Re: [talk-au] [FOSS4G-Oceania] Nominations - OSGeo Oceania board election

[Greg Lauer]

Once nominations are completed we will have each candidate add there narrative 
to to the OSGeo Oceania wiki page. I, as I am sure some others, may also want 
to ask a set of questions to each candidate. 

Great to see a wide range of nominations and expect to see many more before 
nominations close.

> On 19 Nov 2020, at 17:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> 
> Thanks, both of you!
> 
> Could I suggest that when the nominations are finalised, that this sort of 
> mini-bio is listed against each candidate, so we all have some idea as to who 
> everybody is?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Graeme
> 
> 
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 15:41, Edoardo Neerhut  wrote:
>> Thanks John, I like that list and great idea sharing publicly!
>> 
>> For the record, I nominated Kamsin Raju (Nadi, Fiji) for the OSGeo Oceania 
>> today board so the Fiji representation is strong .
>> 
>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 16:21, Alex Leith  wrote:
>>> Thanks John
>>> 
>>> Fantastic work in nominating these six individuals.
>>> 
>>> And I'd like to endorse your call for folks to join up as members to vote, 
>>> and to nominate yourself or someone worthy to serve on the Board (with 
>>> their agreement!).
>>> 
>>> Director nominations close on the 22nd, so there's still time.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Alex
>>> 
>>> 
 On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 16:03, John Bryant  wrote:
 Hi,
 
 I've nominated a few members of the Oceania open geospatial community for 
 election to the OSGeo Oceania board. These people have made outstanding 
 contributions to this community over the last few years, and I believe 
 they are ready to step up and provide the leadership the organisation 
 needs to serve this community well.
 
 These are the people I've nominated:
 *Edwin Liava'a (Tonga & Brisbane, Australia)*
 *Nemaia Koto (Suva, Fiji)*
 *Elisa Puccioni (Wellington, NZ)*
 *Edoardo Neerhut (Melbourne, Australia)*
 *Jonah Sullivan (Canberra, Australia)*
 *Carrol Chan (Suva, Fiji)*
 
 You can see the details here: 
 https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania/2020-November/002420.html
 
 If you're a member of this community, but not yet an official voting 
 member of OSGeo Oceania, you may still be able to apply for membership in 
 time to vote (I haven't heard otherwise, and last year applications were 
 solicited and accepted up to 26 Nov). It's easy to join. Learn more, and 
 apply here: https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Oceania#Membership
 
 Thanks,
 John
 ___
 FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
 foss4g-ocea...@lists.osgeo.org
 https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Alex Leith
>>> m: 0419189050
>>> ___
>>> FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
>>> foss4g-ocea...@lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
>> ___
>> 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] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Greg Lauer]

Within this group we are 'experienced' mappers and in most cases familiar
with the various OSM mapping tools, and may even use these to plan a trip.
Where is the general public use apps (such as MapsMe, Guru ect) that are
really dependent on what the apps render displays. I have not seen any apps
that, for example, display any attribute (or graphic) to show a track is
closed.

So the tagging of trails is not visible to most users, and we have the
issue of maintaining the tags as they are usually fluid (open, closed etc),

The real world example for me is riding in the local forest in SE QLD and
seeing other riders blindly following MapsMe on tracks that are closed (and
tagged as such but not visible on the map).

I am not suggesting a 'tagging to render' regime but just tagging a trail
as closed is not having the effect we think it does. Short of adding an
attribution to the trail name I am not sure how we resolve? Example xyz
trail [Closed]

It would be great to see our state land management agencies follow the lead
of DoC in NZ (https://www.doc.govt.nz/our-work/maps-and-data/) or USGS (
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70192717) and make the relevant data
open (and current!), and encourage crowd sourcing.

Greg




On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 8:37 AM Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 07:24,  wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew
>> Trail closed signage will be rapidly destroyed, often in a few days.
>> Placing trail closed signage at a trail start makes the start of
>> illegal trails more visible and attracts traffic.
>
>
> It's a catch-22 then, without the signage then it's per the law not
> illegal to use. To be honest I don't think placing a trail closed sign at
> the trail start makes it more visible and attracts traffic, many people
> will see that sign and choose not walk there, compared to no signage when
> they'd be like oh there's a track here, nothing to say it can't be used.
>
>
>> A park will often
>> have signage at all entrances which says "keep to formed trails" which
>> can be ambiguous especially to a mapper who believes in mapping
>> everything.
>>
>
> "keep to formed trails" but those illegally constructed tracks look like
> formed trails to many users of the park, so keeping to the formed trails to
> me still allows me to walk on the illegally constructed tracks.
>
>
>> Parks will refer you to a copyright map of legal trails and have
>> difficulty understanding why you can't use that as evidence.
>>
>
> I don't want to be the enemy here, I'm all for preserving sensitive
> landscapes to prevent damage and erosion, where a track has legally been
> closed then we should mark it as access=no which data consumers should
> treat that as no open to the public.
>
> I can sympathise with the park operator, why should they have to be
> constantly monitoring for any signs of a track anywhere in the park and
> installing signage everywhere, why can't they say these are the areas we
> authorise everywhere else is not authorised, I guess they can install
> signage to that effect. I guess that's one use case there of OSM for park
> operators, it can help alert you of where tracks are forming that you might
> not have intentionally created.
> ___
> 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] How is the word "park" meant in Australian English?

[Greg Lauer]

Hi Steve

I will leave the nuances of tagging National parks and protected areas to
those much more experienced than me (most of my tagging is roads and
trails) but happy to illustrate some examples.

It does seem that leisure=nature_reserve is common.

1. Great Sandy National Park -
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1507019 which is tagged
boundary=protected_area, leisure=nature_reserve and protection=National
Park. I see there is some discussion on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=nature%20reserve?uselang=en on
the use of boundary=national_park.. For National Parks this seems to be
consistent (for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1506584 or
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7006909)

2. Jimna State Forest - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1506563
similar to above but protection_title=State Forest. Again this seems to be
consistent across State Forests

3. Habitat Drive Park (my local park) -
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5327709 tagged with leisure=park.
Again this seems to be consistent with local parks.

Looking at US examples - my favorite US 'Park' - Roosevelt National Forest
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/395767 and there is similar tagging.
In NZ https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10657056 or
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3659089 seem to be missing the
protection_title=.
South Africa - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/421549, Canada -
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6365995 and UK -
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/86909 are all similar

So it seems there is reasonably consistency across the english speaking
world with regards to 'Parks'

G.





On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 11:39 AM stevea  wrote:

> Hi Greg:  I get that you’d tag a “place to take the dog on-leash while the
> kids enjoy the playground” (if you live in an urban area and you can walk
> there in five minutes).  Yet, I wonder:  specifically, how would you tag a
> State or Commonwealth Park (in NZ or AU) in OSM?  As leisure=park wouldn’t
> be right, and boundary=national_park "might not" be right (except for a
> truly “national park”), how are these “in between these two parks”
> differently-tagged?  With boundary=protected_area + protect_class=5?  6?
> Otherwise?  That’s the nut we find hard to crack in the states here.  As
> there are dozens of dialects of English where “park” means something
> besides (or in between a spectrum between) “urban manicured space” and
> “national park,” it seemed to make sense to probe around in AU and NZ to
> see how US differs from GB/UK thinking that gave rise to the British
> English that guides OSM tagging.
>
> Thanks,
> Steve
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] How is the word "park" meant in Australian English?

[Greg Lauer]

Good question

To be clear I am a Kiwi (New Zealand) who lives in Australia (and has spent
many years in the US) so my interpretation may be slightly muddled

In general I consider a 'Park' to be a local area, generally managed by the
city or shire (county). Playgrounds, gardens, dog walking etc. Generally it
is for some form of recreation and/or green space in a city or urban area.
For example I would ask the kids to walk the dog in the park.

In terms of county parks, state parks, etc we have slightly
different terminology. Part of this is related to a much smaller layer of
government and ownership (City/Shire, State, Commonwealth).  We don't have
the multitude of Federal agencies (USFS, NPS, BLM etc) or layers of
city, country, state, federal government. In most cases 'National Parks'
are managed by State authorities (equivalent to State Parks in US parlance)
, and several (IIRC) National Parks managed by Commonwealth (Federal)
Authorities (like NPS). States Forests are managed by State
Authorities (although some are privatised).

That said the use of 'park' to describe any public land is well understood
in AU.

G.











On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 9:33 AM stevea  wrote:

> Hi, it's stevea from California.  Some of us in the USA are crafting a
> proposal (https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Park_boundary), may
> be two or three staged proposals, intended to better express the wide
> inclusive semantic "we" (OSM-wide, but including US English-speakers) mean
> for the word "park."  In US English, this is "spoken of" (in vernacular) to
> include county parks, state parks, all kinds of things we call parks.  (And
> OSM seems to have difficulty expressing around the world with consistent
> tagging).  Is this also how the word "park" is used in Australian English
> vernacular?  A likely answer might be "what we mean is not EXACTLY the same
> as how you Yanks might mean it, here are some similarities and differences
> from an Aussie perspective."
>
> I have taken a brief look at existing rendered data in OSM, though,
> there's nothing like simply asking local people "how do you talk about
> this?"
>
> Thank you.  This might become a spirited discussion!
>
> Stevea (in our wiki)
> ___
> 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] Anzacathon and mapping possibilities

[Greg Lauer]

Hi Daniel,

As both a (very amateur) military historian who has visited many of
battlefields/CWG's through the Asia Pacific, Africa and Europe, as well as
an Open Data proponent, I really like what you are trying to do. But...

The terms and conditions of OSM in relation to data imports is fairly clear
- unless the data is already licensed under an Open Data Commons Open
Database License (ODbL) then you will need (preferably written) permission
from the copyright holder.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines#Step_3_-_License_approval


A cursory glance at each of the providers websites does not indicate that
they have licensed under ODbL. Yes, this is pain, but it is the only way
OSM can ensure that the data can be legally used. Feel free to send them an
email asking if they will give permission to make there data available in
OSM. I can send you a template letter that explains the licensing
conditions to the copyright holder. The CWGC data set would be great as a
global dataset!

The use of OSM within a web service (such as the CWGC) has no relationship
to whether we can incorporate and/or import the said data sets into OSM.
Again unless explicit permission is given it will need to be requested.

Do you actually need to integrate the data sets into OSM? You seem fairly
talented at data wrangling and my suggestion would be build your web
services using OSM as a base map, and make the ancillary data available as
a separate overlay. This way you will not potentially breach the terms and
conditions of the OSM licence (but still please check with the data
providers that you can use that data in this way). There are multiple other
ways that you can display the data sets with out actually integrating into
OSM.

I look forward to seeing the completed product!

Cheers

Greg



On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 4:10 PM Daniel Pocock  wrote:

>
>
> On 21/04/2020 02:25, Warin wrote:
> > On 20/4/20 9:10 am, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> >> On 20/04/2020 00:49, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 7:52 AM Daniel Pocock  >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The CWGC copyright notice appears to be compatible with a bulk
> import of
> >>> their cemetery data.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The copyright notice explicitly says you can only use it for personal
> use.
> >> "Personal use" is one of those things that can be vague.  They don't
> >> elaborate.
> >
> > 'They' don't need to elaborate.
> > Most, if not all, lawyers will tell you that it excludes 'business use'
> where it is used to generate money.
> > OSM requires that OSM data can be used to generate money.
> >
> > This, to me, clearly says that the data cannot be used in OSM.
>
> Agreed, but it is safe for people to explore the data at home as part of
> the Anzacathon
>
> >> All these sites include a lot of photos and other material.  They may
> >> only apply the strictest definition of their license to those things, it
> >> could be worth contacting them to find out if they are happy for
> >> OpenStreetMap collaboration on the location data.
> >
> > Go right ahead and contact them.
> >
> >> The Anzacathon itself is a personal and non-profit activity that I've
> >> contributed to as a volunteer and I've cited all the data sources so I'm
> >> quite comfortable with the licensing.
> >
> > You may be comfortable.
> >
> > Will OSM lawyers be?
> >
> > Will the authors and lawyers of those data sources be equally
> comfortable?
>
> I agree with your concerns for the specific case of import to OSM
>
> I notice that AWM is using OSM on their site but CWGC is using Google
> Maps on their site.  An initiative to contact the CWGC might look at
> something broader than this data set and look at the general question of
> helping them operate without Google, like AWM.
>
> The UK Government also has a strong commitment to Open Data and this
> would be a factor for CWGC
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_data_in_the_United_Kingdom
>
> Based on the above, what are the things that people can do
> constructively with the data as it stands?  Any suggestions would be
> really welcome.
>
> Hopefully I will have some more time to work on it myself this week, I
> was planning to make a simple function for people to search for war
> graves and monuments within a given radius.  That doesn't exist on any
> of the sites right now.
>
> Regards,
>
> Daniel
>
> ___
> 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] QTOPO online maps

[Greg Lauer]

Just so I am clear on this issue. We are not asking DERM to change the
current CC4 licence. We are asking DERM to give us formal permission to use
the data. This can be as simple as an email from a responsible party at
DERM giving us permission. Am I interpreting this correctly?

Greg

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:01 AM Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> I don't think OSMF will change this requirement, as the reasons for the
> waiver are detailed in the blog post Mateusz linked to,
> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ are pretty
> compelling.
>
> There had been some hope that CC BY 4.0 sources would be directly
>> compatible with the ODbL. But while neither CC nor the OSMF has undertaken
>> a complete compatibility analysis, we have identified at least one  point
>> of incompatibility and one possible challenge regarding attribution that
>> lead us to our decision to continue to ask for explicit permission to use
>> BY 4.0-licensed material in the OSM project. This is the best path forward.
>
>
>  If you would like a second voice for your enquiry with Gold Coast, feel
> free to loop me in.
>
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 07:34, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 21:02, Andrew Harvey 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 18:05, Mateusz Konieczny 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 See https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/

 CC BY 4.0 requires waiver

 The additional text is confirmation that it is
 actually released under this licence
 and that personal confirmation is not required.

>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>> I reached out to Greg Payne, Director of Land and Spatial Information,
>>> Topographic Data, Imagery and Mapping, DNRM in December 2018 (in case
>>> anything had changed since my prior correspondence), the reply was:
>>>
>>>  The Department’s position has not changed since your previous enquiry.

 Consistent with Queensland Government policy, our data is provided
 under a CC:BY 4.0 Licence.  The department will not provide the data under
 an ODbl licence.  It is our belief that a CC:BY licence is sufficient for
 use of our data and we do not accept that OpenStreetMap cannot use our data
 under the CC:BY licence.
>>>
>>>
>>> So unfortunately we're in a stalemate, OSMF says we need a waiver, DNRME
>>> says they don't believe we need one. So we can't currently use DNRME's CC
>>> BY 4.0 open data within OpenStreetMap unless either OSMF or DNRME change
>>> their stance.
>>>
>>> I'm not taking a stab at DNRME over this, they are free to no agree to
>>> the waiver, it's their call.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks both of you.
>>
>> Exactly the same position with my on-going discussions with Gold Coast
>> City Council - they've given us explicit permission to use their data, but
>> can't get their head around our need for a waiver as well?
>>
>> " unless ... OSMF ... change their stance" - any chance / likelihood of
>> that happening?
>>
>> 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] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands

[Greg Lauer]

Hi Frederick,

There is 'authoratative' data available for NPWS estate -
https://data.nsw.gov.au/data/dataset?q=NPWS+track===_format=_id==score+desc%2C+metadata_modified+desc
and
we have a waiver -
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue. The problem
is that the data is not up to date, and in may cases conflicts with the
'on-the-ground' conditions. For example a track marked as open in the
database has closed signs and vice versa, or a local Ranger may decide to
close the track. This is common problem with data made available from state
agencies as in many cases there is reluctance to make data public (or they
don't have the resources to manage it).

I think your solution is appropriate in the circumstances but will make the
following comments.

1. Although we can mark as private or similar it really is up to the
rendering engine of the application that the user is looking at to display
this attribution (closed etc.). A quick a review of some of the common
applications seems to indicate this is a problem.

2. Other 'authoritative' data (for example https://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/ and
the 1:25,000 topographic maps) all showing conflicting data around track
and very little information on access rights.

3. The area in question is managed by three entities - state government,
local government and private landholders and they all have conflicting
views on access to the area.

These issues around the mapping of tracks has been an ongoing issue for as
along as people have been creating maps! I am unsure how NWPS think that
can sue someone for creating a track on a digital database (but this is not
the first time they have threatened this). I believe there was an issue
with a commercial publisher a few years back regarding some tracks in
National Park that had been closed. That said, hopefully by engaging with
these agencies we can effect change.

Thanks for taking the time to look into this and present an solution.

Greg


On Thursday, 12 September 2019, 6:23:34 AM AEST, Frederik Ramm <
frede...@remote.org> wrote:


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