Re: [talk-au] farm airstrips
Thanks all - I'll drop that airstrip then. On 29/04/2024 10:04, 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 -- 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] farm airstrips
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 -- 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
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
Ben, On 23/04/2024 05:22, Ben Ritter wrote: Our solution involves extra work to accommodate the atypical workflow of NPWS deleting paths as a means of communicating their updated access rights. You're very generous towards NPWS with your wording here; some might call that "atypical workflow" vandalism ;) I'm all for reaching a solution that works for both parties but it is worth noting that NPWS agents deleting valid data are in violation of OSM's terms. 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
Re: [talk-au] Mass Edit Proposal - South Australia's Arterial Traffic Network
Hi, On 3/3/24 09:13, Daniel O'Connor wrote: Can't be stuffed registering to add comments on that thread. Please do. Mailing lists are on their way out (speaking as an over 50 year old person who was using mailing lists before the web even existed). The community forum doesn't require a separate registration - your OSM account is sufficient. It's no good for us mailing list users to grumble over here while people on the community forum might get the impression that the proposal is a great idea. 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
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
Hi, On 29/02/2024 12:56, Andrew Welch via Talk-au wrote: Part of the reason why we want them to map the way we map is because it shows clearly that while there is a path there, it is informal (so downstream users shouldn't treat it as a path) and usually considered private property (again, so downstream users shouldn't use it as a path). Tagging it that way also stops someone mapping from aerial imagery, previous GPS tracks, and other sources, from going and adding it back in. Further reasons for mapping informal paths: 1. Orientation. Imagine you have memorized the map, and you know that after the bend you are to take the first path to the right. Now, if the "first path to the right" that you encounter is an informal one that has been deleted from the map, you might accidentally walk that path rather than the one you intended to take. 2. Search and rescue. If someone is lost somewhere, then informal paths would certainly be a good starting point to go looking for them - provided you know where these informal paths are. 3. Emergency. In an emergency situation it can be important to know about a path even if you're not allowed to use it. 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
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
Hi, On 29/02/2024 11:20, Adam Steer wrote: Wait ... does the OSM community seriously want to call public land managers vandals for attempting to manage access to parts of public land effectively? You're right that in the strict sense of the word you'd only use it for someone who damages OSM without gaining anything themselves. But deleting tracks that exist on the ground clearly *is* damaging OSM, so if you want to avoid the "v-word" then at the very least you should say: These people are willfully damaging OSM in pursuing their own goals. And if you repeatedly damage OSM, then we'll kick you out. No matter if you're Joe Random, or the Emperor of China. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
I haven't followed this thread and I don't know if this is relevant to the discussion but I have just reverted the deletion of a bunch of paths in Tweed Shire, NSW here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147956474 - the deleter claims to have ties to NPS. -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Why set coast line to nation park or administrative boundaries?
Hi, I would advise caution with this. Government bodies will typically hold their own GIS data for park boundaries or administrative boundaries, and the GIS data they have will never fully align with the coastline. However, it is not our job to be an agent for publishing government data. We have to look further and ask for the actual situation. If the national park boundary is mostly along the coastline but there's a tiny patch of sand where the coastline has changed but the public data has not - does that really mean that this little patch is not part of the national park (and I could go there and, whatever, light a fire or something I'm not allowed to do in the national park)? OpenStreetMap becomes more complex the more different boundaries we track. Having a coastline with an administrative boundary that runs "almost" along the coast but is always a meter off, and then having in addition to that a national park boundary that is also "almost" the same but not quite - we should only do that if it is an important feature. "Hey, everyone knows that along the coast of XY there's this one meter wide stretch that is not officially part of the XY city so the city rule about nude bathing doesn't apply there" or whatever, that might be a reason to carefully map the difference - but if the difference is not "on purpose" but just an imprecision that the city and national park administration were likely to fix if they had the technical means then I would not try to map these boundaries separate from the coastline. Especially since they will certainly not be verifiable on the ground... Bye Frederik On 28.03.23 11:33, cleary wrote: Warin's proposal, that natural features be separated from administrative boundaries, is strongly supported. Boundaries are often near natural features but they rarely align precisely. Further, natural features such as coastline and waterways can change surprisingly quickly while administrative boundaries change much less often. On Tue, 28 Mar 2023, at 10:58 AM, Warin wrote: Hi Looks like some are setting natural features to government boundaries. A recent case along the WA south coast has been going on for some years.. The coast line looks very confused and the National Park boundaries are being changed to the coast line in reverse of what is stated on the change sets... (bangs head on wall). I was altered to it by OSMInspector identifying the National Park boundary being broken by the 'adjustment' of the 'coastline' ... that broke the National Park boundary... The National Park boundary looks, in some places, to be the low tide mark and then in other places to be the hi tide mark, so it is not consistent. I do understand where the two (natural feature and government boundary) coincide that it is easier to use the same way. But every now and then someone moves it to conform to the latest imagery of the natural feature .. thus moving the government boundary .. unintended but there we go. My only solution si to have them as separate ways .. making it easier to divorce the new nodes added for the new nature feature addition from the old government boundary. Any other ideas??? ___ 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 -- 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
Re: [talk-au] Mapping surf breaks
Hi, non-Australian and non-surfer here but please remember that stuff you map in OSM must be reasonably verifiable. If you map a great surf spot which only exists when some external conditions align, then it might be hard for others to verify (they'd have to wait for the conditions to align). As a non-surfer I would assume that "the wind and waves are just right" is something that could make a perfect surf spot nearly everywhere, and surfers would not be helped by a map showing lots of spots that might be great if "the wind and waves are just right" ;) 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
Re: [talk-au] US Trails Working Group
Hi, On 04.01.22 12:29, Warin wrote: > I have not as yet looked at hospitals, nor post offices... and I think both > of them are more useful to the map than Rural Fire Brigades. Within the envelope of stuff that is admissible to OSM, usefulness is a very subjective concept. If you are in the fire brigades, then maybe mapping a single fire hydrant is more useful to you than all of the post offices combined. It is commendable that you let your mapping be guided by trying to think about the "general usefulness for others", however this is not a necessary (nor a frequent!) trait in OSM contributors. Mapping what interests you is totally ok - and is often also the way to ensure that what is mapped is mapped well, because it is mapped by people who understand something about it! Of course this "let everyone map what they want" rule has its limits where one mapper's work starts to make life difficult for other mappers. For me, this point often comes when one mapper goes over board in creating giant relations that will slow down and confuse others (think of a newbie receiving a popup informing him that he has just edited the 5000-member relation "Outback NSW" and whether that was on purpose or so...). 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
Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)
Hi, On 29.10.21 12:33, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: > 1. "a park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the > track in order to keep people from exercising their rights". > > Does this happen, has it ever happened? I would be surprised if it > happened here. Anyway its not what I thought we were talking about, > illegal trails. This has definitely happened in Germany though the legal situation is not always crystal clear - in most cases, a park or forest manager would have the legal right to close something if they can show that there's imminent danger to plant or wildlife, and in practice many will be more assertive about this than the law allows (a.k.a. "there's danger to plant or wildlife because I say so"). So you'll have the local manager claim that "this is an illegal trail" and the local hikers saying "but the law says we can use the forest for recreation and your reasoning is bogus". This has led to situations where the local manager would not dare put up signs that say "path closed" because they know it would be challenged, but they subtly try to achieve the same by deleting the path from 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
Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)
Hi,
On 29.10.21 09:08, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> You could map a track under the "if it exists then map it" rule but you
> don't have to. We do not map women's refuges and they exist. We don't
> have to map every informal trail.
This is true, and we shouldn't go out of our way to thwart the efforts
of park managers. Having said that,
1. Sometimes the matter can be a civil rights issue - depending on the
legal situation, people might have the *right* to use a path but a park
manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track in
order to keep people from exercising their rights. In that situation,
while the park manager might want the best for the environment, the park
manager would have to work to change the legal situation instead of
trying to mislead people about what they are allowed to do.
2. In similar discussions we had people working with search and rescue
teams say that they prefer to use OSM maps because those show the
informal trails, and if you're searching for someone who got lost,
knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be helpful -
might even save lives.
3. If you have an emergency out in the wild, knowledge about informal or
even prohibited/closed tracks can be helpful and again, might even save
lives.
4. If you are navigating without a GPS, you might use trails for
orientation ("take the second left after entering the forest" or
whatever). In these cases if there's a trail that exists and is visible
but is not shown on the map, you will mis-count.
Therefore I would like to agree with Paul and Thorsten, and stress that
we should (a) map access tags properly, and (b) lobby web sites and apps
using OSM data to properly process these access tags, by not including
access-restricted trails in routing or route suggestions, and by clearly
marking these restrictions on maps.
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
Re: [talk-au] Russian Town Names?
Hi, we had a case in Europe where tons of more or less invented (auto-generated) Russian names were added by a Russian who was playing a computer game that was using OSM maps and they wanted a nicer map display ;) 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
Re: [talk-au] Can anyone make sense of this?
Hi, On 30.07.21 01:43, Little Maps wrote: > If the edits are accurate, legally acquired, ethical and respectfully > build upon the work of previous mappers then, imo, so be it. “Necessary” > vs “unnecessary” has never been a criteria for inclusion in OSM. It has, and it should. Anything added to OSM makes editing more complicated for mappers to come - *especially* when it's relations that always have the potential to trip up the newbie mapper. Something that is completely unnecessary reduces the ease of editing of our map while adding no value to compensate for that. It makes it harder for us to achieve what we want - a map editable by anyone. 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
Re: [talk-au] Vic ptv.vic.gov.au data now being used
Hi, I did actually send them a blocking message on that day, https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5219 requesting to reply to the many questions that had been raised http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=12556129 They cleared the block and continued unfazed. Has anyone been in touch with them? If not, it might be time to revert anything coming from questionable sources, and block them until they reply that they're human... Bye Frederik On 7/12/21 04:54, Andrew Harvey wrote: I sent them a private message, I'll wait to see if they reply to that first, because their last edit was still yesterday. If not then I will set a block to force them to read the message. -- on behalf of DWG On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 12:02, Phil Wyatt <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com>> wrote: Maybe its time for a DWG suspension till there is a response __ __ Cheers - Phil __ __ *From:*Adam Horan mailto:aho...@gmail.com>> *Sent:* Monday, 12 July 2021 11:37 AM *To:* talk-au mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Vic ptv.vic.gov.au <http://ptv.vic.gov.au> data now being used __ __ The same mapper is also adding peak names and specific elevations with no clear source specified. __ __ eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8909657880 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8909657880> Potter Hill https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8909657882 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8909657882> O'Brien Hill __ __ within changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107744815 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107744815> __ __ __ __ __ __ On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 11:02, Aaron Fang mailto:aaronshenhao2...@gmail.com>> wrote: As for the status of the waiver, I haven't got back any updates after the first reply. The last follow up I sent was at least a year or two ago, so the request might be stagnant. If anyone else would like to retry, that'd be great. __ __ On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 10:50 am, Andrew Harvey mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> wrote: Not that I'm aware of, and at least not per the current advice on the wiki you pointed to. __ __ CCed Aaron Fang Shenhao who sent the waiver. __ __ In the meantime I'll also follow up with the mapper. __ __ On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 10:34, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi __ __ There is a mapper now using theptv.vic.gov.au <http://ptv.vic.gov.au> data set in OSM. The Oz data catalog says it is 'being considered' dated Dec 2019. Past discussion herehttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-September/012982.html <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-September/012982.html> So is this data set ok to use? Note the mapper has not responded to comments in the past so I have little hope there. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107769809#map=7/-36.853/143.492 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107769809#map=7/-36.853/143.492> ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au> ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au> ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au> _______ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au -- 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
Re: [talk-au] Low quality road classification contributions in SA via Microsoft Open Maps Team - contact point?
Hi, @Nemanja in a personal capacity, all the best for your kid! @Nemanja in a business capacity, just so that there are no misunderstandings: if there are doubts about the quality of an organised editing activity, that activity needs to pause until the doubts are resolved. Getting back to the community after investigation is fine, but the activity must not continue and potentially introduce more errors in the mean time. @AU community, If further bad data is added after a problem has been flagged, please report the participating accounts to DWG so that we can stop them. 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
Re: [talk-au] Restricted postcodes due to Covid-19
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
Re: [talk-au] Discussion I: Quality is the coherence of four things
Hi, I am concerned by the high frequency of reference to "laws and regulations" and "Australian Tagging Guidelines". If it is true that "95% of paths to do not comply with Australian Tagging Guidelines" then I would suggest to adapt the guidelines to actual practice. After all, hundreds of users have made meaningful contributions to the path network but only a handful of people have made meaningful contributions to the wiki page section on paths! OSM is generally not a project where some people think up guidelines and others then follow them; most guidelines are more of a "best practices" document. 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
Re: [talk-au] Discussion H: public transport – the end game
Ewen, thank you for trying to be constructive in this matter. Herbert seems to have considerable difficulties with the medium It sounds like he has been collecting issues for a while and now tries to resolve them all at once, which can overload the capacity of the mailing list for reasonable discussion, as well as his own. Reaching out in the way you have done it here is commendable and I hope that Herbert will take you up on the offer. I would like to appeal to those who are already calling for a "mailing list ban" to have more patience. Mailing lists can be difficult to handle for someone who is new to the game and has perhaps spent a lifetime using other, more formalised forms of communication. Yes, there can be times when we need to kick someone out because productive discussion is not possible, but I feel that it we should try and be welcoming even to people who don't "get" us at their first attempt. They can turn out to be valuable members of the community, bringing different views to the table and broadening our horizon. 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
Re: [talk-au] What are the Facts?
Hi, if I may offer two pieces of advice for a successful discussion on mailing lists. On 23.09.19 12:35, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au wrote: > What are the Facts? > I have decided to publish the discussion brief in two parts: “The Facts” > and then “The Issue”. This is me telling you I am going to do that. I > will send you the first part tomorrow. First, try not to "lead" the discussion. Open a topic, see what people have to say, digest, and reply a couple days later. Repeat that process. If you "drive" things by being very present and writing lots of things in a small timeframe, people will quickly tire of engaging and you will be talking to a brick wall. My second recommendation is, and I admit this is not always possible or easy, try to limit the number of discussions you open simultaneously to one, otherwise people will get confused easily and mix your different issues together ESPECIALLY if the subject is imprecise. Also, I have the impression that the message I am replying to might contain a mix of quoted material and your original writing but it is not obvious to me which are your words and which are copied from elsewhere. I case you have used text formatting to distinguish - e.g. bold, or color - it has not surived! 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
Re: [talk-au] topic A: the platform itself
Hi, On 9/20/19 03:14, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au wrote: > I will post several concerns and information on several issues, but the > first is this platform itself. You call this platform a "forum" which is ok in the abstract sense, but note that there is actually an Australia forum in addition to this Australia mailing list (https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=24). The forum provides a slightly different user experience but is used less. In other countries, people have set up Slack channels or Facebook groups or even more esoteric channels of communication, in addition of or as a replacement for mailing lists - browse https://github.com/osmlab/osm-community-index if you want to get an idea. There's no strict rule about where the OSM community should discuss their issues, however media that requires prior registration with a third-party entity - like Slack or Facebook - are sometimes frowned upon as they give control over who can participate to that third party and might require the participant to agree to wide-ranging exploitation of their personal data by a commercial entity. In Germany where I hail from, the forum and the mailing list are used by about the same number of (but largely different) people, and since the total number of contributors is large enough to guarantee lively discussion on both, that's totally fine. Germany also has mailing lists for individual states but they are used very little, and even state-specific issues would often be discussed on the nationwide list to ensure they get enough attention. Speaking very generally, OSM has achieved the success it has with a "just do it" attitude: Instead of saying, 15 years ago, "BEFORE we start, let's come up with a good data scheme and a feature catalogue", people said "let's just start and then fix things as we go along". My recommendation would be to just stat discussing whatever needs discussing on the talk-au mailing list and branch out as the need arises. If something is worth discussing then a non-ideal UI should not be the blocker, and if it is, then maybe the issue is not so important. 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
Re: [talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands
Hi, On 12.09.19 09:29, Frederik Ramm wrote: > "Come for a serious bushwalk or a casual jog, visit a lookout in the > winter for whale watching off the coast, or break out the binoculars for > birdwatching. There are cycling opportunities on fire trails and plenty > of chances to cool off in summer by retreating to a rainforest track." Specifically for the Lower Escarpment Trail, I found this co-authored by the NPWS office: http://www.visitwollongong.com.au/uploads/308/illawarra-escarpment-trails-pdf.pdf "Lower Escarpment trail ... This unsealed vehicle-width trail traverses the lush middle slopes between Tarrawanna (Hawthorn Street) and Bulli (Bulli Pass) ... Ideal for: fit walkers, joggers and cyclists." Which clearly seems to indicate that cycling is allowed - would that include mountain biking? Unsure, this mountain biker web site https://www.trailforks.com/route/lower-escarpment-trail/ says: "Unlicensed motorbikes have resulted in a number of head on accidents with riders. ... This route is Unsanctioned, Ride at your own Risk!" 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
Re: [talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands
Hi, On 12.09.19 08:16, Andrew Harvey wrote: > Within the Illawarra Escarpment State Conservation Area, NPWS says the > only two things prohibited are Pets and > Smoking, > https://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/visit-a-park/parks/illawarra-escarpment-state-conservation-area/visitor-info#Prohibited. > > Normally for most National Parks and SCA's you're allowed to walk > anywhere unless otherwise prohibited. The link you posted contains the following wording: "Come for a serious bushwalk or a casual jog, visit a lookout in the winter for whale watching off the coast, or break out the binoculars for birdwatching. There are cycling opportunities on fire trails and plenty of chances to cool off in summer by retreating to a rainforest track." Would "serious bushwalk" be a term that NPWS could be using for walking only along pre-established trails, or is this a clear invitation to walk wherever you want? > In my opinion paths signposted or otherwise for walking should be > foot=designated to indicate there is signage saying this path is > explicitly for walking. That makes sense. > Any path they want people not to use > they'd need to put sinage and we'd tag as access=no That too, though if they were to say "mountainbiking on designated paths only", we might consider tagging all non-designated paths with cycling=no - that's essentially the old question of whether defaults should be tagged. > and any other path > with no sigage would be somewhere in the grey area between access=no and > access=designated (which I always saw access=yes as that middle ground tag). In my opinion a foot=yes, while not necessarily indicating that there is a sign, is more than a grey-area assumption. It is an assurance given by the mapper to others that "it is ok and legal to walk here", based perhaps not on signage but on local rules and customs. I would not use foot=yes for "well there is a path here and I've walked along it but I'm not sure what would have happened had I met a ranger". 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
Re: [talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands
Hi, On 12.09.19 06:27, Andrew Harvey wrote: > It's always better to have this mapped based on confirmations on the > ground, and it appears in this case that the local mapper Zhent, has > been mapping based on local knowledge. I have a feeling that Zhent's "foot=yes" might not mean "there is a sign here allowing access" but more "I walked here and wasn't arrested" ;) Question is, can we assume that any path leading into Conservation Lands that does *not* have a sign forbidding something, allows it? Probably not - NPWS can hardly be expected to continuously patrol the area for new "things that look like paths". Mind you, some of the paths that were added here have "sac_scale" and "trail_visibility" tags that do not sound like these are obvious trails actually prepared by NPWS for walkers. This might also tie in with the concept of "default rules" - for example, if "everyone knows that horse riding is only permitted on explicitly signed trails" in Conservation Lands then do we apply a blanket horse=no to everything else, or not... 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
Re: [talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands
Tony, On 9/11/19 21:31, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: > The construction and use of unauthorized trails is illegal with large > penalties (though I have never heard of a prosecution). Are there sources that are not restricted by copyright that we could use to determine which trails are authorized and which are not? > The policy in OSM to map everything that exists ignores the fact that > not all mapping is in the community interest. I would like to see a more > nuanced policy. There are indeed some nuances, for example there is general agreement in the community not to map the nesting places of rare birds (lest eggs be stolen), and a similar general agreement exists for things like women's refuges. This is in addition to the respect for privacy that is shared by most mappers - where the term "privacy" is generally interpreted narrowly to mean "things about your life that you cannot see from the aerial image". Some people come to DWG claiming privacy because someone has traced their driveway from aerial imagery; this is not usually a complaint we entertain. But the things I mentioned are not really codified anywhere, and there are often corner cases that lead to lengthy debates. A remotely related case for example was in Germany recently, where forest management and tourism authorities had agreed to a careful scheme of "trekking" camp sites in forests where camping would not normally be allowed. Their plan was to keep the exact location of these places secret, and require prior booking by users, who would only upon booking be told where exactly to find the spot. This was part of the compromise they reached - the forest authorities didn't want any people camping, the tourism people wanted to offer something for nature lovers, so they agreed on this scheme which at least promised that the places would not be overrun. You can imagine how the story went on - things being kept secret piqued the interest of mappers, and before too long all the places were mapped (tourism=camp_site, camp_site=basic, backcountry=yes). The authorities complained, but of course they have no legal recourse... still, this led to some discussion in the German mapping community in how far official wishes/demands for secrecy should be respected. We certainly cannot respect *every* local government law or else we'd likely have to purge our maps of all content in China, North Korea, and some Arab countries, delete all military areas in many others... It is an interesting topic for a general discusssion. Though in this concrete case I wonder how to determine whether what looks like a footpath in the Conservation Lands is legal to use or not... should *all* the trails drawn in the area be marked access=no? Should we ask the adminstration for a list? 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] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands
Hi, the DWG was drawn into an edit war regarding several paths that were mapped in this area: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-34.3740/150.8761 The argument is about in how far the (largely north-south running) paths are "illegal" and whether they need to be removed from the map because they would lead to people trespassing. The argument is two-fold; part applies to the paths that are on private land where, I understand, it is the land owner's prerogative to allow or disallow whatever they want, and another part applies to the paths that run into NPWS managed conservation lands. These paths were originally tagged "foot=yes" and with no further access descriptions; one had an "mtb:scale" added. From reading the Illawara Escarpment Plan of Management (https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/-/media/OEH/Corporate-Site/Documents/Parks-reserves-and-protected-areas/Parks-plans-of-management/illawarra-escarpment-state-conservation-area-plan-management-180505.pdf) I get the impression that mountainbiking on any paths not explicitly open for it is illegal. But what about walking - the plan says a lot about maintained walking tracks but it does *not* explicitly say that walking is limited to these. There's also a published "draft strategy" for mountain biking in the area, however I don't know in how far a draft strategy would influence the current legal situation. Anyway, for the time being I have added an access=no to the paths on private land because the landowner doesn't want people to use them and I guess it is their prerogative; and I've removed the explicit foot=yes on the other paths (becasue I'm not sure) and added a "bicycle=no" to close them for mountainbiking. My changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/74355243#map=16/-34.3750/150.8730 I would however be grateful for any input from the Australian community on this matter. I've also been told that NPWS were keenly looking to sue whoever publishes "illegal" trails or uploads them to OSM; in fact such a legal threat was the reason why DWG got involved in the first place. Bye Frederik DWG Ticket Ticket#201909011071 -- 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
Re: [talk-au] Maproullette challenge for feedback - Australian Brands without Wikidata
Hi,
I'm a member of the OSMF Data Working Group and we have been alerted to
this thread. Please let me say a few words of caution to avoid problems
down the line:
The "upgrade tags" functionality in the ID editor is highly
controversial in the community. The rules about "upgrading" are not the
result of a solid community process and many are contested.
While an individual mapper has the freedom to choose any tags they want,
they must also take full responsibility for what they are doing; the
editor does not take the responsibility away from them.
It is possible for someone without any knowledge of Australia to
participate in your challenge, log in, click the "upgrade tags" button
without ever seeing *what* tags are being upgraded (or understanding
why), and uploading the change.
This kind of edit would clearly fall under the rules for mechanical
edits and would have to be discussed in the community beforehand (i.e.
the Australian community would have to agree what mechanical changes
they want to apply to which objects). If anyone were to complain to DWG
about such an edit, DWG would likely have to revert all edits made as
part of this challenge for failing to follow the mechanical editing
guidelines; while it is *possible* to actually inspect every "upgrade"
iD is suggesting, it is equally possible to just hit the "upgrade"
button without caring at all and you can't see from the outside how much
diligence has been applied in committing a changeset.
There have already been instances where, even outside of a MapRoulette
challenge, innocent newbie editors who just clicked "upgrade" and
thought they were doing good, have been grilled by the community later
("why exactly did you change this tag on this object to this value"),
leading to a bad experience on all sides involved.
Therefore, please exercise utmost care when setting up any MapRoulette
challenges or anything that incites user to mass-"upgrade" tags. It is
entirely possible that once the community has a closer look at it, the
tags will have to be "downgraded" again because whatever iD thought to
be a good idea, is not actually a good idea in Australia.
Do not blindly assume that what the iD editor suggests as an "upgrade"
is actually an improvement.
We are not saying that what you are doing is wrong, but it is definitely
dangerous and should only be done with utmost care.
Bye
Frederik Ramm
OSMF Data Working Group
DWG Ticket#201906061022 (user complaint about MapRoulette challenge
involving mass iD "upgrades")
--
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
