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

[Tom Brennan]

Agreed, if I understand you correctly.

In the case of something like the Great North Walk, it can be a bit of a 
grey area as not only the main track, but many of the feeder tracks are 
labelled Great North Walk. If you didn't know the history of the tracks, 
you could easily assume it's all just the Great North Walk.


Spatial Services often shows the Great North Walk in a different colour 
to the name of the individual track


eg:
https://maps.ozultimate.com/?lat=-33.621784672158356=151.12625598907474=15

cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 16/05/2024 6:15 pm, Warin wrote:

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


___
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

[Tom Brennan]

It's been a couple of months, and Gaia has now refreshed its tiles based 
on the updates I made for Kanangra.


The informal tracks are now rendered with significantly less priority 
than the formal tracks. I should have taken a screenshot of before, but 
I didn't. The formal tracks look to be the same style as previous, but 
the informal tracks are now faint.


https://www.gaiagps.com/map/?loc=14.3/150.1142/-33.9881

I did miss a few small tracks - I was focussed at the large scale.

I don't know how other downstream applications render the same data - 
I'm not on Strava for example.


This could be useful for working with NPWS.

cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 25/02/2024 11:09 pm, Tom Brennan wrote:
I thought I'd see if the tagging details in the US Trail Access Project 
link might be useful for Australia.


I tagged all of the tracks out at Kanangra - mainly because it has a mix 
of tracks, but few enough that it's easy to cover them all - with 
operator=NPWS or informal as appropriate. Basically the maintained ones 
with operator tags, others as informal.


I know Gaia (for example) renders informal tracks with less priority 
than formal tracks, though I don't know exactly the combinations of tags 
they are focussing on. I believe they refresh their tiles every 2-3 
weeks so I'll have a look again in a few weeks.


If you're into mapping bush tracks, I hacked an Overpass Turbo query 
which does a pretty good job of visualising some of the useful tags (and 
where tags are missing). Happy to share.


cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 24/02/2024 8:10 am, Mark Pulley wrote:
I had suggested changing to access=no, or adding a disused: prefix 
(mainly to keep NPWS happy), but looking at this page, the 
recommendation seems to be to keep the tags as they are now 
(access=discouraged, informal=yes).


Mark P.


On 23 Feb 2024, at 7:29 pm, Tom Brennan  wrote:

Given this thread is still going, the US has a useful collaboration 
resource between mappers and land managers


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project

cheers
Tom




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


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


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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Tom Brennan]

I can agree with the last sentence, but not much else.

I think most of the people in this thread genuinely want to work with 
the various parks services to get OSM solutions that work for both parks 
and the OSM community.


We don't currently have any good communication channels.

If we can get the right lines of communication - which is difficult when 
you have OSM and NPWS being both distributed and bureaucratic in their 
own ways - I'm confident that we will be able to get outcomes that 
everyone is happy with.


Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 29/02/2024 10:42 pm, Adam Steer wrote:

Thanks Tony.

The first crux as I see it is that the OSM community doesn't listen. It is
unable to hear values other than some abstract academic notion of map
purity.

The second crux is that OSM mappers are not responsible or accountable for
anything. So taking the view that "everyone should come to OSM and justify
themselves" is pretty weird and backwards.

What about taking the approach "ok land managers what can we do to help
you?" And if the answer is "stop reverting parks service  edits", then
respect that ...

A better map isn't one with all the everything. It's one made respectfully
and responsibly.


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


___
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

[Tom Brennan]

Here's the basics:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1HOH

I nicked the starting point off the US Trail Access Project page and 
adapted it a bit.


Hard to show up all the different things that are useful in tagging a 
track as there's only so many styles available!


cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 26/02/2024 12:01 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

It would be interesting to see what Strava shows, so yes, please, Tom, I'd
like to see the OT link.

Thanks

Graeme


On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 at 22:22, Tom Brennan  wrote:


I thought I'd see if the tagging details in the US Trail Access Project
link might be useful for Australia.

I tagged all of the tracks out at Kanangra - mainly because it has a mix
of tracks, but few enough that it's easy to cover them all - with
operator=NPWS or informal as appropriate. Basically the maintained ones
with operator tags, others as informal.

I know Gaia (for example) renders informal tracks with less priority
than formal tracks, though I don't know exactly the combinations of tags
they are focussing on. I believe they refresh their tiles every 2-3
weeks so I'll have a look again in a few weeks.

If you're into mapping bush tracks, I hacked an Overpass Turbo query
which does a pretty good job of visualising some of the useful tags (and
where tags are missing). Happy to share.

cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 24/02/2024 8:10 am, Mark Pulley wrote:

I had suggested changing to access=no, or adding a disused: prefix

(mainly to keep NPWS happy), but looking at this page, the recommendation
seems to be to keep the tags as they are now (access=discouraged,
informal=yes).


Mark P.


On 23 Feb 2024, at 7:29 pm, Tom Brennan  wrote:

Given this thread is still going, the US has a useful collaboration

resource between mappers and land managers


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project

cheers
Tom




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


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





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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Tom Brennan]

I thought I'd see if the tagging details in the US Trail Access Project 
link might be useful for Australia.


I tagged all of the tracks out at Kanangra - mainly because it has a mix 
of tracks, but few enough that it's easy to cover them all - with 
operator=NPWS or informal as appropriate. Basically the maintained ones 
with operator tags, others as informal.


I know Gaia (for example) renders informal tracks with less priority 
than formal tracks, though I don't know exactly the combinations of tags 
they are focussing on. I believe they refresh their tiles every 2-3 
weeks so I'll have a look again in a few weeks.


If you're into mapping bush tracks, I hacked an Overpass Turbo query 
which does a pretty good job of visualising some of the useful tags (and 
where tags are missing). Happy to share.


cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 24/02/2024 8:10 am, Mark Pulley wrote:

I had suggested changing to access=no, or adding a disused: prefix (mainly to 
keep NPWS happy), but looking at this page, the recommendation seems to be to 
keep the tags as they are now (access=discouraged, informal=yes).

Mark P.


On 23 Feb 2024, at 7:29 pm, Tom Brennan  wrote:

Given this thread is still going, the US has a useful collaboration resource 
between mappers and land managers

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project

cheers
Tom




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


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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Tom Brennan]

Given this thread is still going, the US has a useful collaboration 
resource between mappers and land managers


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project

cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 25/09/2023 10:20 am, Tom Brennan wrote:

Tricky one.

I have sympathy for Land Managers. There can be many reasons why they 
don't want people visiting a place, and why they don't want tracks on a 
map which might encourage it.


But simply deleting the tracks from OSM is not the best way to go about 
it unless the "tracks" were simply bushbashing routes, and were never 
real tracks in the first place.


As others have said, it just makes it likely that the track will be 
added as a new track at a later date, assuming it does exist on the ground.


Some basic signage at the trackhead, and formal closure (announcement on 
the NPWS alerts page) would be enough to set the various tags so that it 
shouldn't appear on downstream maps.


Reading through the comments on the changesets, on the NPWS side, it 
seems like the local ranger(s) contact the Maps and Data team, who then 
go and delete the tracks. So the people who are making the decisions on 
the ground (the rangers) are not the same ones implementing the changes 
in OSM. This makes it difficult to have a sensible conversation because 
you're not talking to the actual decision-maker.


cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 22/09/2023 4:37 pm, Phil Wyatt wrote:

Hi Folks,


Personally, I believe if the managing agency requests that the tracks 
be removed from the map then as good corporate citizens we should do 
everything possible to lower the promotion of such tracks. Track 
managers also have a responsibility to also actively advise people and 
if the area is high use then signage and rehabilitation at the 
locations will help.



Track rehabilitation, even when undertaken actively, can take many, 
many years and there will likely be remains of the 
closed/abandoned/rehabilitated tracks showing in some environments, on 
some imagery, for an extended period of time.



I don’t believe that the abandoned or disused tags adequately reflect 
the desire of the managers but it is supported by some. Some users may 
see those tags as an ‘opportunity’ to reopen the track and promote use 
back to previous levels and they may do this without the backing of 
the agency.



In a nutshell, in this instance, they are asking for folks to stop 
going there. I also feel that if a track has active rehabilitation 
being undertaken then a better tag would be rehabilitated:highway=type 
along with access=no. Many such tracks will get limited rehabilitation 
at the ‘take off points’ only and the rest of the track will be left 
to very slowly rehabilitate, maybe with some occasional bars to impede 
water flow and allow buildup of debris. Again, it will take many years 
for full rehabilitation to take place.



So my view is…


*    If you cant see the track on the imagery – delete it.
*    If you can see the track in imagery – then tag it appropriately 
to discourage use as per the managers desire. Also work with the 
managers to actively close the tracks if you desire. Obviously if you 
are concerned on the tagging then its also likely that the area is a 
favourite place for you. Work with the managers!
*    Work with and encourage app developers to ensure suitably tagged 
tracks do not appear on public maps



Cheers – Phil (aka tastracks)


Full disclosure – I ran Track Management for Tasmanian Parks and 
Wildlife for many years so I am slightly biased.



From: Sebastian S. 
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 7:32 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org; Andrew Harvey 
; Mark Pulley 

Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS


I recall these discussions vaguely.
Was not one of the reasons for removing them from the map as the 
rangers or gov wanted them to be renaturatin etc. So from that 
perspective I understand why not having them in a map is in their 
interests.



On 21 September 2023 11:25:02 pm AEST, Andrew Harvey 
mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> > wrote:




On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley <mailto:mrpul...@iinet.net.au> > wrote:


I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS 
has deleted some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers 
National Park).



These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion 
were reverted. I re-surveyed them later that year.


These paths have been recently deleted again, initially edited by a 
different NPWS employee. (Three different change sets, summarised below.)



I had thought the consensus last time was to leave the paths in, 
tagged as informal=yes (unless the path has been formally closed, in 
which case access=no can be used). Is 

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

[Tom Brennan]

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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Tom Brennan]

I agree that environmental preservation doesn't generally need to be in 
conflict with ground truth.


If an area of a park - or tracks - is closed by land managers, tracks in 
that area should be tagged accordingly.


By simply deleting tracks from OSM, mappers are more likely to add the 
tracks again when they come across them. If the tracks are already in 
OSM, but tagged so that they are not visible (and possibly with a note 
explaining why), then it's a lot clearer why they should not be made 
visible.


The vast majority of the tracks in say Blue Mountains National Park are 
informal (formed by bushwalkers over time). That doesn't mean that NPWS 
is going to close them. Heck, they even advertise many of them! NPWS 
themselves acknowledges that they don't have the resources to maintain 
even a small percentage of the tracks.


There are still some grey areas. I've occasionally avoided mapping 
certain tracks because I know it will likely lead to significant impact 
- hanging swamps, aboriginal sites etc.


But in general I'd map what's on the ground, as long as that's not 
conflicting with a land manager policy.


cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 8/10/2023 10:17 pm, Ben Ritter wrote:

I think we can assist environmental maintenance without compromising the
ground truth value. They are not actually in conflict with each other.

In fact, I think it is *more helpful* to keep the highway features with the
addition of the access tag and/or the lifecycle prefix.

Many OSM users are used to incomplete data, so if they saw an OSM map which
didn't include tracks that they observe in the wild, they would likely
assume the data is missing, not that there is a restriction on it.

With the aim of ensuring as many maps as possible indicate the closure, the
existing lifecycle tag should be used, which is
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:highway, instead of a new
one.

Anyone publishing maps using OSM data while ignoring the access tag is
being reckless, and should stop it. Deleting those features is not a
solution in any specific case (this thread is case in point), or in the
long term for the reasons above.

Cheers,
Ben


___
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

[Tom Brennan]

Tricky one.

I have sympathy for Land Managers. There can be many reasons why they 
don't want people visiting a place, and why they don't want tracks on a 
map which might encourage it.


But simply deleting the tracks from OSM is not the best way to go about 
it unless the "tracks" were simply bushbashing routes, and were never 
real tracks in the first place.


As others have said, it just makes it likely that the track will be 
added as a new track at a later date, assuming it does exist on the ground.


Some basic signage at the trackhead, and formal closure (announcement on 
the NPWS alerts page) would be enough to set the various tags so that it 
shouldn't appear on downstream maps.


Reading through the comments on the changesets, on the NPWS side, it 
seems like the local ranger(s) contact the Maps and Data team, who then 
go and delete the tracks. So the people who are making the decisions on 
the ground (the rangers) are not the same ones implementing the changes 
in OSM. This makes it difficult to have a sensible conversation because 
you're not talking to the actual decision-maker.


cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 22/09/2023 4:37 pm, Phil Wyatt wrote:

Hi Folks,

  


Personally, I believe if the managing agency requests that the tracks be 
removed from the map then as good corporate citizens we should do everything 
possible to lower the promotion of such tracks. Track managers also have a 
responsibility to also actively advise people and if the area is high use then 
signage and rehabilitation at the locations will help.

  


Track rehabilitation, even when undertaken actively, can take many, many years 
and there will likely be remains of the closed/abandoned/rehabilitated tracks 
showing in some environments, on some imagery, for an extended period of time.

  


I don’t believe that the abandoned or disused tags adequately reflect the 
desire of the managers but it is supported by some. Some users may see those 
tags as an ‘opportunity’ to reopen the track and promote use back to previous 
levels and they may do this without the backing of the agency.

  


In a nutshell, in this instance, they are asking for folks to stop going there. 
I also feel that if a track has active rehabilitation being undertaken then a 
better tag would be rehabilitated:highway=type along with access=no. Many such 
tracks will get limited rehabilitation at the ‘take off points’ only and the 
rest of the track will be left to very slowly rehabilitate, maybe with some 
occasional bars to impede water flow and allow buildup of debris. Again, it 
will take many years for full rehabilitation to take place.

  


So my view is…

  


*   If you cant see the track on the imagery – delete it.
*   If you can see the track in imagery – then tag it appropriately to 
discourage use as per the managers desire. Also work with the managers to 
actively close the tracks if you desire. Obviously if you are concerned on the 
tagging then its also likely that the area is a favourite place for you. Work 
with the managers!
*   Work with and encourage app developers to ensure suitably tagged tracks 
do not appear on public maps

  


Cheers – Phil (aka tastracks)

  


Full disclosure – I ran Track Management for Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife for 
many years so I am slightly biased.

  


From: Sebastian S. 
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 7:32 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org; Andrew Harvey ; Mark Pulley 

Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

  


I recall these discussions vaguely.
Was not one of the reasons for removing them from the map as the rangers or gov 
wanted them to be renaturatin etc. So from that perspective I understand why 
not having them in a map is in their interests.

  


On 21 September 2023 11:25:02 pm AEST, Andrew Harvey mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> > wrote:

  

  


On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley mailto:mrpul...@iinet.net.au> > wrote:

I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS has deleted 
some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers National Park).

  


These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion were 
reverted. I re-surveyed them later that year.

These paths have been recently deleted again, initially edited by a different 
NPWS employee. (Three different change sets, summarised below.)

  


I had thought the consensus last time was to leave the paths in, tagged as 
informal=yes (unless the path has been formally closed, in which case access=no 
can be used). Is this still the case? Also, do we need to add a policy to the 
wiki for similar situations?

  


We have 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Path
 

Re: [talk-au] Dual naming in NSW

[Tom Brennan]

ICMS principles state:
"In Australia, whichever of the two names of the same feature that is 
most likely to be used by the local community is to be used first in a 
sequence [Refer Appendix A, § 4.5]. The sequence of the name should be 
reviewed at regular intervals. If a visual separator is required, it 
shall be a solidus preceded and followed by a space ‘. / . ‘."


Which is why in NSW most dual names are *currently* rendered "European 
name / Aboriginal name".


The latest vector tiles from DCS Spatial Service have these names 
rendered on them:

https://portal.spatial.nsw.gov.au/portal/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1=de92791f686843e1b2e32e908f241b9c

(See Fort Denison or Shark Island for examples).

All this seems to support the following approach in OSM (basically what 
Phil said)


name:Bradleys Head / Booraghee
name:en=Bradleys Head
name:aus=Booraghee (replace 'aus' if definitively known)

cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 6/06/2023 5:01 pm, Little Maps wrote:

On 6 Jun 2023, at 2:29 pm, Ian Sergeant  wrote:


I think including a "slash" character in a name tag is really ugly.  
That's not the way that the GNB record them.  Unless someone can find 
some information on the ground that records it that way?


Ian, I stand corrected. NSW National Parks use a dash, not a slash, in 
the example I gave from The Rock Nature Reserve - Kengal Aboriginal 
Place. Sorry for the confusion.



Having said that, Australian geographic names boards do use slashes for 
dual names. This extract is from the Vic Gov guidelines…



“If a visual separator is required for clarity, it should be a solidus ( 
/ ) preceded and followed by a space…. The following examples would be 
acceptable:


Nambruc / Aberfeldy State Forest

Colquhoun State Forest / Boyanga Gidi.”


“Dual names once registered are to be used in full, shortened versions 
are not to be used.”



(Hence dual names are not seen as alternatives.)


 From “Naming rules for places in Victoria 2022 - Statutory requirements 
for naming roads, features and localities”



https://www.land.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0018/501093/Official-Naming-rules-for-places-in-Victoria-2022.docx


The Vic Gov report refers to the National “Principles for the Consistent 
Use of Place Names. Includes Principles for the Use of Aboriginal and 
Torres Strait Islander Place Names and Dual Naming Depiction Principles” 
which also recommends that a “solidus” (i.e. a slash) is the recommended 
standard.



https://www.icsm.gov.au/sites/default/files/consistent_place_names_principles.pdf


___
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] Dual naming in NSW

[Tom Brennan]

There are an increasing number of places/features in NSW that are 
getting dual (aboriginal) naming.


For example:
- Booraghee / Bradleys Head
- Cooyoyo / The Castle
- Fort Denison / Muddawahnyuh

From the point of view of the Geographic Names Board, there doesn't 
appear to be any primacy given to one name or the other.


Is there a view as to how to record these in OSM?

The specific aboriginal language is not necessarily known.

There are obviously tags like 'alt_name' that can be used to store a 
second name, but not sure if that's most appropriate in cases like this.


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

Re: [talk-au] Streams and dams

[Tom Brennan]

Sounds good.

I'm inclined to go with (1), but (2) could presumably work with a relation?

cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 5/06/2023 8:47 am, Little Maps wrote:

I don’t know if there’s a “correct” method as at least 3 different methods are 
(or were) common in Vic, where I map. (1) continue named stream through dam, 
(2) continue stream through dam but with no name tag, and (3) stop stream at 
dam edge and start again the other side. Method 2 means dam name is rendered 
but not stream/river as well inside the dam. If the stream/river is in a 
relation this isn’t a problem as the whole named stream can be found using the 
relation.

I prefer continuing the waterway through the dam as it makes it a lot easier to 
find gaps in waterways and to show connected watersheds, etc. If dams are often 
dry or rarely full, it also shows where waterway is at low lake levels. 
Logically, also the Murray River flows through Lake Hume. It doesn’t stop at 
one side and start again on the other.

I’ve been editing heaps of streams in Vic over past few months, and it’s common 
for waterways to cross dams but not actually connect with them. It’s important 
that they share a node at each place they cross a dam. Lot’s don’t (or didn’t). 
The same thing applies on the coast, where many streams cross the 
natural=coastline polygon but don’t connect with it.

If all streams that connect with the coast connect properly you can easily do 
an overpass query to find all watersheds that drain into a section of coast. If 
all streams properly cross and connect with dams, it’s easy to find all streams 
that enter the Murray - Darling Basin, for example.

A fine-detail issue on your query below is that, on the ground, streams don’t 
normally pass over earthen dam walls. If they did the wall would erode. 
Instead, there’ll be a side route where water will flow beside the dam when the 
dam is full. Sometimes this can be seen on imagery, often not. IMO this is an 
issue of mapping scale, and it’s fine to map a stream waterway as passing 
through a dam. If someone wants to add the fine detail later they can, while 
still maintaining the connectivity of the waterway.

So, broadly, yes, I think it’s much better if waterways pass through 
constructed reservoirs.

Cheers Ian


On 4 Jun 2023, at 9:48 pm, Tom Brennan  wrote:

Quick question on streams and dams/reservoirs.

If a stream has been dammed, the centreline of the stream should still be 
mapped as a waterway. Correct?

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


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

[talk-au] Streams and dams

[Tom Brennan]

Quick question on streams and dams/reservoirs.

If a stream has been dammed, the centreline of the stream should still 
be mapped as a waterway. Correct?


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

Re: [talk-au] Putting streams into OSM

[Tom Brennan]

Thanks for the various comments on the thread.

Having looked at the data in detail, my inclination is to bring in the 
remainder of the named watercourse data for NSW (the Hawkesbury and 
Sydney Coast/Georges River catchments according to Andrew Davidson).


It looks like there will still be a fair bit of data wrangling.

For the Hawkesbury, there are around 1800 named watercourses. Of those, 
about 25% seem to be already fully in OSM, and another 25% partly in 
OSM. That's using a 100m buffer around the OSM data, and checking if the 
DCS data falls within it, and has the same name. There are many reasons 
why this can fail:

- streams not fully digitised
- disconnected geometries
- names incorrect or not matching
- geometries out by > 100m (may be legit)

I assume these all need to be validated and fixed first, before being 
able to import the remainder - which need to have their own validation 
eg sanity checks, connecting up to other streams etc.


If anyone has any comments or suggestions for making this process less 
manual, I'm happy to hear them. I'm mainly using QGIS for the initial 
validation



In terms of bringing in unnamed streams, there's a few issues:
1. All the problems above with named stream import are present in the 
unnamed streams, with the added problem of names not being able to be 
used to help with matching.
2. The fact that the existing data quality from DCS is not that great. 
They will presumably update it given time, but that will then need to be 
re-imported, with the same issues as above.

3. The sheer quantity of unnamed streams

So at this stage I'm not going to bother with the unnamed stream data

cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 25/05/2023 10:21 pm, Tom Brennan wrote:

I'm looking at adding missing stream data in national parks around Sydney.

However, how much value is there in bringing in all of the stream data 
in say the DCS Base Map vs just the named streams?


I can see for example, the value in bringing in named streams. But there 
are huge numbers of smaller (unnamed) streams.


I have a follow up question about how best to input stream data, but 
that probably depends on the views to the question above.


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


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

Re: [talk-au] Putting streams into OSM

[Tom Brennan]

My main area of interest from a stream point of view is the Hawkesbury 
Catchment, outside the Sydney suburban boundaries.


I haven't been involved in any imports so you'll have to excuse my 
ignorance.


Could the dataset be split into say urban/non-urban and the non-urban 
parts imported? Or do partial imports just create more work? What sort 
of sanity checks need to be carried out?


cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 27/05/2023 11:49 am, Andrew Davidson wrote:

On 27/5/23 08:39, nwastra nwastra wrote:
I should add that I have only used the Surface Hydrology Lines from 
GeoScience Aust dataset for Qld catchments and as the data is drawn 
for many different sources across the country the perenniality may be 
not always be included.


I admit I've been too lazy to publish the stuff I'd already done with 
the GA dataset. Rather than making people do it all again I've finally 
got round to putting it on GitHub https://github.com/FrakGart/ga_streams


I have already imported in the named streams in NSW except for the area 
around Sydney. Mostly, again, due to laziness. As already pointed out 
the data all needs to be sanity checked against what's on the ground and 
that's really hard when it's under a city.


The data is organised by AWRC catchment, so for Sydney you are looking at:

https://github.com/FrakGart/ga_streams/blob/main/Basin_II/II12.osm.gz

which is the Hawkesbury River and

https://github.com/FrakGart/ga_streams/blob/main/Basin_II/II13.osm.gz

which is Sydney Coast-Georges River

You can use overpass turbo to see what is already mapped:

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1vpu (Hawkesbury River)
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1vpv (Sydney Coast-Georges River)


___
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] Putting streams into OSM

[Tom Brennan]

I hadn't seen that page until Andrew Davidson mentioned it earlier in 
the thread.


But the NSW Water Theme data falls under the DCS Foundational Spatial 
Data, which is listed as having a waiver, and thus usable...


[And I probably should have been more specific with the wording - I knew 
that CC BY 4 is not generally usable by itself. But was aware that many 
datasets for NSW have waivers!]


cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 27/05/2023 5:06 pm, Warin wrote:


On 26/5/23 14:51, Tom Brennan wrote:

DCS Base and Topo don't distinguish between perennial and non-perennial

That information is available in the NSW Water Theme data eg:
https://portal.spatial.nsw.gov.au/portal/home/item.html?id=7b0e959effd749c788d304a4179abf8a

That data is licensed under CC BY 4, which I think we have permission 
to use. (I haven't used it, but if allowed, it would make sense rather 
than tracing individual lines).



CC by 4 by it self is not usable for OSM...

With an OSM waiver .. it is usable.

If the data set to be used is listed as having a waiver here 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources#New_South_Wales, then it is usable.



(Doting i's and crossing t's so others won't be mislead.)



___
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] Putting streams into OSM

[Tom Brennan]

On 26/05/2023 2:10 pm, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote:
> I also find streams useful to indicate the surrounding ground is
> downhill towards them. Being at the bottom of a valley it is also
> fairly obvious when you encounter one in person.
>
> They are often hard to map from aerial imagery as they may hidden by
> tree cover. This is one reason why many are missing from OSM. Adding
> more of them would be good.

In NSW at least, there are options to map from other than aerial imagery 
(various DCS sources).


There's also the option to generate them from the DEM, which in my 
experience is more accurate 95%+ of the time.


But while useful, the question is really whether a full stream import is 
worthwhile.


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

Re: [talk-au] Putting streams into OSM

[Tom Brennan]

On 26/05/2023 1:54 pm, Josh Marshall wrote:
> But I’ve also made relations for all of our local streams and creeks;
> go to the Newcastle area and search for Ironbark or Cottage Creek for
>  instance… it used to just return a single hit on one small section
> for almost every creek. My interest here is because much of the area
> was uninhabitable swamp until there was a huge effort to put in some
> monster drains in the 1890s. And yet it will still occasionally flood
> and people complain about council not doing anyway…

Just asking out of interest - what's the reason for using relations? Or 
is it specifically for the search that you mentioned?


> Do note, the DCS map can be quite wrong in places… I’m pretty sure a
> lot of it was done once and then never updated.

Yes, I don't like the current DCS stream layer - streams going up and 
over ridges in some places!


I understand that DCS is in the process of bringing the stream data up 
to date post the LIDAR scans of all of NSW. But it sounds like it is 
bogged down in some non-technical issues (ie nothing related to the 
actual dataset). So no idea when it will be released!


I'd be interested if anyone knows anything definite about the data - my 
info is hearsay.


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

Re: [talk-au] Putting streams into OSM

[Tom Brennan]

On 26/05/2023 4:39 pm, nwastra wrote:
> The Surface Hydrology Lines covering all of Australia from GeoScience
> Aust is available for use in osm and has a perenniality column
> Australian Data Sources
> 

Thanks, handy to know.

That data seems identical to the DCS (LPI) data for NSW, though it's 
missing the relevance column.


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

Re: [talk-au] Putting streams into OSM

[Tom Brennan]

DCS Base and Topo don't distinguish between perennial and non-perennial

That information is available in the NSW Water Theme data eg:
https://portal.spatial.nsw.gov.au/portal/home/item.html?id=7b0e959effd749c788d304a4179abf8a

That data is licensed under CC BY 4, which I think we have permission to 
use. (I haven't used it, but if allowed, it would make sense rather than 
tracing individual lines).


Though I'd be a bit dubious about some of the things that are classified 
perennial vs non-perennial. It looks algorithmic, and not entirely 
internally consistent! Pretty sure I could write a better algorithm.


cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 26/05/2023 7:56 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 22:26, Tom Brennan <mailto:webs...@ozultimate.com>> wrote:


I'm looking at adding missing stream data in national parks around
Sydney.

However, how much value is there in bringing in all of the stream data
in say the DCS Base Map vs just the named streams?

I can see for example, the value in bringing in named streams. But
there
are huge numbers of smaller (unnamed) streams.


It's not a bad idea, as it would let anybody needing water in the bush, 
know that there's a creek over there, & also let you know that if you go 
this way, you may get wet feet! :-)


But, do DCS Base & Topo differentiate between permanent & intermittent 
creeks?


Thanks

Graeme



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

[talk-au] Putting streams into OSM

[Tom Brennan]

I'm looking at adding missing stream data in national parks around Sydney.

However, how much value is there in bringing in all of the stream data 
in say the DCS Base Map vs just the named streams?


I can see for example, the value in bringing in named streams. But there 
are huge numbers of smaller (unnamed) streams.


I have a follow up question about how best to input stream data, but 
that probably depends on the views to the question above.


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

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

[Tom Brennan]

Hi Adam

That was my take on why the 'heat' is no longer there.

The fires of 2019-20 burnt that area fairly badly. The scrub in places 
is now very tough going, but would have been easier in say mid-to-late 2020.


cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 26/02/2023 10:24 pm, Adam Horan wrote:
This page 
https://support.strava.com/hc/en-us/articles/216918877-Strava-Metro-and-the-Global-Heatmap <https://support.strava.com/hc/en-us/articles/216918877-Strava-Metro-and-the-Global-Heatmap>
says that "The Global Heatmap shows 'heat' made by aggregated, public 
activities *over the last year.*"


So it's possible there were routes showing when the original mapper 
mapped this but they've expired now.



On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 at 22:10, Adam Horan <mailto:aho...@gmail.com>> wrote:


My view is also that Strava heatmaps are insufficient on their own
to prove a track. They do show that a reasonable number of people
have passed along a particular route in recent times. They don't
prove a path or track, and they give no indication of permissions.

However I did look for details of way 963735356 in the Strava
heatmap, and there's very little in Strava in that area. It's
possible the user did have the heatmap open in iD but didn't trace
all the routes from there. Some might be 'local knowledge'.

I do make use of the strava heatmaps frequently to refine the route
of known tracks, especially if there's lots of tree cover and you
can't see the tracks too well in imagery.
10s or 100s of averaged GPS tracks is better than a single GPS track
which you might record yourself.

Adam



On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 at 18:24, Tom Brennan mailto:webs...@ozultimate.com>> wrote:

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
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/952248376>

cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
<http://ozultimate.com/canyoning>
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com
<http://bushwalkingnsw.com>

___
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


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

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

[Tom Brennan]

Sounds like the general consensus is:
- Strava heatmap is good for aligning *existing* tracks
- Strava shouldn't be used for the creation of new tracks without some 
ground truthing.


cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 26/02/2023 6:19 pm, Tom Brennan wrote:
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


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

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

[Tom Brennan]

My understanding of the Strava heatmap is that it only shows the last 
year's worth of tracking.


The changeset in question was from July 2021, which was around 18 months 
after the fires that swept through the area. The scrub would probably 
have been negotiable then, but less so in recent times. My assumption is 
that the mapper saw a faint heatmap in that area at the time, some of 
which no longer appears as time has moved on.


As mentioned earlier, my general knowledge of the area from 25 years of 
bushwalking suggests there are unlikely to be tracks on the ground other 
than on the major routes.


I agree that heatmaps, particularly faint ones, aren't a justification 
for creating new tracks on the ground. Especially without some 
on-the-ground checks.


cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 26/02/2023 10:19 pm, Ewen Hill wrote:

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#17.00/150.12413/-33.87746/hot/all>
https://www.strava.com/heatmap#15.99/150.14939/-33.91318/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 <mailto:webs...@ozultimate.com>> wrote:


Sorry, my bad! I should have linked the "track" on the other side of
Whalania Creek:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/963735356
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/963735356>

cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
<http://ozultimate.com/canyoning>
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com <http://bushwalkingnsw.com>

On 26/02/2023 8:20 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au
<mailto: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
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/952248376>
 >>
 >> cheers
 >> Tom
 >> 
 >> Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
<http://ozultimate.com/canyoning>
 >> Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com
<http://bushwalkingnsw.com>
 >>
 >> ___
 >> 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>
 >>
 >> _
 >> This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
 >> see

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

[Tom Brennan]

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

[talk-au] Mapping tracks from Strava heatmap

[Tom Brennan]

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

Re: [talk-au] Head or point on non-coastal land

[Tom Brennan]

On 26/07/2022 5:27 pm, Warin wrote:
I have done a few of these along the Gross Valley. In many cases there 
is a peak and I have taken the view that the 'head' is the top of the peak.

 I did have a look at those.

In general I would disagree with the 'head' being the top of the peak, 
based on Geographic Names Board info.


Most of the heads are designated as "BLUFF", which suggests that the 
named point is where the cliff edge or steepening starts, rather than 
the peak. The exception was Edgeworth David Head, which is designated as 
"MOUNTAIN"


But marking them as peaks does obviously help with the rendering!

natural=point only has some ~400 uses world wide, no wiki page so .. low 
uses = no rendering. Choosing one of the additional tags will get 
rendering .. but it should be appropriate to the feature not just 
'tagging for the render'


So from a long term perspective, is it better to just keep marking them 
as "natural=point", and once there is a critical mass, pushing for 
rendering? I'm not really clear on whether tags are supposed to be 
defined first, or if it's just based on use.


I'm not particularly fussed about whether or not they are rendered in 
the map. Rather, I'd like to see them in the data, in the most 
appropriate way.


Interestingly, it seems to be a showdown between NSW and Somalia as to 
who has the most "points" :)


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

[talk-au] Head or point on non-coastal land

[Tom Brennan]

What tag do you recommend using for heads or points that are away from 
the coast?


There seem to be a variety of methods people have used, none of them 
particularly satisfactory:

1. Map them as a peak eg Catt Head: natural=peak
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4420272847
2. Map them as a locality eg Inspiration Point: place=locality
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8107812662
3. Map them as a lookout eg Sublime Point: tourism=viewpoint
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/410055825
4. Map them as a point and also a locality, presumably because point is 
not rendered by most renderers(?) eg Point Pilcher: natural=point, 
place=locality

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6164541885

Here are a couple of unmapped examples:
https://maps.ozultimate.com/?id=1658781656252

If it's on the coast, "cape" seems to be the preferred tag:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcape

However, there doesn't seem to be an equivalent for similar features on 
land.


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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping shared driveways

[Tom Brennan]

I'm relatively agnostic as to which one tagging mechanism is used. I'd 
probably have a slight leaning to service=driveway for everything, and 
then have a lower level key. Yes, the wiki would need changing, but 
semantically, they are all driveways (shared or not).


Whether or not it is possible, it would probably be useful to change 
*=pipestem to a different tag (eg *=shared_driveway). Pipestem implies a 
narrower definition than shared driveway ("Pipestems are common in rural 
areas and planned suburban residential developments in the United 
States.").


The idea of the pipestem is a long driveway which other driveways hang off.

However, some of the examples Sebastian has raised - both residential 
and commercial - are definitely shared driveways, but I wouldn't 
describe them as pipestems as they don't actually have minor driveways.


cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 16/03/2022 8:53 am, Andrew Harvey wrote:

In the global community it's still disputed, see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:service%3Ddriveway#Pipestems
and my proposal to have this as an editor preset
https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/pull/239 where the
tagging question is still not resolved.

I've actually come around to the idea that service=pipstem is better,
rational being that service=driveway is very clearly defined on the wiki as
a non-shared driveway leading to a single residence. I think it's best we
leave that intact and have a sibling tag service=pipestem for shared
driveways. Otherwise you'll need to redefine service=driveway to be any
type of shared or non-shared driveway and add a new tag driveway=single to
most existing highway=service.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 at 08:10, Tom Brennan  wrote:


I think I started the last discussion on this, so I'll wade in!
Driveways are a bit of a nightmare - there are lots that don't fit
neatly into one bucket or another.

We did agree that service=driveway, driveway=pipestem was better than
service=pipestem.

It's probably 6 of one, half a dozen of the other as to whether the ones
below are all shared driveways. Some could equally be classified as
private residential roads.

But they could all do with a clean up, one way or the other!

cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 15/03/2022 9:22 pm, Dian Ågesson wrote:



Hi Seb!

The last time this came up on the mailing list
(

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-September/015014.html)


most people seemed to approve of the following mapping:

highway=service

service=driveway

driveway=pipestem

Dian

On 2022-03-15 20:16, Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au wrote:


Hi all,

Had a query regarding the mapping of driveways / shared  driveways as
there seems to be quite a number of different approaches in the data.
Below are three examples of similar ways that have different tags used
in each instance.

Highway=service
Service= driveway
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/818426144

Highway=Residential
Service= driveway
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/184844142#map=18/-38.00126/145.27585

Highway=residential
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/429541974

Reading the OSM wiki, none of these ways are correctly mapped as they
are all shared driveways that leads from a road. my understanding that
they need to be tagged as follows:

Highway=service
Service= Pipestem

Would be interested in knowing your thoughts.

regards,

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


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


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




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


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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping shared driveways

[Tom Brennan]

I think I started the last discussion on this, so I'll wade in! 
Driveways are a bit of a nightmare - there are lots that don't fit 
neatly into one bucket or another.


We did agree that service=driveway, driveway=pipestem was better than 
service=pipestem.


It's probably 6 of one, half a dozen of the other as to whether the ones 
below are all shared driveways. Some could equally be classified as 
private residential roads.


But they could all do with a clean up, one way or the other!

cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 15/03/2022 9:22 pm, Dian Ågesson wrote:



Hi Seb!

The last time this came up on the mailing list 
(https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-September/015014.html) 
most people seemed to approve of the following mapping:


highway=service

service=driveway

driveway=pipestem

Dian

On 2022-03-15 20:16, Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au wrote:


Hi all,

Had a query regarding the mapping of driveways / shared  driveways as 
there seems to be quite a number of different approaches in the data.
Below are three examples of similar ways that have different tags used 
in each instance.


Highway=service
Service= driveway
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/818426144

Highway=Residential
Service= driveway 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/184844142#map=18/-38.00126/145.27585


Highway=residential
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/429541974

Reading the OSM wiki, none of these ways are correctly mapped as they 
are all shared driveways that leads from a road. my understanding that 
they need to be tagged as follows:


Highway=service
Service= Pipestem

Would be interested in knowing your thoughts.

regards,

Sebastian
___
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] Help with bikeways on roads please

[Tom Brennan]

The problem is that the street in question may not be part of a formal 
route.


Sydney has a lot of streets with cycle infrastructure, that aren't part 
of a cycling route.


I prefer CyclOSM for that reason. CyclOSM does a better job of showing 
bicycle infrastructure, as well as cycling routes. Maybe direct the OP 
to CyclOSM instead of OpenCycleMap!


cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 15/03/2022 12:15 pm, Phil Wyatt wrote:

Hi Graeme,

  


It appears that there is no cycle route relation attached to the street in 
question.

  


https://www.opencyclemap.org/docs/

  


Maybe ask the person to add the required route (if known)

  


Cheers - Phil

  


From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Sent: Tuesday, 15 March 2022 11:52 AM
To: OSM-Au 
Subject: [talk-au] Help with bikeways on roads please

  


I don't often map bikeways so need some help please.

  


Spotted two Notes saying that there are bikeways on these streets:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1772764

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1772749.

  


I had a look at both of them & they appear to already have bike info on them:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/172324363#map=18/-33.88605/151.17192

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/178411646#map=18/-33.87695/151.16670

I closed them as already mapped, but the OP has re-opened them with the comment 
"Doesnt show on OpenCycleMap".

  


Should the existing bike details be sufficient to tag them as bikeways, or is 
there more needed?

  


Thanks

  


Graeme



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


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

Re: [talk-au] Help with bikeways on roads please

[Tom Brennan]

Nelson St looks like it needs a
cycleway=shared_lane
tag.

Piper St looks OK.

cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 15/03/2022 11:51 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

I don't often map bikeways so need some help please.

Spotted two Notes saying that there are bikeways on these streets:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1772764
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1772749.

I had a look at both of them & they appear to already have bike info on
them:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/172324363#map=18/-33.88605/151.17192
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/178411646#map=18/-33.87695/151.16670
I closed them as already mapped, but the OP has re-opened them with the
comment "Doesnt show on OpenCycleMap".

Should the existing bike details be sufficient to tag them as bikeways, or
is there more needed?

Thanks

Graeme


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


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

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

[Tom Brennan]

I suspect it might be hard to come up with definitive criteria, but I 
think you could come close.


I agree that there do tend to be some edge cases - typically:
1. Dirt/roughly paved paths in urban areas - I prefer "path" for these, 
as they might be less suited to people with mobility issues
2. Paved tracks in national parks - I also prefer "path", as they tend 
to connect up to the rest of the track system


I would be happy enough if footway just disappeared and we tagged all 
paths with the relevant extra tagging (surface is probably the most 
important). But that's probably going off topic...


cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 2/02/2022 11:59 am, Phil Wyatt wrote:

Hi Folks,

  


I am contemplating a review of 'walking  tracks' tagging in Tasmania,
outside of urban areas. In my case I am starting with tracks that are
exclusively for foot traffic. My investigation has led me to what appears to
be a conflict within OSM of what is the correct tagging to use.

  


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath would suggest that
most could be a 'path' and this seems to be verified on existing data with
this styled overpass query (by bounding box)
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1fGX

  


*   Blue represents a path
*   Red represents a footway
*   Black represents steps

  


The path tag also considers extra tagging such as the sac_scale, visibility,
surface, operator etc etc which is useful extra information. Sac_scale and
operator are certainly used less frequently on footway.

  


The footway tagging
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway seems to have been
written with urban infrastructure in mind and as usual for OSM tagging does
not provide definitive detail (ie  it could have said 'used exclusively by
pedestrians', instead it say mainly or exclusively).

  


Of course there are always cases on the margins of both and an example would
be a high use, possibly with disabled access, tracks such as Russell Falls
in Tasmania (to highlight one that is likely known by many)
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1fGZ

  


So that brings me to the recently created Australian Walking Track page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australia/Walking_Tracks which gives the
options to use both tags (path and footway) but without any real
qualification about choosing between the two. This still seems to be in
conflict with the Australian tagging guidelines on Bushwalking (and cycling
tracks)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Bush_Walki
ng_and_Cycling_Tracks that definitively says 'Do not use highway=footway'.

  


So my question is - do you think we can come up with some criteria where a
footway ends and path commences or should we just go with the flow and stick
with OSM   'any tags
you like'? My main goal is to make sure the two Australian wikis are not in
conflict with each other.

  


I am aware there is some controversy re footway/pathway and bikes but I
would like to ignore that in this context

  


Cheers - Phil



___
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] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

[Tom Brennan]

I think the AWTGS is a reasonable starting point for a trail/track 
difficulty scale that's relevant to Australia.


However, I wasn't clear whether Grade 5 was supposed to cover everything 
above Grade 4, or whether there were things harder than Grade 5.


If the former, I'd think there would need to be a better way of breaking 
down Grade 5. Otherwise, it will cover too wide a range of walks from 
the slightly rough to the genuinely hair-raising


If the latter, then there's a gap at the harder end.

Michael's categories below are also quite good (though I feel like the 
"push-chair/stroller" should be in the "elderly mother" category?!)


cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 28/01/2022 5:18 pm, Michael Collinson wrote:

Ian,

+1.  The AWTGS looks excellent as it works from an international 
perspective. I've also struggled with the SAC scale in the UK and 
Sweden, also both countries where the bulk of rural footpaths are barely 
"alpine" and also came to the conclusion that what matters is the type 
of people wanting to use the path rather than specific physical 
attributes of the path. And particularly at the less hardcore end.  If 
one substitutes "hiking" for "bushwalking", it works in those countries 
as well, IMHO.


The categories I've played with conceptually are:

- I could take my very elderly mother

- Suitable for inexperienced walkers in everyday footwear (which could 
include high heels). Less charitably: City folks stroll.


- Could I get a push-chair/stroller down here? (and by extension 
assisted wheel-chair)


- I'm fine with walking but don't want to be using my arms, (balance, 
holding-on, hauling myself up).


- I'm fine with scrambling but don't take me anywhere where I'll be 
nervous about falling off.


- Bring it on


I think the system satisfies the above in a nice linear fashion without 
too many categories. I'd be interested to know what the mysterious AS 
2156.1-2001 6th one is. Copied from the URL provided:


  * Grade One is suitable for people with a disability with assistance
  * Grade Two is suitable for families with young children
  * Grade Three is recommended for people with some bushwalking experience
  * Grade Four is recommended for experienced bushwalkers, and
  * Grade Five is recommended for very experienced bushwalkers

Mike

On 2022-01-28 16:41, ianst...@iinet.net.au wrote:


I think we should be considering the Australian Walking Track Grading 
System.  It seems to have been defined by the Victorians (Forest Fire 
Management - 
https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/recreational-activities/walking-and-camping/australian-walking-track-grading-system). 
The AWTGS defines 5 track grades.


It appears to have been adopted by National Parks here in WA, NT, SA, 
QLD and NSW, and Bush Walking Australia.


I have tagged a few tracks (where there were officially signed with a 
“Class”) as “awtgs=” (however someone in Germany has since deleted 
those tags without reference to me!)


Australian Standard AS 2156.1-2001 is titled “Walking Tracks, Part 1: 
Classification and signage”.  However, I don’t have a subscription to 
read the contents of this standard to see how it compares with the 
AWTGS.  Other documentation I have seen refers to the AS scheme as 
having 6 levels


Ian


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


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


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

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

[Tom Brennan]

If you have better ideas the beauty of OSM is you can tag both, so
keep using sac_scale for it's wide support but have a new tag better
suited to Australia which data consumers can start opting into.
It's probably easier, if less correct, to use an existing tag that has 
supporting infrastructure.


But I will follow with some interest what happens on the US Trail Access 
Project - if they decide they need a new trail difficulty measure, I 
imagine that would be more relevant to Australia than the Swiss Alpine Club!

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project

I haven't thought about an ideal AU track difficulty scale, though I 
imagine anything I come up with would have more than 4 grades!



In any case, it would seem to be a useful exercise to try and get as 
many of the optional tags as possible:

- trail_visibility
- sac_scale
- surface (my default preference is "ground")
- operator (for official/signposted trails)
- informal (for unofficial trails)
attached to bushwalking tracks. It would certainly help distinguish 
major tracks from minor tracks and might help a tiny bit in easing land 
managers' concerns.


cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 25/01/2022 8:36 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 18:32, Tom Brennan  wrote:


On a related (track-y), but slightly tangential note...

Is there any consensus on the use of sac_scale as the measure for trail
difficulty in an Australian context?

Personally, I hate the idea, because:
- Australia has little in the way of real mountains
- the values bear no relevance to Australian conditions
- we're tagging for the renderer

However, I hate the idea *more* of having no trail difficulty measure,
and for better or worse:
- this one exists
- it's widely used, and rendered



Branching out to a new thread, you've summed it up perfectly.

If you have better ideas the beauty of OSM is you can tag both, so keep
using sac_scale for it's wide support but have a new tag better suited to
Australia which data consumers can start opting into.

As a rule of thumb, anything that requires using your hands I tag
sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking, anything that has fall hazards or
exposed areas on the trail but don't need hands sac_scale=mountain_hiking,
and anything else that you'd generally consider bushwalking (uneven
surface) sac_scale=hiking.

If I were to design the ideal tag for Australia, it would be something like:

technicality=0-3

0. Well formed, even surface (could almost walk it blindfolded).
1. Uneven surface, trip hazards from rocks, tree roots etc.
2. Large steps, long steps, may be slippery (wet, mossy or loose surface),
likely need to use hands for balance, low or tight sections that you need
to crouch
3. Short sections where you're almost pulling your whole body weight with
your arms (with or without a hand rope). Highest level short of proper rock
climbing.

by usual footwear people would wear:

0. thongs
1. joggers
2. hiking shoes
3. hiking shoes

by baby carrier accessibility:

0. okay for baby/child carriers
1. okay for baby/child carriers
2. using a baby/child carrier may not be viable
3. definitely can't use a baby/child carrier

sac_scale mixes in navigation skill needed, steepness, fall hazard, trail
markings, snow/glaciers, equipment like ice axes, whereas my scheme here is
more evaluating mobility.

We have tags for rungs, ladders, trail_visibility and route markings
(trailblazes) already.

In the Australian context there's also probably remoteness measure, but
these would be too subjective to tag on individual ways and probably could
simply be a function of distance to nearest facilities.

0. urban bushwalks
1. not too remote, mostly day walks
2. remote or multiday walks



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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[Tom Brennan]

On a related (track-y), but slightly tangential note...

Is there any consensus on the use of sac_scale as the measure for trail 
difficulty in an Australian context?


Personally, I hate the idea, because:
- Australia has little in the way of real mountains
- the values bear no relevance to Australian conditions
- we're tagging for the renderer

However, I hate the idea *more* of having no trail difficulty measure, 
and for better or worse:

- this one exists
- it's widely used, and rendered

cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 24/01/2022 4:08 pm, nwastra nwastra wrote:

For info and with some regard to recent discussion of US Trails Working Group…

I noticed a lot of paths being deleted by this user as requested by a National 
Park Ranger.

I commented with some suggestions and received the following reply in 
comments...

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116520175

https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=116519029
https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=116520175

I am inclined to leave to others to consider.
I would rather they be left in the OSM and tagged in a different way for 
various reasons but I expect we have little choice but to accept the NPWS 
decision.

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


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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[Tom Brennan]

I was somewhat bemused by the comment:
"As Ranger of Macquarie Pass National Park (New South Wales, Australia) 
I am writing to advise that these tracks either do not exist or are 
illegal tracks, which have been closed based on a risk assessment and 
legal advice following a serious incident.
Illegal tracks are also causing significant environmental degradation 
and impacts to threatened species and are not suitable for use".


One of the closed tracks is the Jump Rock track, which is listed as such 
on the NPWS alerts for Macquarie Pass:

https://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/visit-a-park/parks/macquarie-pass-national-park/local-alerts

However, a number of the other tracks do exist - I've walked them - and 
as far as I am aware, are not closed. Though perhaps there is 
on-the-ground signage about closure(?). There is no general prohibition 
about walking off marked tracks in Macquarie Pass NP (ref. Plan of 
Management), so not sure about the "illegal tracks" comment.


The tracks are certainly not signposted, but are regularly used and 
followed by canyoners. Trail visibility is at best intermediate 
(probably less for some).


It is good that NPWS has engaged. I suspect they probably need a policy 
or approach at a higher level than individual national parks or rangers. 
The officer who made the OSM updates has obviously been instructed by 
the local area ranger, but probably doesn't have the on-the-ground details.


Each park has its own management challenges and that general approach 
would probably get tailored depending on the park - for example, 
Macquarie Pass NP is relatively small and likely to be more impacted by 
track proliferation than something large like Blue Mountains NP.


cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 24/01/2022 4:08 pm, nwastra nwastra wrote:

For info and with some regard to recent discussion of US Trails Working Group…

I noticed a lot of paths being deleted by this user as requested by a National 
Park Ranger.

I commented with some suggestions and received the following reply in 
comments...

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116520175

https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=116519029
https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=116520175

I am inclined to leave to others to consider.
I would rather they be left in the OSM and tagged in a different way for 
various reasons but I expect we have little choice but to accept the NPWS 
decision.

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


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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[Tom Brennan]

On 24/01/2022 5:22 pm, Phil Wyatt wrote:

I actually favour deletion as well but understand that is not the
'OSM way of doing things'. A full discussion may help the agency, and
OSM contributors understand the issues on both sides.
The issue with simply deleting them is that someone will no doubt visit 
OSM, see that there are no tracks marked, and add them back in, with no 
knowledge of the previously deleted tracks.


If the tracks were kept in OSM, but tagged appropriately so as not to 
appear in the rendering, then when someone inevitably goes to add them, 
they would see the tracks there already. Notes as to why they have been 
removed could also be added.


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

Re: [talk-au] US Trails Working Group

[Tom Brennan]

This is certainly a problem, and having walked in Utah, there are 
certainly some specific problems with walking off track there. However, 
it seems that land managers are looking at the threat without seeing the 
opportunity.


Yes, unauthorised trails get publicised more quickly. But the flip side 
of this is that land managers can also identify unauthorised trails more 
quickly, and take action.


Whether you agree or not, tracks can be "closed" in OSM in ways that 
make them less likely to be re-added to the map. Eg:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/621392139#map=19/-33.62619/150.30906

cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 3/01/2022 5:00 pm, Phil Wyatt wrote:

Hi Folks,

  


Definitely worth a follow especially if you have an interest in informal 
tracks/paths/pads and maybe even historical routes that don’t appear on the 
ground. I certainly don’t agree with all their statements (especially …. Good 
coverage of all trails (including closed or illegal ones) is essential for some 
mapping applications, such as firefighting and SAR.) but its also interesting 
that its now coming up as a major issue for US National Parks and reserves 
managers. In Tasmania its been known as an issue since the early 1990’s

  


I think lots of their issues will require close cooperation with the map 
renderers to be in any way effective.

  


Cheers - Phil

  


From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Sent: Monday, 3 January 2022 12:45 PM
To: OSM-Au 
Subject: [talk-au] US Trails Working Group

  


Happy New Year!

  


Just noticed mention of this in the weekly Newsletter:

  


https://www.openstreetmap.us/2021/12/osmus-trails-working-group

  


Looks like something that we should be following with interest?

  


Thanks

  


Graeme



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


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

Re: [talk-au] Unconnected ways

[Tom Brennan]

While I could place a track across each grassed area, the placement of 
the track would be somewhat arbitrary.


Is there any point in trying to mark an area as walkable? In the example 
link below, people can walk pretty much anywhere across the two grassed 
areas, and it's only the track in between those areas which is an actual 
track.


It sounds like I just mark a track, and accept that in this case I am 
mapping for the renderer/router?


cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 26/11/2021 11:48 am, Warin wrote:


On 26/11/21 7:16 am, Tom Brennan wrote:

Quick question on unconnected ways.

I've just mapped one:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1006252416
Probably best viewed in edit mode with an aerial photo underlay.

This way is a physical path between two open grassed areas that 
themselves have no discernible paths. So at this stage, all I have 
mapped is the path, and it connects to nothing.


Obviously it would be easy enough to connect up the two ends - one to 
Westminster Rd, and the other to the track near the Field of Mars 
Environmental Education Centre. This is the "natural" route, and 
certainly one that people walk. However, there's nothing on the ground 
to suggest that I should do that.


Thoughts welcome.




Same problem where a bushwalking route uses a beach. I was told IIRC it 
is ok to use highway=path with trail_visibility=no.



___
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] Unconnected ways

[Tom Brennan]

Quick question on unconnected ways.

I've just mapped one:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1006252416
Probably best viewed in edit mode with an aerial photo underlay.

This way is a physical path between two open grassed areas that 
themselves have no discernible paths. So at this stage, all I have 
mapped is the path, and it connects to nothing.


Obviously it would be easy enough to connect up the two ends - one to 
Westminster Rd, and the other to the track near the Field of Mars 
Environmental Education Centre. This is the "natural" route, and 
certainly one that people walk. However, there's nothing on the ground 
to suggest that I should do that.


Thoughts welcome.

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

Re: [talk-au] Shared driveways

[Tom Brennan]

Under what I'm suggesting, "32" would become service=driveway, 
driveway=pipestem.


So it's completely compatible with existing tagging - but provides a 
little extra information.


cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 24/09/2021 9:16 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 20:17, Tom Brennan  wrote:


Graeme - are you saying that you are tagging them all the same? Just as
separate ways?



Yep.

Here's one that I did recently:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-28.07919/153.23456, which was
apparently a single property that was sub-divided.

(Notes: I've just repositioned 32b's driveway as new imagery shows it
further over to the side, & 32d could have it's own short stub, but it's
not visible)

Anybody (particularly Emergency Services!) can see that to get to 32 you go
down here, & B is over there, C down that way, D right beside the road & A
is right up the end.

"32" is a service=driveway (+ access=private) from the road in to the A / C
junction, & each of the other three are exactly the same from 32 to each
house.

Thanks

Graeme



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

Re: [talk-au] Shared driveways

[Tom Brennan]

I had never heard of "pipestem", but the actual key name isn't really 
relevant - any more than say "sidewalk" in Australia.


The wiki definition for "pipestem" is "shared driveway", which is what 
we're looking to help distinguish from single driveway (service=driveway).


https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/203549225
As Graeme says, that appears to be highway=residential.

cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 23/09/2021 8:59 am, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Hi

The possibility of retagging user HighRouleur's highway= service 
service=driveway ways to highway= service service=driveway 
driveway=pipestem
occurred to me as well. But I have never heard of a pipestem before. 
Maybe its something that is only done in the US? My thought was that if 
I don't fully understand a tag I shouldn't be using it. Does a pipestem 
describe https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/203549225 better than the 
simpler

highway= service? I think I prefer highway= service

Tony



In doing the rounds of the Willoughby LGA, I've noticed there are quite
a lot of shared driveways. This has likely come about from where one
previously large block has been subdivided - sometimes multiple times.
Each block typically has access to the main road via a narrow strip of
land, on which the shared driveway sits.

The service=driveway tag is "a minor service road leading to a specific
property", so isn't really appropriate for driveways leading to
multiple properties.

So I've started tagging some of these as driveway=pipestem, as per the 
wiki:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Ddriveway#Pipestems

What do people think?

The wiki also suggests service=pipestem as an alternative, but I prefer
service=driveway + driveway=pipestem as it's more compatible with
existing tagging - for most intents, if a shared driveway is
rendered/routed as a driveway, that should be acceptable.

An example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/957104517

Enable the DCS NSW Base Map in ID editor if you want to see the strips
of land via which each property has access to Fullers Rd.

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

Re: [talk-au] Shared driveways

[Tom Brennan via Talk-au]

Yes, agree that legally public roads should be classified as 
highway=residential/unclassified or service=alley as appropriate.


Pipestem (not pipestream :) ) is purely for shared (probably private) 
driveways.


cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 23/09/2021 12:27 pm, Alex Sims wrote:

Hi,

I hadn't seen the "pipestream" before, and it does look to have some utility.

I'd much prefer that (legally) public roads be highway=residential/unclassified 
etc so as these will all be present in government data.

If it's private (even shared between many people) then it should be a 
pipestream or driveway or whatever so as to know you won't find it in a 
government based list and need to rely on survey on the ground or an aerial 
photo or whatever.

Alex

On 23/9/21, 11:51 am, "fors...@ozonline.com.au"  
wrote:

 "so why isn't it just a simple highway=residential?"

 in this case https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/203549225
 either highway=service or highway=residential are OK with me

 highway=service can be achieved by reversion in this case and there
 are approximately 5000 ways to deal with. Not all are lanes but I
 don't want to manually search 5000 ways looking for lanes tagged as
 driveway

 



___
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] Shared driveways

[Tom Brennan]

Graeme - are you saying that you are tagging them all the same? Just as 
separate ways?


cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 23/09/2021 9:11 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

When I've found the same situation, I've just left it as a single
service=driveway from the road to where it splits, then two (or however
many) more driveways from that point to each house.

Thanks

Graeme


On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 08:37, Tom Brennan  wrote:


In doing the rounds of the Willoughby LGA, I've noticed there are quite
a lot of shared driveways. This has likely come about from where one
previously large block has been subdivided - sometimes multiple times.
Each block typically has access to the main road via a narrow strip of
land, on which the shared driveway sits.

The service=driveway tag is "a minor service road leading to a specific
property", so isn't really appropriate for driveways leading to multiple
properties.

So I've started tagging some of these as driveway=pipestem, as per the
wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Ddriveway#Pipestems

What do people think?

The wiki also suggests service=pipestem as an alternative, but I prefer
service=driveway + driveway=pipestem as it's more compatible with
existing tagging - for most intents, if a shared driveway is
rendered/routed as a driveway, that should be acceptable.

An example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/957104517

Enable the DCS NSW Base Map in ID editor if you want to see the strips
of land via which each property has access to Fullers Rd.

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





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

Re: [talk-au] Shared driveways

[Tom Brennan]

I'm not much of a fan of the term "pipestem", but as you say, the actual 
key name is irrelevant - as long as the use is agreed. Certainly, I just 
mentally translate it as "shared_driveway".


It seems to fill a useful niche, given the number of times recently I've 
seen a driveway leading to multiple properties.


cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 23/09/2021 11:47 am, Andrew Harvey wrote:

driveway=pipestream sounds good. It's got more usage than
service=pipestream. It's nice to have a way to distinguish these from
non-shared driveways.

I've never heard the term before either, must be american, but that's fine,
many of the existing key values are UK terms and don't apply globally, so
these can be localised to simply "shared driveway" like we already do for
other tags at
https://www.transifex.com/openstreetmap/id-editor/viewstrings/#en_AU/presets/179749902?q=translated%3Ayes

On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 08:37, Tom Brennan  wrote:


In doing the rounds of the Willoughby LGA, I've noticed there are quite
a lot of shared driveways. This has likely come about from where one
previously large block has been subdivided - sometimes multiple times.
Each block typically has access to the main road via a narrow strip of
land, on which the shared driveway sits.

The service=driveway tag is "a minor service road leading to a specific
property", so isn't really appropriate for driveways leading to multiple
properties.

So I've started tagging some of these as driveway=pipestem, as per the
wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Ddriveway#Pipestems

What do people think?

The wiki also suggests service=pipestem as an alternative, but I prefer
service=driveway + driveway=pipestem as it's more compatible with
existing tagging - for most intents, if a shared driveway is
rendered/routed as a driveway, that should be acceptable.

An example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/957104517

Enable the DCS NSW Base Map in ID editor if you want to see the strips
of land via which each property has access to Fullers Rd.

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





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

[talk-au] Shared driveways

[Tom Brennan]

In doing the rounds of the Willoughby LGA, I've noticed there are quite 
a lot of shared driveways. This has likely come about from where one 
previously large block has been subdivided - sometimes multiple times. 
Each block typically has access to the main road via a narrow strip of 
land, on which the shared driveway sits.


The service=driveway tag is "a minor service road leading to a specific 
property", so isn't really appropriate for driveways leading to multiple 
properties.


So I've started tagging some of these as driveway=pipestem, as per the 
wiki:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Ddriveway#Pipestems

What do people think?

The wiki also suggests service=pipestem as an alternative, but I prefer 
service=driveway + driveway=pipestem as it's more compatible with 
existing tagging - for most intents, if a shared driveway is 
rendered/routed as a driveway, that should be acceptable.


An example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/957104517

Enable the DCS NSW Base Map in ID editor if you want to see the strips 
of land via which each property has access to Fullers Rd.


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

Re: [talk-au] highway=service

[Tom Brennan]

On 14/08/2021 6:25 pm, Warin wrote:

On 14/8/21 4:45 pm, Michael Collinson wrote:

    3. parking areas
    This one can also be a bit confusing - following the wiki, some
    of these
    end up being service=parking_aisle, but others are without
    service=* eg:
    https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-33.80928/151.20897
    
    I imagine you can do in theory do an area query to establish
    highway=service within amenity=parking, but this does seem clunky!
    And not that we should be mapping for the renderer, but the
    rendering
    also seems inconsistent:
    https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-33.80939/151.20923
    

If you can turn from the way directly into a parking spot, then it 
should be parking aisle, so that one I think should be parking aisle.


Slightly different view here. I find that most car parks have 
"arterial" ways for ingress/exit, navigation within larger parks, and 
sometimes very local through "destination" traffic; obvious from 
design or width. I don't put a parking_aisle on these. I think leads 
to better map presentation and routing. In Melbourne, I find that many 
car park service roads double up as useful bicycle connectors.


At least some of those "arterial" ways also have parking alongside them. 
I would still mark those as parking aisle. Where there is not adjacent 
parking then 'unclassified' would be my choice.

This comes down to what the purpose of the service=parking_aisle tag is.

Is it to distinguish major vs minor roads within a parking area - 
because that's how it's handled by renderers and routers - or to say 
where to find parking within a parking area.


I'm probably more with Michael Collinson on this one.

The parking aisle page on the wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Dparking_aisle
states one of the exclusions as:
"Forms the "trunk" or perimeter of the parking lot, connecting multiple 
parking aisles – use highway=service without service=* instead. There 
may be parking spaces on either side, but the roadway's primary purpose 
is to get drivers to another part of the parking lot."


So if you go by the wiki, the presence of parking spaces doesn't not 
automatically make it a parking aisle. It's about what you consider the 
way's primary purpose is.


Here's an example of a classic trunk/spoke parking lot that has sections 
of ways that are not parking_aisle:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-33.83561/151.06817
eg
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/368622450
But I certainly wouldn't split ways, and I'm fairly happy with the 
tagging/presentation. You could probably also mount an argument to map 
the circumference as highway=service without service=parking_aisle, but 
that's probably where the subjectivity comes in.


These ones are all highway=service + service=parking_aisle. But I'm 
happy again with the tagging/presentation.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-33.83906/151.07297

Here's one where most of the internal ways are parking aisle, but one 
small section is not. This seems pointless to me.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-33.81030/151.00033

And this one definitely should be inverted:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-33.85421/151.06761

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

Re: [talk-au] highway=service

[Tom Brennan]

On 14/08/2021 11:59 am, Andrew Harvey wrote:

2. driveways (private property) -> service=driveway + access=private
This seems pretty clear cut in residential areas. It also seems fairly
clear for small business/industrial property that are for
employees/business vehicles only.

Where it gets a bit confusing is if the driveway is to something else.
For example, in the Willoughby area, there are many industrial complexes
which have "driveways". But if it leads to parking (amenity=parking?),
is it still a driveway, or is it just highway=service without service=*.
The access=* issues also interplays with this - because in larger
industrial complexes there may be a mix of access=private and
access=customers.



Can you post examples? In my opinion, a good rule of thumb for driveway is
where you need to turn off the road and cross the footpath. I realise it's
not always clear though.

Technically only the section inside the front fence is private, the section
between the footpath and road is public but I've never mapped to this level
of detail.


This is an example of a residential driveway (highway=service + 
service=driveway) that I would add access=private to. I agree with your 
comment about only the section inside the property actually being 
private, but that distinction really only becomes important once 
footpaths are more frequently mapped as highway=footway + footway=sidewalk

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/448093794

This is an example of an industrial complex that has driveways (or 
access roads?) leading to numerous small businesses. Currently 
highway=service, no access or service tags. Access is not clear to me

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/778526062

This is an example of an industrial area driveway (highway=service + 
service=driveway) that I would add access=private to (local knowledge).

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/893221380

This is an example of an industrial complex that has a mix (6 ways 
total) of highway=service, highway=service + service=parking_aisle and 
highway=service + service=driveway(!). Signs at the gate describe it as 
a "road-related area" which I believe means that it is accessible by the 
public - though I don't think that necessarily extends to any parking.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-33.81625/151.19273

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

[talk-au] highway=service

[Tom Brennan]

Like my previous post on sidewalks, this one is also from walking and 
cycling all of the streets of my LGA (Willoughby). The other area where 
tagging seems to me to be a bit messy is:


highway=service

This messiness may be more of a general OSM issue than specifically an 
Australian one!


Where possible I've been trying to add a service=? tag to define these 
better, in line with the relevant pages on the wiki. In my area, the 
majority of these seem to be:


1. laneways between houses -> service=alley
For me these are part of the official road network, but in Willoughby 
they are normally narrow, and lead to/past people's garages. This one 
seems relatively clear cut - and also appears to be the only service tag 
that does relate to the official road network(?)


2. driveways (private property) -> service=driveway + access=private
This seems pretty clear cut in residential areas. It also seems fairly 
clear for small business/industrial property that are for 
employees/business vehicles only.


Where it gets a bit confusing is if the driveway is to something else. 
For example, in the Willoughby area, there are many industrial complexes 
which have "driveways". But if it leads to parking (amenity=parking?), 
is it still a driveway, or is it just highway=service without service=*. 
The access=* issues also interplays with this - because in larger 
industrial complexes there may be a mix of access=private and 
access=customers.


3. parking areas
This one can also be a bit confusing - following the wiki, some of these 
end up being service=parking_aisle, but others are without service=* eg:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-33.80928/151.20897
I imagine you can do in theory do an area query to establish 
highway=service within amenity=parking, but this does seem clunky!
And not that we should be mapping for the renderer, but the rendering 
also seems inconsistent:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-33.80939/151.20923


Having written all this down, I'm not sure that I have any more clarity 
in my mind! I suspect that getting 100% consistency is difficult, but 
any comments welcome.


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

Re: [talk-au] Sidewalks in Australia

[Tom Brennan]

Thanks for the feedback.

Just to summarise my reading of the replies, it sounds like there is:
1. a preference for separately mapped sidewalks (highway=footway + 
footway=sidewalk)
2. no harm in also adding tags to the road (sidewalk:both=separate, or 
sidewalk:left=separate / sidewalk:right=separate) as appropriate


I won't necessarily be adding things, but I'll fix up any sidewalk 
problems with this in mind.


> I've probably passed you without realising then.

Most likely! I'm out and about almost every day!

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

[talk-au] Sidewalks in Australia

[Tom Brennan]

I've been using the current lockdown to walk and cycle all of the 
streets of my LGA (Willoughby), and I've been checking back to OSM to 
see if there's anything needing updating. For the most part it's just 
minor edits here and there.


I had a couple of questions, one of which I'll address in this email:

highway=footway, footway=sidewalk or highway=*, sidewalk=*

Is there a view for Australia as to which method of mapping sidewalks 
(yes, I'm using the US term because it's unambiguous here) should be 
used? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks


At the moment there are a lot of separately mapped sidewalks in the 
Willoughby LGA, but it's patchy at best. There are streets with 
sidewalks mapped next to other unmapped streets, there are lots of 
connectivity issues, sidewalks end unexpectedly. I don't intend to put 
too much effort into cleaning it up, but where I do make changes, I'd 
prefer to make things better rather than worse!


Hence my asking.

I'm not much of a fan of separately mapped sidewalks, because there tend 
to be an infinite number of places you can walk/cross etc, and any 
mapping fails to capture this. But I'm not too concerned with opening a 
debate if it's already been prosecuted! Just with what the Australian 
"standard" is.


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

Re: [talk-au] Local bicycle routes in NSW

[Tom Brennan]

On 25/04/2020 11:46 am, Andrew Harvey wrote:

On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 08:57, Tom Brennan 
wrote:

1. Infrastructure: Painted road markings (but no cycle lane) and/or
street signs indicating cycle route: cycleway=shared_lane eg

https://ozultimate.com/temp/2020-04-24%2022_01_11-NSW%20Bushwalking%20Maps.png


cycleway=shared_lane is only if there is a marking on the ground, so
if it's a marked route but no bicycle stencil on the ground then it's
not cycleway=shared_lane in my view because cycleway is tagging the 
infrastructure on the ground.


Agree in general.

The one exception is that many of the cycle routes dogleg through the 
residential streets. In some cases, I don't think the short legs of the 
doglegs have bicycle stencils on the ground as they are too short. But 
they do have cycle street signage (directional arrows), so I'd argue 
that these are intended to be shared lanes.


Example:
https://ozultimate.com/temp/2020_04_25_12_38_06_NSW_Bushwalking_Maps.png
The red legs have stencils on the ground, the blue legs (from memory) 
have street signage.


>> 2. Cycle Routes: Use of network=lcn vs lcn=yes - I assume
>> network=lcn is preferred to lcn=yes? Quite a lot of the current
>> routes have lcn=yes.
>
> network=lcn goes on the relation not on the way. lcn=yes goes on the
> way, but is redundant if it's already part of a relation. Personally
> I'd use lcn=yes on a way if I know the segment is part of a route,
> but don't know or have time to map out the full route relation.

Ah, I think that generally makes it clearer.

On the relation, what about network=Willoughby vs network=lcn? CycleOSM 
seems to be expecting network=lcn, not that tagging for a renderer is key!


A couple of route examples I can see:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6282327
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6282327
have network=Willoughby and lcn=yes.

However, if I go over to Cammeray, someone has added all of the ways to 
a single relation (named Cammeray Local Routes, tagged with lcn=yes and 
network=lcn). In some ways this makes sense, since these reflect the 
interconnected series of local routes. It's not really a single route, 
but it is a useful way of grouping.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6283487
Naremburn is similar:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6282427


The references I assume are just made up to give renderers something to 
put on the various maps. They don't seem to relate to anything on any 
signs or in council brochures.


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

[talk-au] Local bicycle routes in NSW

[Tom Brennan]

Willoughby Council (Sydney, NSW) has recently been refreshing its cycle 
route signage, so I've been riding the routes and reviewing tagging in 
OSM. Before I go and make a whole lot of changes, I just wanted to 
confirm best practice.


1. Infrastructure:
Painted road markings (but no cycle lane) and/or street signs indicating 
cycle route:

cycleway=shared_lane
eg 
https://ozultimate.com/temp/2020-04-24%2022_01_11-NSW%20Bushwalking%20Maps.png


Painted cycle lane:
cycleway=lane
https://ozultimate.com/temp/2020-04-24%2022_03_56-NSW%20Bushwalking%20Maps.png

This seems to be my interpretation of:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway
and
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines


2. Cycle Routes:
Use of network=lcn vs lcn=yes - I assume network=lcn is preferred to 
lcn=yes? Quite a lot of the current routes have lcn=yes.


Alternatively, should I be trying to create relations? The problem with 
relations is that the cycleways all interconnect. So while there may be 
a sensible route from any suburb in Willoughby to any other suburb, but 
it doesn't seem to lend itself to a collection of relations. Certainly 
the signage at any given spot just points you to the next suburb.


The link below shows the approximate network (not all are yet 
built/marked - I'll be updating OSM on the basis of ground surveys)

http://edocs.willoughby.nsw.gov.au/DocumentViewer.ashx?dsi=2914874
I don't see that it easily lends itself to relations.


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

Re: [talk-au] What's going on here? (mysterious street)

[Tom Brennan]

In NSW you can often check up unformed roads on council web sites. There 
are oodles of them shown in Google that don't currently exist in 
reality. Compare


http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8hq=ll=-33.777168,150.627912spn=0.006269,0.009645z=17

with

http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/bmccmap/maps.cfm?rid=2474search=address%252C%2525emu%2525%252CGLENBROOK%2525

cheers

On 20/08/2010 12:10 PM, Evan Sebire wrote:

I think google and melways obtained their Victorian base maps from landvic,
http://services.land.vic.gov.au/maps/interactive.jsp
Then they go about fixing up the street use, that is why melways has a much
better map because they have been modifying it for many more years.

In this case Ward road is still on landvic as a government easement so may get
developed in the future and is not private property (unless we are talking
about something different).
In my neighbourhood which isn't to far away from Kallista a neighbour has
built a shed on government land reserved of a road and erected a fence to
block people.  Directly above his shed are powerlines that run down the
easement beside the land reserved for the road!

This all get back to a discussion on this list about 12 months ago about
mapping non-existing roads/gazetted road,

Evan


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

Re: [talk-au] Queensland parks, forests and conservation areas

[Tom Brennan]

Makes sense. The IUCN Protected Areas Categories are an international 
standard, and there shouldn't really be any shoehorning to get Aussie 
protected areas to fit.


To use a couple of examples (from NSW! :) )
Blue Mountains National Park
boundary=protected_area
protect_id=2
protection_title=National Park

Wolgan State Forest
boundary=protected_area
protect_id=6
protection_title=State Forest

cheers



On 30/06/2010 5:54 PM, Markus wrote:

You could use protection_title=Conservation park




Usefull additional keys


key

value

discription



http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:protection_titleaction
=editredlink=1  protection_title=

wildlife sanctuary, Zapovedniki, Nationalpark, Special Protected Area, World
Heritage Convention, Aesthetic Forest, Heritage River, Indian Reserve, ...

Title or type of protection. The national destination, the formal title or
type of protection (see level-table).

Important! You should give this. To make differences within one level. At
the end it gives too a sample of terms. Put the proper name as key-value.
The individual labeling, f.e. like the phillipine Nipas Category.







Markus



-Original Message-
From: Roy Wallace [mailto:waldo000...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 30 June 2010 7:19 AM
To: James Livingston
Cc: Markus; OSM Australian Talk List
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Queensland parks, forests and conservation areas



On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 9:49 PM, James Livingston

li...@sunsetutopia.com  wrote:






Here's what I've currently got, any more comments?



...




Is it worth using an additional

classification:qld=national_park|conservation_park|state_forest, etc.

(or similar), just to make things extra clear?



That is, when you use a rule like Conservation Parks get

boundary=protected_area, I think it would be nice to also record that

they are a conservation_park.






No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.830 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2969 - Release Date: 06/29/10 
04:05:00




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



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

Re: [talk-au] Sydney Wiki page actively discourages mapping pubs

[Tom Brennan]

On 27/06/2010 2:10 AM, John Smith wrote:

Since I'm not in Sydney I was hessitent to make changes, at least
without announcing ahead of time.


Fair enough.  However, I think it's out of date enough that you could 
just make the changes anyway. It will probably spur some Sydneysiders to 
then tidy it up.



Speaking of which, the NoName layer appears way out of date. There are
streets I named a couple of months ago that still haven't made it off that
layer. Is it still being regenerated?


Is this the BTC noname layer or the Cloudmade noname layer?


It's the Cloudmade layer. Even with a cache refresh it's still months 
out of date in the area I'm interested in. I had to Google BTC to find 
out what it was, but its NoName layer is much more up to date.


cheers

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

Re: [talk-au] Sydney Wiki page actively discourages mapping pubs

[Tom Brennan]

On 26/06/2010 1:12 PM, John Smith wrote:

I think points of interest are one of the best aspects to OSM data and
I don't think we should be telling people not to map specific types of
POIs just because it might clutter up a rendering of a map, if
anything we should use this as an example of where rendering
technology could be improved:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sydney#Where_do_I_get_a_drink.3F


To be honest, that Wiki page is way out of date. I'm guessing that 
almost none of those people listed are still mapping where they say they 
are.


With the high res Nearmap imagery, the places to go are between Penrith 
and Blacktown. At least half of those suburbs still need their 
residential streets named. Perhaps we should use it to suggest places 
for people to go if they're interested in contributing?


Speaking of which, the NoName layer appears way out of date. There are 
streets I named a couple of months ago that still haven't made it off 
that layer. Is it still being regenerated?


cheers


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

Re: [talk-au] Hikers on this list?

[Tom Brennan]

On 19/06/2010 10:20 PM, John Smith wrote:
 A little birdy tells me that they think the GA data may suffer similar
 problems to the SRTM data, in any case will have to look into the
 licensing, it may not be favourable even if the data isn't being
 uploaded to OSM.

Basically the only options for Australia for DEM data appear to be the 
SRTM and GA ones.

The best work on the SRTM data is probably by Sean Williams (Dooghan) on 
gpsaustralia.net. He has created Garmin IMG files with 5m contours, 
though with 90m data, 5m is pretty optimistic. Looks nice though.
http://www.lizarddrinking.net/index.htm

GA data does have a ? over the licensing. The GA site is licensed using 
the cc-by licence, but the data appears to be specifically licensed 
under different terms. That said, it's not really clear exactly what is 
allowed. There are comments like Furthermore, there are no restrictions 
on commercial value-adding or on-selling for those spatial datasets 
listed on the Schedule on the site. But also the Standard Licence has 
phrases like OSDM may, at any time, terminate the Licence, with 
immediate effect by giving 90 days notice to the other party.

I thought I noticed a while back that Nearmap was planning on doing some 
stuff in the DEM space, so maybe they'll have something down the track? 
Can only hope...

cheers

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://ozultimate.com/bushwalking

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

Re: [talk-au] Hikers on this list?

[Tom Brennan]

On 17/06/2010 11:30 AM, John Smith wrote:
On Thu, June 17, 2010 4:27 pm, tom.bren...@ampcapital.com wrote:
 Do you have any suggestions on how contours should be marked? eg
 every 10m elevation, or 5 or 50 or ... ?
Depends on the scale of the map. 1:25000 maps are typically rendered 
with 10m or 20m contours. Every 5th or 10th contour should be in bold.

 navigation are: - tracks - render as dashed black line

 Can you put this in OSM terms?

What do you mean by OSM terms (I'm a bit of a newbie)

 - ideally there needs to be more granularity of track
 difficulty - track_visibility=* is probably useful -
 sac_scale=* is less useful as it is too specific to alpine
 areas - however, something indicating difficulty/exposure would
 be useful

 This came up on IRC the other day, there the suggestion with sac
 scale was it should be limited to things SAC has actually
 evaluated, and there is no equivalent body in Australia so there
 probably needs a new/different tag for difficulty ratings in
 Australia difficulty:au=*
The AS2156 discussed elsewhere is not great, but better than nothing. 
It's too much to be able to catch everything about a track in one or two 
tags.

 - intermittent stream - thin dashed blue - main deficiency in
 tagging is the need for an intermittent watercourse tag eg
 waterway=stream_non_perennial or intermittent=yes

 I don't think we have a tag for this at present, out of those 2
 choices intermittent=yes is shorter, although we probably should
 with all the dry creek beds out there most of the time. In any case
 what ever is decided needs to be documented.
My preference is for intermittent=yes. That way it can be applied to
rivers as well as streams. We've got intermittent rivers in Australia,
that's for sure.

 - other topographic features like peaks, passes, ranges, ridges,
 spurs, valleys - should have names render but probably no other
 marker - some of those (eg ridges, spurs) don't seem to have any
 method in OSM (proposed or otherwise) for tagging at the moment

 Peaks usually get the elevation printed, any thoughts on how to tag
 the rest?

 A lot of these might fit under the natural=* section...
 natural=cliff etc...
There have been various discussions about how to tag things like ranges,
ridges, spurs and valleys, which don't have distinct boundaries. So far 
nothing has come of them.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extended_place_tags
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relations/Proposed/Region
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Geographical_Places

My thinking was along the lines of the latter... but that got
comprehensively voted down...

See
http://ozultimate.com/kanangra.png
for example of map section with a variety of different geographic 
features, many of which can't easily be represented in OSM at the moment 
(Gangerang Range, Kilpatrick Causeway, Crafts Wall, Brennan Top, 
Seriphos Pit, Seriphos Cliffs, Gabes Gap)

cheers

Tom Brennan
Bushwalking? http://ozultimate.com/bushwalking
Canyoning? http://ozultimate.com/canyoning


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

Re: [talk-au] Hikers on this list?

[Tom Brennan]

On 17/06/2010 3:46 PM, John Henderson wrote:
 I may have raised this issue in the past.  Walking tracks are never
 signposted or otherwise marked through declared wilderness areas.  This
 includes some sections of the Australian Alps Walking Track.  Maps
 should not show tracks in those specific wilderness areas.  It's every
 man to herself, so to speak.

Not always true. For example, from the Plan of Management for Kanangra 
Boyd National Park
Existing walking tracks on the Kanangra Tops within the wilderness (as 
indicated on the map on the central pages of this plan) will be retained 
and managed to minimise impacts on natural values.
These tracks would certainly be expected to be mapped.

It depends on the park and the local Parks and Wildlife Service.

cheers

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://ozultimate.com/bushwalking

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

Re: [talk-au] Hikers on this list?

[Tom Brennan]

On 17/06/2010 11:25 PM, John Smith wrote:
 navigation are: - tracks - render as dashed black line

 Can you put this in OSM terms?

 What do you mean by OSM terms (I'm a bit of a newbie)

 something like highway=track, grade=3 ?

OK
- highway=path - dashed black line
- highway=track+car=no - long thick black dashed line
- highway=track+car=yes - long thick red dashed line

 See
 http://ozultimate.com/kanangra.png
 for example of map section with a variety of different geographic
 features, many of which can't easily be represented in OSM at the moment
 (Gangerang Range, Kilpatrick Causeway, Crafts Wall, Brennan Top,
 Seriphos Pit, Seriphos Cliffs, Gabes Gap)

 Have these features been added to OSM? If so we can try and start to
 render them. Also what is the lat/lon of the area?

No they haven't. Area is approx lat=-33.9753lon=150.1336 but it's not a 
great area to start with. Geographic items are difficult to map without 
good quality aerial photography, which we don't have for that area 
(Kanangra).

Better would be to start around North Lawson 
(lat=-33.71027lon=150.43344zoom=15) or Leura/Wentworth Falls 
(lat=-33.72384lon=150.3622zoom=15). I can try and add some more 
geographic features for them, but probably not til next week.

cheers

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://ozultimate.com/bushwalking

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

Re: [talk-au] Hikers on this list?

[Tom Brennan]

I'm a bushwalker and I'm attempting to map the Blue Mountains, including 
roads, tracks, cliffs and watercourses. A key reason is that I'd like to 
be able to use OSM to auto-generate maps for my website, which I 
currently have to create by hand eg
http://ozultimate.com/bushwalking/walk/239/bob_turners_track01.pdf
My maps also don't have contours, which I would like.

Most bushwalkers use and are used to normal contour maps such as those 
produced by the NSW Dept of Lands. I'd suggest keeping a style sheet 
similar to them. I have maps for other states and they are similar, 
though each has its variations.

For examples, have a look at
http://imagery.maps.nsw.gov.au/
Zoom in and select Topographic maps (Current series) under Display images

Other than contours, the key things bushwalkers want to see for 
navigation are:
- tracks
   - render as dashed black line
 - width/length of of dash dependent on difficulty/visibility
 - current mapnik rendering is ok for normal tracks, perhaps should 
be a little longer
 - fire trails with car=no as longer thick black dash
 - fire trails with car=yes as red dash
   - ideally there needs to be more granularity of track difficulty
 - track_visibility=* is probably useful
 - sac_scale=* is less useful as it is too specific to alpine areas
 - however, something indicating difficulty/exposure would be useful
 - harder tracks would have shorter/thinner black dash
- cliffs
   - render as solid red line with ticks on the cliff side
- watercourses
   - render as solid blue or dashed blue line depending on width eg
 - river - wide solid blue
 - stream - thin solid blue
 - intermittent stream - thin dashed blue
   - main deficiency in tagging is the need for an intermittent 
watercourse tag eg waterway=stream_non_perennial or intermittent=yes
- waterfalls
   - render as thin blue line across watercourse
- above features should all have names render
- other topographic features like peaks, passes, ranges, ridges, spurs, 
valleys
   - should have names render but probably no other marker
   - some of those (eg ridges, spurs) don't seem to have any method in 
OSM (proposed or otherwise) for tagging at the moment

cheers

t...@ozultimate.com
Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://ozultimate.com/bushwalking

On 15/06/2010 7:57 PM, John Smith wrote:
 Some of us were discussing making a custom hiking map styles on IRC
 earlier so we can print out such maps or use them in presentations to
 show bush walkers the potential of what they can get back out of OSM.

 I don't think any of us has had much to do with hiking maps, so is
 anyone on this list an experienced hiker that could help us come up
 with a suitable hiking map style sheet?

 I've also been playing with contour lines on OSM map tiles, but I
 think instead of cluttering up the common mapnik rendering this would
 be better in a hiking style.

 http://maps.bigtincan.com/?z=14ll=-27.097,152.532layer=B00TT

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


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