering my earlier question.
>
> Best wishes Ian
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] How do you describe a turnout like this

[Ewen Hill]

The short-wheel-base can do it in a doddle, the big tanker takes a good
driver and observer, the pumper, not a chance in hell.

Ewen

On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 11:56, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 10:46, Ewen Hill  wrote:
>
> Andrew beat me to passing-place!
>
>  you can just get a fire truck to do a 27 point turn - just.
>>
>
> Only 27 points!!! :-)
>
>   Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>

-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] How do you describe a turnout like this

[Ewen Hill]

Thanks all - Passing Bay it is.

On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 11:54, Benjamin Ceravolo 
wrote:

> +1
>
> On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 11:54, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>> That one looks more like a
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpassing_place to me.
>>
>> On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 11:46, Ewen Hill  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>On narrow bush tracks there are turnout areas to allow vehicles to
>>> pass. It really isn't a traffic circle but you can just get a fire truck to
>>> do a 27 point turn - just. How would you represent this please?
>>>
>>> The image shows the bulk of the turnout on the right.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=SsbMDoKVZFbZ2ngQV_gCiw=photo=-37.869525=145.317962=17
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>
>

-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] How do you describe a turnout like this

[Ewen Hill]

Hi,
   On narrow bush tracks there are turnout areas to allow vehicles to pass.
It really isn't a traffic circle but you can just get a fire truck to do a
27 point turn - just. How would you represent this please?

The image shows the bulk of the turnout on the right.

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=SsbMDoKVZFbZ2ngQV_gCiw=photo=-37.869525=145.317962=17
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Burn area mapping

[Ewen Hill]

Hi, I would not be going anywhere near the burnt area datasets as others
have said. There maybe in places new deserts created due to the vegetation
being susceptible unfortunately (wetlands that never deal with fire) but
the rest will grow back. Burnt areas can be just ground, tame back-burning
or the entire canopy with catastrophic results so it's hard to map anyway.

With regard to dams, I would make the dry ones intermittent. If the farm
and dam look derelict or the dam has a clear break in it, then perhaps not
but otherwise I see it as a way to assist with water catchments.


On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 17:33, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 16:29, Phil Wyatt  wrote:
>
>> No, I wouldn’t map them,
>>
>
> Any particular reason why not, Phil?
>
> Or do you mean just not map them while they're dry?
>
>   Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Feedback to ARA on their SA bushfire imagery made available to OSM

[Ewen Hill]

Andrew,
  A huge thanks to you as the images are so clear, you can see which way
horses and cattle are facing, sheep are however a little more difficult.
There is a huge opportunity for mappers to map the Adelaide Hills and KI
and as it's really rare to have access to this level of detail so have a
play and do a couple of farms or paddocks.

If you are using ID, visit a town called Lobethal
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=16/-34.9003/138.8654 and enter the
following custom background URL
https://cogeoxyz.b-cdn.net/46b53084a82973a36c0f57a1d5446c605d00ed851f11a6f5ca7c75db/{zoom}/{x}/{y}.jpg
as there is an issue with default background layer.

If you a re using JOSM use the background above for the area north and
south of Lobethal

Ewen

On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 17:07, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

> You may have seen the SA bushfire imagery made available to OSM from ARA.
> They put out a survey to the people who downloaded their data, I've
> forwarded my responses here for full visibility for anyone interested.
>
> ** What data did you actually download ? RGB-imagery, Lidar data or
> hyperspectral CIR-data ?*
>
> Exclusively RGB imagery
>
> ** Data from which areas did you download ?*
>
> All available areas.
>
> ** What were the main purposes that you requested to download the data ?
> No problem, if it was just "to look at the imagery".*
>
> To make the imagery available to OpenStreetMap contributors to improve
> maps in the coverage area aby adding new missing data and updating existing
> data with recent changes shown in the imagery.
>
> ** Was the data useful for your purposes and did you get what you were
> hoping for ?*
>
> Yes it was incredible useful, we managed to add or update data for
> agricultural tracks, driveways, buildings, rivers, orchards in
> OpenStreetMap. We marked buildings which had been damaged or razed as such
> in OpenStreetMap. The resulting data is made available as open data for
> anyone to use.
>
> ** Was the way (and form) in which we made the data available useful and
> easy to use ? If not, what could we change in the future ?*
>
> The format (jpg + jpw) and access (direct HTTP URLs) were perfectly fine
> and easy to work with. In order to make this imagery available in
> OpenStreetMap editors we needed to convert it into a mosaic of web map
> tiles.
>
> To do this I put together a processing pipeline (
> https://gitlab.com/andrewharvey/ara-cogeo) which converted the source
> data into Cloud Optimized GeoTIFF files and then used another public
> service which provided this data as a mosaic as web map tiles and WMTS.
>
> We manually traced out the footprint as a GeoJSON polygon and set up all
> the metadata for attribution and copyright and added the source to the OSM
> Editor Layer Index (https://osmlab.github.io/editor-layer-index/) which
> made the layer available out of the box in OSM editors. I also announced it
> to the OSM community.
>
> Some people, myself included, then used it for tracing data in OSM.
>
> ** Is there anything we could potentially do that would assist you in
> using the data better ?*
>
> To be honest I felt bad asking you each time for updated data, and I had
> to keep checking for new data releases on the website. If I could get some
> kind of notification with the URLs when new data is available, hopefully
> that would make your life easier and mine. That said the current process
> was fine, so not a big issue.
>
> ** Any other feedback that you would like to give us.*
>
> A huge thank you for making this data available for OpenStreetMap editing!
>
> ** If you processed the data further, we would love to hear what you
> actually did with it. It would be great if you would share your results
> with us. This would be one of the best ways to motivate us to do more with
> the existing data and to collect more (if we can find sufficient funding).
>  *
>
> Converted to Cloud Optimised GeoTIFFs using
> https://gitlab.com/andrewharvey/ara-cogeo and made it available as web
> map tiles and WMTS (
> https://cogeoxyz.b-cdn.net/46b53084a82973a36c0f57a1d5446c605d00ed851f11a6f5ca7c75db/{zoom}/{x}/{y}.jpg
> )
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Opening hours for scheduled tours

[Ewen Hill]

Thanks Graeme and Andrew and yes, the So was an issue but the string is
still causing a validation error. I am not certain if this is a false
positive so might leave it unless anyone has any cunning plans. I do like
the service_hours though.

Ewen

On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 09:46, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> If it's only open for tours then I think this is a reasonable use of
> opening_hours. If however it's open all the time (or just other
> opening_hours) but then has tours at certain times you can choose to join
> I'd use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:service_times.
>
> Alternatively you could use opening_hours to say it's always closed, but
> then service_times to say when the tours run, though I think I prefer the
> former approach.
>
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 08:58, Ewen Hill  wrote:
>
>>
>> The lighthouse on King Island 665872432 has the following hours which are
>> throwing up an error in JOSM but I can't see why and secondly, these appear
>> to be tour times so is there another way of doing this please?
>>
>> Fr-Tu 11:00, 12:30, 14:00; SH Mo-So 11:00, 12:30, 14:00, 15:15, 16:00
>>
>> Ewen
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>

-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Opening hours for scheduled tours

[Ewen Hill]

The lighthouse on King Island 665872432 has the following hours which are
throwing up an error in JOSM but I can't see why and secondly, these appear
to be tour times so is there another way of doing this please?

Fr-Tu 11:00, 12:30, 14:00; SH Mo-So 11:00, 12:30, 14:00, 15:15, 16:00

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

[talk-au] South Australian bushfire imagery

[Ewen Hill]

A big thank you to Andrew Harvey and ARA Airborne Research Australia for
their bushfire imagery of the Adelaide hills and Kangaroo Island.

Will the Geotiffs be updated overtime Andrew as the detail is
extremely impressive?


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

Re: [talk-au] Remote mapping of a fence

[Ewen Hill]

Andrew et al,
   The mapper may have used an out of copyright map or document. Is the
fence still in use or has myxo and Calicivirus made it redundant?

On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 10:17, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> Warin, thanks for raising. I've asked the mapper to confirm their sources,
> I'll see what they say first.
>
> Mike, good point. As it stands due to reasons given at
> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ we need a
> waiver to use CC BY data in OSM. In Queensland as listed at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue we've got
> that waiver from TMR for state control roads surveyed centerline, Protected
> Areas of Queensland, Brisbane City Council, Noosa Shire Council and City of
> Townsville, but no other sources.
>
> If someone want's to use this data to improve OSM the first step is we'll
> need to approach Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for this CC BY
> waiver.
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Bushfire mapathon - kudos

[Ewen Hill]

John,
Thank you for the kind words and thank you to all of those behind the
scenes who got the mapathong over the line,,,just.

A special note of appreciation to Oscar So who worked
diligently throughout the day to make the Melbourne meetup run smoothly and
answer a myriad of questions from newbies to QGIS experts. Thanks Oscar

Ewen

On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 at 15:58, John Bryant  wrote:

> I wasn't able to attend the SSSI National Bushfire Recovery Map-a-thon
> yesterday, but thanks to the open-access chat, I was able to follow along
> as an observer as I had time. It sounded like it went well, with a lot of
> participation, including a large number of people encountering
> OpenStreetMap for the first time.
>
> I want to shine a bit of a spotlight on Andrew Harvey, Phil Wyatt, and
> Ewen Hill. They each put in a considerable effort in making the event a
> success: securing waivers, answering questions from organisers, providing
> technical support, and helping new mappers find their way.
>
> When the event organisers had some difficulties due to unfamiliarity with
> the OSM project & community, Andrew, Phil, & Ewen really stepped up at
> short notice to make sure that new mappers had a great experience, handling
> themselves professionally and staying positive & productive throughout.
> And, I'll note - they're not done yet, these guys are still working on
> waivers, data cleanup, and lessons learned, even after most of the event
> participants have moved on.
>
> Great work you guys. Made me feel proud to be part of such a great
> community.
>
> Cheers
> John
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] SSSI National Bushfire Recovery Map-a-thon - Sunday 9th Feb

[Ewen Hill]

Sadly the Planet quality appears less than optimal. If I look at the town
of Cobargo where there were buildings lost just north east of the Narira
Creek Highway crossing, I can't tell.what has been destroyed, damaged or
otherwise. :  https://tasks.hotosm.org/project/7898?task=591

KI, South Australia has no Planet imagery whatsoever and Victoria area has
relatively few building losses or damage in that area and will be as boring
as batshit to map each square.

I have seen better Planet imagery so are we playing with the full deck
here? I think we really need to come up with a backup plan for this event
and quietly push SSSI towards that. We don't want people's first taste of
OSM to be a poor one.

Ewen

On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 at 16:13, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> The projects to which these instructions apply are located here
>
>
>
> https://tasks.hotosm.org/contribute?difficulty=ALL=sssi
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew Harvey 
> *Sent:* Saturday, 8 February 2020 3:18 PM
> *To:* OSM Australian Talk List 
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] SSSI National Bushfire Recovery Map-a-thon -
> Sunday 9th Feb
>
>
>
> The SSSI organiser shared their proposed "training guide" with me and gave
> me permission to share it here in the list.
>
>
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EhdKG2IctNODA6IuCfPJTrDjqOQZZk0lLp1KjprZxD4/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
>
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 14:43, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 18:25, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
> I finally managed to get in touch with one of the organisers, and raised
> the licensing/waiver issue. They've said they asked Planet Labs for the
> waiver, I've also independently reached out to the Planet Labs disasters
> contact with background on why OSM asks for the waiver and the waiver
> asking them if they can complete it if they would like OSM to be able to
> use their disaster imagery. Given the mapathon is on Sunday it's a
> nervous wait to see if they'll respond in time.
>
>
>
> Thanks to many people behind the scenes we obtained the necessary CC
> waiver from Planet Labs. I've updated
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue with the
> details. I'll update the Contributors page on Sunday when I see some edits
> come through.
>
> _______
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] SSSI National Bushfire Recovery Map-a-thon - Sunday 9th Feb

[Ewen Hill]

>> 1) As far as I'm aware we don't have an imagery tracing waiver from
>>>> Planet Labs, it's worth reaching out to Planet Labs to ask for this waiver
>>>> for use in OpenStreetMap.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Since access to the imagery is restricted "We provide limited access
>>>> to Explorer for up to 30 days to qualified disaster volunteer
>>>> organizations, humanitarian organizations, and other coordinating bodies."
>>>> it's unclear how we'd go about asking for access, and who gets access. But
>>>> for now at least, without (1) my view is we can't trace Planet Labs imagery
>>>> for use in OpenStreetMap.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 11:50, Stephen Backway  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi group,
>>>>>
>>>>> I just came across this Map-A-Thon by chance, apologies if it has been
>>>>> shared already and I missed it:
>>>>> https://sssi.org.au/fire-map-a-thon/about-map-a-thon
>>>>>
>>>>> Extract from the above page:
>>>>>
>>>>> *The SSSI National Bushfire Recovery Map-a-thon is being held on
>>>>> Sunday, 9th February, 2020 and registrations are now open!  To register
>>>>> visit: SSSI National Bushfire Recovery Map-a-thon
>>>>> <https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/sssi-national-bushfire-recovery-map-a-thon-nat057-tickets-90744133145>
>>>>>  *
>>>>>
>>>>> *SSSI is thankful to the surveying and geospatial community for
>>>>> reaching out to assist with the bushfire recovery effort and for the
>>>>> continued offers of assistance from individuals and businesses from within
>>>>> Australia and globally.*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From reading through the pages, they are going to be using
>>>>> OpenStreetMap in conjunction with government data and imagery, so not sure
>>>>> if they have any new datasets/imagery layers that we haven't already
>>>>> mentioned on the list...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephen.
>>>>> ___
>>>>> 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
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] tagging burnt areas

[Ewen Hill]

I would only be replacing any known houses and outbuildings with
buildling=ruins. There are a number of old bridges that fall probably under
this category along railtrails etc.  however the bush and grasslands will
regrow ... unless it happens to reburn again this season.

  In Victoria over 1000 buildings have been damaged or destroyed however
some areas are yet to be checked. This will change the fabric of some
Victorian towns. The Clifton Hill school with around 15 children may never
be rebuilt with children now commuting to Bairnsdale.

   All the other .infrastructure will probably return although there is
5,500km of roads to be cleared of dangerous trees and some crews are doing
only 3km per day due to the dangerous state some trees are in.

  I would be looking at reverting any change-sets that have
brownfield/burnt other than the building=ruins

Ewen




On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 21:07, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 7:51 PM Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I have thought about if we should map burnt areas, it's tricky because
>> while it is surveyable, it changes quickly and the point at when it changes
>> to no longer burnt is subjective. For those reasons I do think it's better
>> to store this in another database not OSM. There you can capture the burn
>> date and degree of the burn.
>>
>>
>  This was what I was thinking. You'd have to somehow tag when an area was
> burnt and to what degree it was burnt. Not really something I'd expect to
> see in OSM.
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Adding polygons of the aerodromes

[Ewen Hill]

The Royal Flying Doctor Service (RFDS) have an Australian database of
around 2200 airstrips and airports although not all are in use or are
certified for use by the RFDS.These range from

   - Domestic/intl airports with regular commuter flights,
   - Local council run airfields like  Colac and Apollo Bay (Victoria),
   - First Nation community airfields like  Kalumburu in WA (Ex Royal
   Australian Airforce) and  Pormpuraaw (Qld)
   - Private airfields with tourist services (William Creek SA) -
   although this has been a "Temporary facility" for many years
   - Ranch/Homestead/Cattle Stations/Pastoral leases (Anna Creek (SA))
   - Beach airfields (Frazer Island (south of Eli Creek, Qld))
   - Sea-Plan landings like Rose Bay (Sydney) and Hume Dam (Boss 360
   firefighting aircraft)
   - Highway airstrips (above)
   - Forest fire fighting strips
   - Ultra light landing strips / helicopter refuelling) where possibly an
   old disused runway has been repurposed for a ranch outstation to
   accommodate cheaper aircraft. Anna Creek is 23,000 sqkm and there will be a
   number of places where cattle are mustered to take them to market.
   - Abandoned airstrips where pastoral leases have reverted to national
   parks/crown land or communities have not had the finance to maintain their
   airstrip/lack of need or were WW2 facilities (Fenton NT)

For aerial fire fighting purposes, the larger aircraft like (Very) Large
Air Tanker (V)LAT only use nominated airfields (e.g Avalon, East Sale
(RAAF), Albury/Wodonga for Victoria). Single Engine Air Tankers (SEATS) use
only selected airfields as bases as they need to reload fire
retardant quickly. Places like Ararat and Linga have these set up however
in long running campaign fires other airfields are used with a dedicated
ground crew.

Helicopters tend to use the local cricket/football fields (Gembrook Vic) to
refuel or park overnight unless there is an airfield and probably dams
nearby. It means the ground crews can access local services however any
road accessible flat area in a safe area will work.

I see some validity in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aeroway%3Dairstrip however the
proposed
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Aerodrome appears
to be the solution along with in_use/historic. It would be ideal if this
proposal could be pushed along (or a variant) so we have some basis of
conformity as retagging 3000+ locations is probably going to need manual
updates.

Ewen

On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 at 09:50, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 at 19:59, Nemanja Bračko  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have redefined my query: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/PfU
>>
>
> Just looked at that query for SEQ - NNSW area & it appears that there are
> a lot of aerodromes not showing up?
>
>  I understand that minor airstrips without IATA / ICAO codes won't show,
> but many of the ones that haven't appeared do have them eg Gold Coast,
> Brisbane, both Toowoomba Airports.
>
> Running the query as is gave 555 nodes, running it for the same area just
> as =aerodromes gave 1285 nodes, 50 ways & 2 relations‽
>
>   Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] #GeoBeers for Melbourne Wed 18th Dec 6pm, Mrs P. in Amphlett Lane

[Ewen Hill]

We have been well and truly outplayed by our Northern Sydney neighbours in
organising Festivus geospatial beers so I thought we could see them and
raise them in Melbourne.

Mrs Parmas (it's fairly quiet compared to others nowadays)  which is at the
Parliament end of Little Bourke Street for sometime after 5:30pm this
Wednesday

Let me know if you can make it

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.810621334068=144.97180187563163=17=yquOEDVHaYkgaxaVRuWPAg=photo


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

[talk-au] Automated monitoring of changes to existing OSM objects - any interest?

[Ewen Hill]

Recently I have been talking to someone off-list about monitoring large or
complex relations. In his instance, he was looking to monitor a 1200km
relation in Western Australia for any accidental vandalism and to be on top
of any changes yet to be conveyed in the official map of the route.

This was a little more complex than first imagined as the data returned
from the data changes was so large it couldn't be loaded in memory It's
probably due to the significant number of changes AND the significant
number of road segments AND other shorter relations used so the import went
on a crash diet.

Each night we check for changes and email a link that allows the curator to
review the new changes if any occur

Would anyone be interested in monitoring a small collection of objects for
changes on a daily basis? If so, let me know off-line and I may consider
making the process more versatile and user-fed using your OSM login post
Christmas.


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

Re: [talk-au] New imageries in AU

[Ewen Hill]

*Nemanja,*
   Thank you for all the hard work. I am not a huge fan of using the Wiki
as a basis as it will require a lot of work to keep it updated and if Alice
Springs is updated, who will notice?

 Unless we could visualise the latest imagery by dates automatically, I
would suggest that you just need to pop back and visit quarterly. Perhaps
we could take a snapshot of tiles in specific place.to check for variances?

  Also on another note, can you let your team know that most streams and
rivers are intermittent outside the east coast Great Dividing Range and
coastal areas and unless it declared a river, then it is probably a stream.
A lot of Australia will appear to have stream lines but in reality will
only be streams for exceedingly short periods after a thunderstorm.  There
are a few rivers being added into OSM in the desert by the team that
probably haven't seen water for 8 years as permanent and that you need to
add fords or bridges to existing highways.

Have a great weekend

Ewen



On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 15:28, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

> Active mappers who regularly check out the different imagery layers can
> usually tell when one gets refreshed with new imagery, but it does vary a
> lot based on location.
>
> What if we had a wiki page, that tried to loosely track imagery freshness.
>
> eg. just a list of cities Sydney with info like "currently freshest is
> Maxar". or "ESRI appeared to refresh within the last 6 months", etc. What
> do you think?
>
> Keep in mind (this is even something I need to do better at), when
> armchair mapping from aerial imagery or street level imagery it's always a
> good idea to check the last edit date of the feature you're editing. If
> it's a few years old then it's usually safe to replace, but if it's within
> the last 6 months it could well be more current than the imagery.
>
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 01:58, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au <
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> 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
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Uluru naming consistency

[Ewen Hill]

Hi Joachim,
   Thank you for your interest and your detailed proposals and analysis. As
the custodians of the land wish others to only use Uluru however the
official names are Uluru / Ayers Rock since 2002, I believe that your first
proposal covers all bases.








*My preferred proposal for both features:name = Uluṟuname:en =
Uluruname:pjt = Uluṟualt_name = Ayers Rockalt_name:en = Ayers
Rockofficial_name =  Uluru / Ayers Rockofficial_name:en =  Uluru / Ayers
Rock*

On Tue, 29 Oct 2019, 5:40 AM Joachim  wrote:

> Hello Aussies,
>
> the closing of the Uluru Climb gathered international news. So I had a
> look at Uluru and saw some naming inconsistencies which might be
> improved. I found no prior discussion about it and the features in OSM
> have stable naming since 2015, so this seems to be a topic worth a
> look.
>
> OSM has two features (notice the underlined r on some names which is
> native Pitjantjatjara):
> a) The peak (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2251425855)
> name = Uluṟu
> name:en = Uluru (Ayers Rock)
> name:pjt = Uluṟu
> alt_name = Uluru
>
> b) The "bare_rock" (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32639987/)
> name = Uluṟu (Ayers Rock)
> name:en = Uluru (Ayers Rock)
> name:pjt= Uluṟu
>
> Two issues:
> 1. Name is inconsistent between the two
> 2. The Ayers Rock in parenthesis looks more like description than a name
>
> For the following proposals I added the English and Pitjantjatjara
> explicitly because Uluru has some translated names.
> My preferred proposal for both features:
> name = Uluṟu
> name:en = Uluru
> name:pjt = Uluṟu
> alt_name = Ayers Rock
> alt_name:en = Ayers Rock
> official_name =  Uluru / Ayers Rock
> official_name:en =  Uluru / Ayers Rock
>
> Alternative proposal for both:
> name = Uluru / Ayers Rock
> name:en = Uluru / Ayers Rock
> name:pjt = Uluṟu
> alt_name = Uluṟu
> alt_name:pjt = Uluṟu
> alt_name:en = Uluru
> old_name = Ayers Rock
> old_name:en = Ayers Rock
>
> Some points to consider:
> Uluru seems to be generally seen as the preferred name nowadays in
> Australia. I played a bit with Google Trends to see the extent
> (
> https://trends.google.de/trends/explore?date=all=AU=ayers%20rock,uluru
> )
> The official name is the dual name Uluru / Ayers Rock
> (http://www.ntlis.nt.gov.au/placenames/view.jsp?id=10532)
> The park is co-operated by Anangu and the Australian Government and
> names it Uluru exclusively
> (https://parksaustralia.gov.au/uluru/about/ayers-rock-or-uluru/)
>
> Best regards Joachim/Jojo4u from Germany
>
> ___
> 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 old railway stations - what is the agreed approach

[Ewen Hill]

Thanks Warin,
   I have been using a node or polygon for the railway station as follows
however it is raising a level 2 error in osmose...

name=xxx
historic:railway = station (or station_site)

If the building can be traced, I would also add a polygon
building=train_station

There appears to be a lot of confusion (see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Railway_stations#Stations_and_sites_which_are_not_currently_in_operation
)
over

   - historic:railway=station
   - railway:historic=station
   - disused=yes
   - not tagging it at all with any railway tags

I want to keep the information from appearing in current travel options but
available to explain how the township formed around a particular location

Ewen

On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 at 19:33, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19/10/19 17:53, Ewen Hill wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >I am trying to get some clarity about tagging old railway stations
> > like
> >
> https://i1.wp.com/judithsalecich.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/The-former-Bogantungan-Railway-Station.jpg?ssl=1
>  that
>
> > has not seen a train stop for a numbe of decades
> >
> >
> > There appears to be a myriads of ways to tag this according to the
> > Wiki. What is the best standardised approach (which I will add to the
> ATG)
>
>
> The building is still a building...map as a way with
> building=train_station as it is recognisable as a train station?
>
> It does appear to be now a museum... I'd map that as a separate node
> with the relevant details.
>
>
> It was a train station or halt.. Could be be one again? This should be
> an area that includes the building and local track.
>
> disused:railway=halt/station or disused:public_transport=station
>
> or abandoned:*=*
>
> If no longer in existence then consider mapping it in OHM.
>
> Nothing Oz specific about it?
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] tagging old railway stations - what is the agreed approach

[Ewen Hill]

Hi,
   I am trying to get some clarity about tagging old railway stations like
https://i1.wp.com/judithsalecich.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/The-former-Bogantungan-Railway-Station.jpg?ssl=1
that
has not seen a train stop for a numbe of decades


There appears to be a myriads of ways to tag this according to the Wiki.
What is the best standardised approach (which I will add to the ATG)
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping 'private roads' conclusion

[Ewen Hill]

+1 and well done.

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 14:27, cleary  wrote:

> Supported. Well done.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2019, at 11:55 AM, Warin wrote:
> > Ok.. I think the following can be done on the Australian Tagging
> Guidelines;
> >
> >
> > Remove the words "not map the interior private roads in detail" from
> > service roads
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Urban_Areas
> >
> >
> > Add a new section "Private Roads" under 'Road Tagging' as the last entry.
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Road_Tagging
> >
> > With words something like?
> >
> > "Private roads can be mapped, this provides information for;
> > the person going past, that the road is private and their location on
> > the map
> > emergency services who may find the road of benefit
> > the private individual who can use the road
> >
> > Such private roads should have the tag 'access=private', if you are not
> > certain then it is best to err on the cautious side and add the
> > 'access=private'."
> >
> >
> >
> > Any objections, corrections, better words .. ???
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Men's Shed?

[Ewen Hill]

The feminine term is a pretty standard "Hen's shed" so perhaps
name=Boyanup Hens Shed
community_centre=community_shed
gender=female

Take shed more as a collective noun rather than a structure per se.

Ewen

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 20:15, Jonathon Rossi  wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 5:07 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 16:25, Ewen Hill  wrote:
>>
>>>  Exceddingly happy with community.shed as proposed
>>>
>>> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, 5:15 PM Sam Wilson  wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think amenity=community_centre makes sense, and I think there’s
>>>> enough in Australia to warrant a specific community_centre=mens_shed
>>>> (or maybe community_shed, which Wikipedia suggests as the generic
>>>> term).
>>>>
>>> Yes, that has a lot going for it!
>>
>> Still as community_centre=community_shed?
>>
>> Or maybe community_shed=man/woman?
>>
>> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 16:35, Jonathon Rossi  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I think shed (sometimes) describes the building not that they do. How
>>> about community_centre=workshop?
>>>
>>
>> No, they're not always located in a "shed", but as that's a pivotal part
>> of the name, I think we should keep reference to it?
>>
>
> Yes, after a bit more research I agree, I hadn't realised other countries
> are also referring to these as men's sheds:
>
> > 1,000 Australia
> > 450 Ireland
> > 300 United Kingdom,
> > 100 New Zealand
> > 20 Canada
> > ~12 United States
> >
> https://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/livable-in-action/info-2019/mens-sheds-in-us.html
>
> Looks like a few Men's Sheds are opening to regular She Shed/Women Shed
> classes for a cost (https://www.thewomensshed.org/). However, these
> classes have a different purpose to the overall goal of Men's Sheds. Are
> they still just a Men's Shed that opens to women? "Like CWA, but with power
> tools" was one way they were described. I wouldn't
> mind community_centre=mens_shed because the overall goal is men's health,
> i.e. the Shoulder to Shoulder slogan, even if the facility gets used by
> women occasionally.
>
> If we go with community_centre=community_shed, we need to make sure the
> wording makes it clear it isn't like Share Shed (
> https://www.shareshed.org.au/), they are like a library for tools run by
> the community.
>
> --
> Jono
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Men's Shed?

[Ewen Hill]

Please don't forget the Hen's shed or Hen House (Boyanup wa from memory).
They do all differ with some having lots of mechanical stuff (Forrest Wa)
to others which are more craft and sudoko in a house or annex or former
shire office. Exceddingly happy with community.shed as proposed

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, 5:15 PM Sam Wilson  wrote:

> I think amenity=community_centre makes sense, and I think there’s enough
> in Australia to warrant a specific community_centre=mens_shed (or maybe
> community_shed, which Wikipedia suggests as the generic term).
>
> On 7/10/19 1:57 pm, Warin wrote:
>
> On 07/10/19 16:52, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Thanks fella's - thought I remembered seeing some mention of them!
>
>
> With only 2 expressing an opinion I am reluctant to put it on the wiki
> guide.
>
> What do you think Graeme? Anyone else?
>
>
> ___
> 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] Undiscussed edits to Australian Tagging Guidelines on tagging footpaths/cycleways (Was: Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law)

[Ewen Hill]

Yes it does - sorry - I read that incorrectly by not reading the second
part.

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 16:17, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:13 PM Ewen Hill  wrote:
>
>> Daniel,
>>I thought it was 250watts for e-bikes (a European standard now
>> basically global) so the book may be incorrect anyway
>>
>>
> Isn't that what it says on page 3?
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed edits to Australian Tagging Guidelines on tagging footpaths/cycleways (Was: Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law)

[Ewen Hill]

Daniel,
   I thought it was 250watts for e-bikes (a European standard now basically
global) so the book may be incorrect anyway

Ewen

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 16:07, Daniel O'Connor 
wrote:

> +1.
>
> Do have to amend the bits around not legal for SA cyclists to be on
> footpaths given
> https://www.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/23438/DPTI-Cycling-and-the-Law-Booklet.pdf
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 3:31 PM Andrew Davidson  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 3:09 PM Herbert.Remi via Talk-au <
>> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>>> There are almost no paths in the ACT compliant with Australian Tagging
>>> Guidelines
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Turns out that a "helpful"
>> wiki user radically changed the suggested way to tag footpaths and
>> cycleways back in May this year:
>>
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Tagging_Guidelines=revision=1849762=1845590
>>
>> I propose that we revert the page back to what it said before these edits.
>> ___
>> 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
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law

[Ewen Hill]

 in a
> way which is consistent with the ATG or ACT law, further increasing the
> inconsistency.
>
> Any of the following combinations of highway, foot, bicycle, footway, and
> segregated can be found in the ACT.
> * segregated=no/yes
> * highway=path/footway/cycleway
> * foot=designated/yes/blank/no
> * bicycle= designated/yes/blank/no
> * footway=sidewalk OR missing
>
> ## The ATG says
> Under ACT law, both pedestrian and cyclists are both allowed to use the
> “footpath”. Here is the relevant section of the ATG.
> “If bicycles are permitted by law then use highway=path.
> **Do not use highway=footway unless bicycles are expressly prohibited from
> using that path.**”
> Pedestrian ONLY paths are very rare in the ACT.
>
> What is ALSO very rare in the ACT is bike ONLY path, which the ATG calls
> the “Australian Cycle Path (bicycle-only sign, pedestrians prohibited)”,
> and the properly separated shared paths, which the ATG calls "Australian
> Separated Footpath (bicycle and pedestrian separated by a line)”. The total
> length of paths of these types in the ACT would be in the order of 10-20km.
>
> ## Most common types of ridable paths in the ACT
> ### Type A
> Common: “Australian Shared Path (bicycle and pedestrian sign)” - 329km in
> 2012.
> The ATG says the tags should be:
> * highway=path
> * foot=designated
> * bicycle=designated
> * segregated=no
>
> ### Type B
> Under ACT law, pedestrian and cyclists are both allowed to use any
> “footpath”. A "footpath" is any unsigned path separated from the road.
> There were more than 2000km of these "footpaths" in the ACT in 2012.
> Conclusion: in the ACT, almost all “footpaths” are effectively shared.
> * highway=path
> * foot=designated
> * bicycle=designated
> * segregated=no
>
> Type A and type B paths cannot be distinguished from each other with these
> tags alone. In real life the path markings and signage should help you
> distinguish the two. Generally, path markings and signage are not in OSM.
>
> ## Concluding remarks to paths types in the ACT
> There are effective three paths types in the ACT. The ATG recommend Type A
> and Type B paths are tagged the same way and are 99% or paved, ridable
> paths in the ACT. I will simply refer to them as the DEFAULT type.
>
> Here is a simple way of changing the default, to the bicycle-only or
> pedestrian-only path type. Only one tag needs to be changed for
> corrections. It does not require you to use a preset.
>
> | key| DEFAULT| Pedestrians ONLY | Cyclists ONLY  |
> | -- | -- |  | -- |
> | highway| path   | path | path   |
> | foot   | **designated** | **designated**   | no |
> | bicycle| **designated** | no   | **designated** |
> | segregated | no |  ||
>
> I welcome your comment. 
> Keywords: Australia, ACT, highway, foot, bicycle, footway, segregated, ID
> editor, The Issue, Mapnik
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Discussion H: public transport – the end game

[Ewen Hill]

Herbert,
Can we slow down a little and finalise one of these items and then move
on to the next please. We don't get much feedback from you after a number
of us have offered suggestions. There are no "thanks", no, "If you look at
this relation/way then this appears different".

I would be only too happy to discuss offline some of your issues in a
Skype or email or any other method you wish. I, along with others would
like to know what the end game is. Are you doing a paper on OSM or are you
a committed editor or new to OSM. A lot of your questions could be answered
by Google or via the vast amount of information in the Wiki.

  I look forward to hearing from you off the list.

Ewen

On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 09:23, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> # Discussion H: public transport – the end game
>
> Bus routes (relations) were changed in the ACT in 2019 with the
> introduction of Civic to Gungahlin light rail, effective 29 April 2019. The
> bus network in Canberra changed from a mesh network (bumble buses) to a
> “hub and spoke” system, the “Rapid” bus network. Now, fast buses connect
> town centres and you change for local connections. This was a radical
> change with many bus routes being abolished and news one established. The
> new “spoke” routes are name R1, R2, … to R10. The route R1 is not a bus
> route at all but the Civic to Gungahlin light rail.
>
> Summary of changes required to OSM relations:
> - Many routes deleted
> - New routes added
> - Nomenclature of all routes changed.
>
> Resources
> 1. A detailed, folded poster map that shows all the new routes. I am aware
> this is almost useless for the online community. Locals can get a copy for
> free.
> *Canberra Transport Guide: your guide to Canberra’s bus and light rail
> network*, Transport Canberra, 2019.
> 2. A DINA4 overview map of the Rapid bus network can be found on the ACT
> Government website for a map.
> https://www.transport.act.gov.au/getting-around/timetables/routes-by-number
> 3. The Transport Canberra website has a wealth of information about the
> bus network in general.
> https://www.transport.act.gov.au/
>
>
> QUESTION
> An audit and possible correction of all bus routes are required, similar
> to the audit of all bike routes (discussion G). Some routes may have been
> changed already and others are forgotten.
> **How to do this?**
> I am hoping that somebody may have experience with this sort of problem in
> other cities.
>
> I welcome your comments.
> keywords: Australia, ACT, bus network, ACT Government, TCCS, light rail,
> relation, public transport
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law

[Ewen Hill]

Just to note that you can ride on a footpath if you are 12 or under OR as
an adult riding with a child 12 or under. This is a national standard in
all states I believe.

In Victoria, you will see sometimes a pedestrian and cyclist on a white
rectangle sign or a blue directional street name style sign or markings on
the road. In Western Australia, there are different markings for the
cyclist only sections of the 1060km Munda Biddi trails and other cycling
only trails which normally shows a "Cyclists only" and a red line through
pedestrians and trail bikes normally on a wooden post about a foot wide.

Ewen




On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 09:22, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 09:06, Andrew Davidson  wrote:
>
>> I was more interested in how consistently they are installed in
>> Queensland.
>>
>
> Sorry! In my part of the GC, I've seen the shared path signs along the GC
> Oceanway. One other shared path nearby, they're "painted" on the path
> itself, rather than separate signs, & are no longer in very good condition!
> :-)
>
> The most common one we see is the painted "cycle" markings, either on the
> road itself, or in a separate bike lane.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Newcastle to Ballina Pacific Highway classification

[Ewen Hill]

I would define an Australian motorway as

*A dual carriageway with at least two lanes in either direction where
interchanges are predominantly grade separated or where cross roads are on
average fewer than 1 cross road per 2km. The speed limit is at least 100km
although short sections may be less when navigating steep terrains.*


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

Re: [talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands

[Ewen Hill]

>
> Frederick,

   If I use the term bush walking colloquially, then it means to use a
track that already exists., either single track or 4wd track (fire trail)
predominantly however there might be times where you cross a grass land
where there is no well defined track.

If you are talking about walking through a forest not on a track or the
track is hideously overgrown than I would call that "bush bashing".  The
term hiking has connotations mainly of trails with the odd bit of bush
bashing included.

Large wombats and kangaroos who can create tracks in sparse undergrowth
that is hard to tell from a man-made walking trail on the ground. Another
issue is old bulldozer tracks or firefighter tracks that were used to stop
wild fires (sometimes called mineral earth breaks). Normally these are
removed post the wildfire but sometimes only at the start of the new track.

In the brochure, that sounds like I should stay on the trails.if walking

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

Re: [talk-au] Road classification in AUS

[Ewen Hill]

unk. Part of Semaphore Road which is not on [A16] route is
>> mapped as *secondary*, but it looks like a *primary* road. In this
>> case, should Semaphore Road be mapped as trunk – primary, instead of
>> primary – secondary?
>>
>
> It's not just the physical condition of the road, but also how important
> that road is from the road network perspective, so generally the more
> traffic the road gets and the more "important" it is in terms of linking
> major centres together, then the higher the classification. So in that way,
> two roads which look the same can have different classification based on
> their importance in the road network.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Next case, on [A16] route, *Causeway Road* is definitely a primary road.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://openstreetcam.org/details/1341011/254/track-info
>>
>>
>>
>> Further on, [A16] continues to *Bower Road*, which looks like a trunk
>> road, but it’s mapped as a primary.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo=_jlpimXN_-a17Mt8E92wRg=-34.852086664809406=138.49658016539593=17
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> These all roads are on the same [A16] route.
>>
>>
>>
>> If we compare what is written here
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway with M, A, B, C routes
>> then we find that A route, in most cases, primarily consists of trunks.
>> Putting Causeway Road on a side, all other mentioned roads look the same,
>> but only one of them is mapped as trunk. Should all of them be turned into
>> trunks? If yes, what to do with Causeway Road? Turn it into trunk because
>> of A route or leave it as is?
>>
>
> I would ignore the A, B, C etc. classification, and instead map based on
> the road importance within the network. Indeed that's exactly how
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway describes the tag values
> as different levels of importance within the road network in connecting
> places.
>
> I wouldn't concern myself too much with what official data says, nor with
> the ref numbers, instead go with local knowledge of the road importance.
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Path on sand/bare rock

[Ewen Hill]

Hi, 
  On a corcular island with a sand/bare rock surface all the way around the
outside, would you add a path?

Now where a track might head down to the beach to cross a stream, it makes
sense however should we infer a path where there is no man made assistance
or guidance?






--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Australia-f5416966.html

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

Re: [talk-au] Maxweight signs question

[Ewen Hill]

Good morning  Mateusz ,
   A lot of the tertiary roads in Australia are under local government
authority ownership Mateusz. So we have a single Federal Government and
then the states and territories and finally under that local government. In
Victoria, there are 77 local government authorities (mainly shires and
councils).

  A lot of these rural shires have little money and so a lot of older signs
may be still found, especially on creek crossings on dirt roads that are
pre standardisation. Also, the state governments looks after a lot of the
forest reserves through their "conservation" department or similar. These
signs on logging roads may also differ, mainly due to the vastness of the
network.

The axle signs I haven't seen but as a cyclist I don't look too closely at
these. I do know that there is a Victorian database of road and bridge
limits however I don't know where copyright sits but would have a decent
guess that it is not available to OSM.

Thanks for all your work.

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 09:49, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 24/06/19 05:49, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> How weight limit signs in Australia looks like? Especially on bridges?
>
> I found https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/signs/regulatory
> with "Bridge load limit signs" that have two examples:
> https://www.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0020/42824/r6-3.png
> https://www.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0013/42700/r6-17.png
>
> is the same set of signs used in 5 other states?
>
> Similar
> https://nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/378221/hvdh-section5.pdf
>
> is "per axle group" commonly used or is it an extremely rare curiosity?
>
> Most don't drive trucks so they pay no attention to them.
>
> There are maximum weights and dimensions that vehicle have to comply with.
> Major roads have bridges that withstand those maximums so they have no
> signs for that. It is only on lesser roads where a bridge cannot carry that
> maximum load that you should find these signs. I would think short bridges
> may well carry axle limits.
>
>
> is this sign using short ton or long ton or normal tonnes (=1000 kg) as an
> unit?
>
> We are a metric country now. So 1tonne = 1000kg.
>
> -
>
> According to sources that I also encountered design like US signs, like
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MUTCD_R12-1.svg
> is at least sometimes used in Australia.
>
> Is it correct? (my sources were quite dubious so...)
>
>
> Unfortunately the road signs are under Australian Standard, AS 1743:2018.
> Australian Standards are copyright ... most will say that is ridiculous!
> But there we are. So finding examples of signs can be difficult. I can go
> and look at the AS, but I cannot copy it (I did have the capability at
> work, but had to declare it - special licence) ... I can photo signs beside
> the road ... There are some examples in learn to drive booklets, but I have
> not found any with the truck weight limits as yet.
>
> Some older signs may still be found but they will be replace with AS
> 1743:2018 signs.
> See
> https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/BuildingRoads/StandardsTechnical/RoadandTrafficEngineering/TrafficManagement/AustralianStandardSigns/Pages/home.aspx
> for some old examples.
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Fwd: Currently, OSM is rendering water throughout the suburbs of Perth

[Ewen Hill]

Hi,
  Has anyone else noticed that the great flood of 2019 is on us. I can't
find the issue so is it a mapping issue or a rendering issue please as I
cannot find the source? See
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-32.2436/115.9987
-- 
[image: image.png]
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Local Chapter

[Ewen Hill]

Good morning,
Perhaps a general clause in there to state that we strive to encourage
local determination and to assist and support in this process within the
bounds of the master agreement and to encourage all countries and regions
to be both proactive and representative and not to discriminate through
language, culture and distance.

We don't know what the next decade will through us, both politically
and technically. Let's state that the organisation is all-encompassing and
work through the issues if and when they occur.

Ewen

Ewen

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 10:05, Edoardo Neerhut  wrote:

> In situations where there isn't any existing representation currently, I
> would see an entity as helping generate that activity. If I was a new
> mapper/geospatial professional in any of those locations, I would feel more
> comfortable starting out knowing that there were existing
> networks/knowledge I could tap into/contribute to.
>
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 02:20, Sebastian S.  wrote:
>
>> What is the benefit of including these regions if there is no
>> representation? (Based in the assumption that no one will claim
>> representation)
>>
>> What about an opt in/out for these regions? If at a later point in time a
>> separate chapter wants to form they should be able to. Or maybe the general
>> view is that a larger chapter can achieve more for these smaller regions.
>> --
>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>
>> On 2 June 2019 11:29:19 am GMT+08:00, Graeme Fitzpatrick <
>> graemefi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 20:08, John Bryant  wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Re: geographic extent, one of the definitions we've been using for
>>>> other purposes (eg conference travel grants) is the UN geoscheme for
>>>> Oceania:
>>>>
>>>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_geoscheme_for_Oceania
>>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting bit I just noticed off that map / list ...
>>>
>>> Sub-regions are A-NZ, Micro-, Mela- & Polynesia, none of which include
>>> Hawaii, but Honolulu is listed as one of the largest cities?
>>>
>>> I think we would definitely be stepping on toes if we tried to pinch
>>> Hawaii! :-) (although I don't know how Guam, New Caledonia etc would work -
>>> as mentioned, Oceania or US & France? I can see that there is a New
>>> Caledonia mailing list, but no separate list for Hawaii or any of the other
>>> Pacific nations.)
>>>
>>> But I personally agree that we need to reach out and canvass any local
>>>> communities that may exist, for their thoughts. We do have some reach via
>>>> existing OSGeo community, mailing lists, travel grant program, and other
>>>> networks.
>>>>
>>>> After putting in our best effort, if there are countries where there is
>>>> no feedback, are we in a position to form a regional chapter including
>>>> those countries, under the assumption that we aren't stepping on any toes?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would think we'd be OK, as long as we can show that we've made the
>>> effort?
>>>
>>> & if, some years down the track, "Palau" (picking a name at random)
>>> wanted to form it's own chapter, I would think we would then offer them
>>> every assistance possible :-)
>>>
>>> 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
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Local Chapter

[Ewen Hill]

Andrew John, Ed et al,
   The proposal looks good however do we need to discuss the inclusion of
Hawaii and perhaps Guam as they may be more appropriate under a US auspices
or is it best to use the UN definition that excludes a number of these to
be succinctly clear what is in and what is not.

Ewen

On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 15:37, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 13:06, Edoardo Neerhut  wrote:
>
>> Simon, you raise a good point! What do you all think is an effective way
>> to get this input? Reach out to people we know are active mappers in
>> Oceania and see if they would like their country to be represented?
>>
>> On Sat, 18 May 2019 at 21:18, Andrew Harvey 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 18 May 2019 at 19:12, Simon Poole  wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think my immediate and largest concern if I was reviewing the
>>>> application (which I am not) would be: Oceania isn't just about
>>>> Australia.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would expect nothing less from the OSMF.
>>>
>>> Have OSM communities outside of AUS (and NZ) even been addressed? While
>>>> not totally cast in stone, there is an assumption that territorial
>>>> chapters are awarded exclusive rights for the territories in question
>>>> and I'm fairly sure the application will blow up in a big way if this is
>>>> not considered.
>>>>
>>>
> I agree that Simon has raised a very valid point, but, without wishing to
> sound rude or condescending in any way, would the various small island
> nations have the resources to set up their own Chapters?
>
>
>> I agree. There has been bit of discussion within the OSGeo Oceania
>>> committee regarding this.
>>>
>>> My opinion is we should only include countries where the local OSM
>>> community actively voice they want it.
>>>
>>
> Are there even any OSM mappers in some of them?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Please help update a mining area just south east of Perth

[Ewen Hill]

A quick plea. I wonder if people could spend a few minutes adding areas that
are mined or are being mined east of North Dandelup. Whilst the area slated
for mining is huge, the area impacted could be knocked off by a few people
pretty quickly. I would like to mark all the cleared area or area with
little regeneration as quarry. There are two key tourist tracks through the
area and I would like to calculate the amount of mining operations if at all
possible. Any assistance gratefully received. The area in question is around
...
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/-32.8838/116.0513

Thanks in advance.



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Australia-f5416966.html

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

Re: [talk-au] Aboriginal art sites

[Ewen Hill]

This should be documented clearly. Whilst there is a lot of well known art
work, there are a significant number of sacred areas that should not be
mapped or identified due to the cultural significance. We only need one
person transgressing due to OSM to cause offence. I have just worked with
the local owners during an emergency and it is amazing the amount of
artifacts that were identified that could disappear if mapped accurately by
trophy hunters.

Ewen

On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 10:38, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 08:51, Gavin Scott  wrote:
>
>>
>> The issue about the sacred-ness -it is not the job of OSM to make this
>> call. If you think an item is too private to map (perhaps such as a farmers
>> internal road network) then don't map it. Tthis is the mappers call.
>>
>
> There has been discussion here previously about mapping ceremonial trails,
> & the consensus was that it should only be done with the agreement &
> approval of the local Elders, so the same principle should apply to these
> sites.
>
> Should that be documented as OSM (maybe AU?) policy, or left to the
> discretion of individual mappers?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Platform names

[Ewen Hill]

Re vision impaired users. Is this where
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dplatform_edge could be
useful and whilst there is no route,  ot may assist... or hinder as it may
not be rendered.

On Fri, 22 Mar 2019, 9:43 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 21/03/19 22:30, Sebastian S. wrote:
>
> If you believe Wikipedia
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_railway_station%2C_Sydney
> The stations name is 'Central railway station' but it goes by many
> colloquial names.
>
> I don't like the way the platforms are named currently. "Platform 8+9
> (8;9)" is surely not the name on the signboards.
>
>
> Depends on what 'sign board' you look at as to the platform presentation.
> The electronic sign boards at the station entry show a single platform
> number, along with when the train leaves and the stops.
>
> The fixed platform entry signs show the pair of platforms that the entry
> accesses.
>
> Some of the Australian platforms are split, some are paired. I prefer
> split myself. But I am not making it a task for myself.
>
> I am in favour of splitting the platforms to have each number just called
> "Platform $". Maybe you can also indicated on which side 8 and 9 is in
> relation to a path which you would walk into the platform.
>
>
> If the platforms are split that should give the user the required
> indication.
>
>
> Maybe name:left=Platform 8 makes sense?
>
>
> Left and right depend on what direction you approach the platforms, at
> Central you can approach lots of the platform pairs from ether direction.
>
> Another question I have is how would you route a blind person to and onto
> the platform when there is no way?
> What about segment indicators. I have not been to central station but I
> assume for long trains there are segment indicators along the platform for
> passengers to find they carriages quicker. Are you planning to mapping
> these?
>
>
> I have no plans to map these. I don't know if there is a defined way to
> map them. Do you ? If so you might give a link for those interested.
>
> Have you looked at other train station in OSM?
> I suggest to have a look at
> Hamburg
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=53.552778=10.006389=15#map=18/53.55274/10.00677
> Or Cologne https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/50.94319/6.95853
> Or Paris Gare du Nord
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/48.88156/2.35623
> Or London Kings Cross
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.53194/-0.12326
> Regards Sebastian
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> On 21 March 2019 11:26:39 am AEDT, Thomas Manson
>   wrote:
>>
>> Looking at Central Station, Sydney, the platform names are things like
>> 'Platform 4+5'. (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6015392)
>>
>>
>> From my reading of
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Apublic_transport%3Dplatform,
>> this should be
>> the name of the station , so in this case that would be either Central or
>> Central Station, with the platform numbers as the ref tag (which is already
>> populated).
>>
>> 1) First of all, is my understanding correct? It should be the station
>> name.
>> 2) Secondly, should the name be Central or Central Station (assuming 1 is
>> correct)?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Thomas
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing 
> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] Very cool NSW transport real time map

[Ewen Hill]

That is a superb find Dion and would be useful not as a one off city app
but for the whole of Australasia as an app so we are not re-inventing this
for each state and territory.

Well worth a Georabble discussion on how this was made.

Ewen

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 12:07, Dion Moult  wrote:

> Just thought I'd share this very cool real time map of transport in NSW
> that I found online - don't know who is behind it but it's awesome! And
> yes, it has OSM as a background.
>
> https://www.bgtdevhub.com/TfNSW/index.html
>
>
> Dion Moult
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Correct tagging of railway=platform where it is a sandwich platform

[Ewen Hill]

Thank you Andrew and Warin,
There are 1734 platform_edge elements, mainly in Germany and
surrounding countries as well as in London and 3 in South Korea. I see this
probably being a better solution for underground  or complex interchanges
where platforms are not visible however I do think this is overkill and are
1700+ elements going to become standard in all the rendering engines as
Warin commented/

The backstory is that most Melbourne stations with a sandwich platform have
been commented on that they need to be split and this appears to be a
rather tedious process that has little reward to very few. I want to make
sure that we are future proofing this and the best way to proceed.

Ewen

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 07:46, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I too am not aware of 'platform edge'.
>
> Of what use is it, other than making more work/adding data bloat?
>
> Not used by route relation for public transport.
>
> Rendered?
>
> Used by on the fly routers?
>
> I prefer to split the platform so it is clear which side is what, so I am
> for A.
>
> But am not worried by it.
>
> On 18/02/19 23:23, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> > All methods are in current use:
> >
> > An example of A:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.04169/151.12293
> > An example of C:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-33.67210/151.11468
> >
> > I wasn't aware of platform_edge
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dplatform_edge but in
> > light of the detailed wiki write-up of it, I think it's better if we
> > migrate to B. So map the whole platform area, but then add linear ways
> > for platform_edge along the sides.
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 21:44, Ewen Hill  wrote:
> >> I'm interested in the preferred way of creating a sandwich railway
> platform
> >> where
> >> a) there are railway lines on both sides and
> >> b) trains stop to pick up passengers on both sides and
> >> c) there are few physical barriers between both platforms and
> >> d) there is sufficient aerial imagery to allow detailed platform layout
> >>
> >> Is it better to
> >> a) split the platform in the middle or
> >> b) add platform_edge and include platform number as the reference or
> >> c) no need to do anything, the reference="platform 8/9" on the platform
> >> polygon suffices and platform_edge is overkill.
> >>
> >> Thanks in anticipation
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Australia-f5416966.html
> >>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au