Re: [talk-au] Vic gov data request denied

[osm.talk-au]

Well, that seems to me the typical answer from someone who has no clue, doesn’t 
care about trying to find one, and just wants you to go away and stop bothering 
him…

 

From: Little Maps  
Sent: Friday, 11 March 2022 17:38
To: OSM Aust Discussion List 
Subject: [talk-au] Vic gov data request denied

 

Hi all, some disappointing news. Our request to extend our existing waiver to 
the Vic Gov Vic Topo datasets to other gov departmental datasets has been 
denied. See the message below. For background, this request was discussed here 
late last year:

 

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-October/015230.html

 

By my reading this doesn’t invalidate our existing waiver, just the use of 
other datasets not covered by it, but I’ll leave others to decode it further. 
Best wishes Ian

Begin forwarded message:

From: GIS HelpDesk mailto:gis.helpd...@delwp.vic.gov.au> >
Date: 11 March 2022 at 12:57:44 pm AEDT
To: 
Subject: SRQ0216617 New Comments Added re: OpenStreetMap DELWP data request
Reply-To: GIS HelpDesk mailto:gis.helpd...@delwp.vic.gov.au> >



 


Service Request SRQ0216617 has been commented on


The following Service Request has been commented. Should you have any updates, 
or are seeking additional information specific to this Service Request please 
reply to this email.


Number

SRQ0216617


Requestor



Affected User



Business Service

Enterprise Spatial Services


State

Pending Customer

 


Short Description


OpenStreetMap DELWP data request

 


Comments


  _  

11-03-2022 12:57:28 AEDT - George Mansour Comments to Requestor

Hi Ian,

 

We are not in a position to sign any agreement as most of the Departments data 
is open, therefore under the Creative Commons License, you may use and 
distribute the data as you wish. The only requirement is acknowledgement to 
DELWP.

 

If you wish to add to the Vicmap Suite of products of require specific detail 
regarding Vicmap Data, please contact vicmap.h...@delwp.vic.gov.au 
 .

 

Regards,

George

 


Description


Received from: 

Email subject: OpenStreetMap DELWP data request

To: vicmap.h...@delwp.vic.gov.au  

EXTERNAL SENDER: Links and attachments may be unsafe.

 

Dear DELWP staff,

 

I wish to request an update to the permission and waiver that DELWP

provided to the OpenStreetMap project in 2018 (Ref: SRQ0062658) which

covered VicMap datasets. If your department agrees, we would like to extend

this permission to cover all of DELWP's open data that is available under

the Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license. The attached document contains more

details on the 2018 agreement and this request. Please contact me if you

require any further information.

 

Thank you for your assistance.

 

Ref:MSGE3393959

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

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

[osm.talk-au]

This is nonetheless correct mapping!

 

What you are seeing it the resulting impedance mismatch from using linear ways 
to map what on the ground are actually areas.

 

That sort segment at a sharp angle only exists for connectivity purposes. And 
the data makes perfect sense when seen in the context of all tagging around it.

 

Please look at this:

 

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/949539833217429524/unknown.png

 

as you can see from the dotted outer lines on that “connectivity” way, it’s 
tagged as placement=transition

 

That tells any data consumer that wants to care about it that the position of 
the way does not actually reflect a fixed relation to the area of the way.

 

>From the available data, a data consumer can derive the information that the 
>actual “per lane” connectivity and lane area follows the line that I drew in 
>red.

 

As I’ve said before. OSM is not a map. It’s a geospatial database. A data 
consumer that wants to draw a map is able to derive the necessary information 
from the totality of geometry and tags used.

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Saturday, 5 March 2022 15:04
To: Dian Ågesson 
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding 
intersections

 




 

On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 13:53, Dian Ågesson mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz> > wrote:

Hello,

Things have escalated somewhat: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118091243

Yeah, we now have the situation where turn left slip lanes have been mapped as 
sudden sharp angles, rather than gradual turns, which just looks wrong!

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=118091243#map=20/-38.04993/145.29852

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

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

Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

[osm.talk-au]

I really hadn't expected people here to have such delusions about some of the 
cornerstones of highway mapping in OSM which have been firmly established for 
over a decade.

To quote the wiki ( 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways
 ):

A divided highway (also separated highway) is any highway where traffic flows 
are physically separated by a barrier (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which 
prevents movements between said flows.

The concept of what constitutes "physical separation" has been very firmly 
established. And simply paint on the road surface isn't it. There are plenty of 
tags available to record information about legal restrictions imposed by paint. 
Splitting the way is not one of them.

Also, you somehow seem to be under the misconception that OSM (name 
notwithstanding) is a *map*. It's not. It's a database with geospatial 
information. 

When you are editing OSM, you are not drawing a map. You are recording 
geospatial information, abstracted by established tagging patterns. Some of the 
data consumers of that information, after picking, choosing, and interpreting 
while render a map derived from that information.

Cheers,
Thorsten

-Original Message-
From: cleary  
Sent: Saturday, 5 March 2022 09:38
To: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

Hello again Dian

If you cannot move left and a car to left of you cannot move right, then I 
would suggest you are physically separated.  It does not have to be a concrete 
barrier one metre high to be "physical separation". Try telling a police 
officer or a magistrate that the unbroken painted line did not really 
constitute a physical separation of ways.

The maxim is "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation". Undoubtedly 
an unbroken painted line on a roadway frequently constitutes "physical 
separation".  

If the community wants to change "physical separation" to something else, such 
as a barrier constructed of specified materials to a specified minimum height,  
then I plead for accuracy and usefulness of the map as guiding principles when 
considering any change to the guideline.

In regard to the statement that  '' ... would demand each lane to be drawn as a 
separate highway", I would say that nothing is "demanded".  Every map involves 
decisions about what is included and what is excluded. If we mapped every 
insignificant object, the map would be so cluttered that it would be useless. 
We do not usually map every individual tree in a forest. However in some 
instances individual trees are mapped, where useful. The creators of maps are 
always exercising judgement in what is included or omitted. Not every physical 
item in the world, including every strip of paint, "demands" to be mapped.  





On Sat, 5 Mar 2022, at 8:46 AM, Dian Ågesson wrote:
> Hi Cleary,
>
> Two points:
>
> Paint isn’t a barrier. Vehicles can, and do, traverse over paint; it’s 
> legal in many cases if there is a road blockage, for example. Being 
> unable to change lanes doesn’t make a single road into two roads. If I 
> can’t merge left then I’m not travelling on a different road than the 
> car next to me.
>
> Using legal separation to justify splitting the ways is also a poor 
> standard. At most traffic light intersections, you can’t change lanes 
> past a certain point.  The method you’re describing would demand each 
> lane to be drawn as a separate highway.
>
> Dian
>
>
>
> On 2022-03-05 07:44, cleary wrote:
>
>> 
>> Paint is physical. It can be seen. It is not just a psychological or 
>> imaginary concept.  If one is driving a motor vehicle and abiding by the law 
>> then, in my understanding, an unbroken painted line on the road is a 
>> physical barrier that cannot be traversed.
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022, at 10:55 PM, ianst...@iinet.net.au wrote: This 
>> query was triggered by the following comment in another thread,
>>> but I’ll start a new thread so as not to distract the original.
>>> 
>>> “  ’Don't split ways if there is no physical separation’ is one of 
>>> the core tenets of highway mapping in OSM.”
>>> 
>>> My query is about how to correctly map an intersection in Perth 
>>> while abiding by the above.  I will try to describe the situation as 
>>> best I can without being able to resort to a sketch:
>>> 
>>> - there is a junction between 2 major highways in Perth (Roe & 
>>> Tonkin
>>> Highways)
>>> - there is a slip road off one (Roe heading west) that merges with 
>>> the
>>> 2 lanes of the other (Tonkin heading south)
>>> - from the merge point there are 3 lanes (the slip lane + the 2 
>>> through
>>> lanes)
>>> - from the merge point, there is no physical barrier down to the 
>>> traffic lights at the next intersection (Hale Rd - which is quite 
>>> close – hundreds of metres)
>>> - however there is a solid white line between the slip lane and the 
>>> 2 continuing lanes – right to the next intersection
>>> - this 

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

[osm.talk-au]

***physically***

 

Legal lane change restrictions are tagged with change:lanes

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Saturday, 5 March 2022 08:58
To: Luke Stewart 
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding 
intersections

 

Looking back at the notes from the previous discussion & spotted this comment: 

"only split the way at the point where you can no longer physically change 
lanes."

Physically, or legally?

 

Looking at the    Princes 
Hwy/William Rd example, yes, there's only a painted line & island that you can 
physically cross, but that would mean doing an illegal lane change.

 

Are we supposed to worry about that, or not?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 at 19:57, Luke Stewart mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com> > wrote:

(forgot to x-post to talk-au)

Hi,

 

The standard rule and the way that I map is to only begin a new way if there is 
some form a physical separation, so extra turning ways which can be completed 
with a box but are modelled as curves aren't following this rule (same goes for 
ways that start when lanes start rather than branching off where the physical 
separation begins).

 

Whilst there are arguments like "it looks better" or "helps with 
routing/direction finding/navigation", these are not reasons to break osm, 
rather to improve software.

 

In the case of the   
Princes Hwy/William Rd intersection, the residential road should be drawn 
straight through the intersection, with the right turn lane specified with keys 
such as turn:lanes and change:lanes.

 

As for how to resolve with this user, probably affirming a regional consensus 
would be most convincing.

 

Cheers,

Luke

___
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] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

[osm.talk-au]

change:lanes=* can represent that solid line. While that would implicitly 
define the inability to turn right, it can in addition be made explicit using a 
turn restriction relation with ways as via, specifically:



type=restriction

restriction=no_turn_right
from: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/670700854

via: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/382839842

via: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/670682584

via: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/574613452

via: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/670674733

via: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/574613451

to: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/770019512

 

 

 

From: nwastra  
Sent: Friday, 4 March 2022 22:12
To: ianst...@iinet.net.au
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

 

Here is the osm location

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-31.9881/115.9857





On 4 Mar 2022, at 9:59 pm, ianst...@iinet.net.au  
 wrote:



This query was triggered by the following comment in another thread, but I’ll 
start a new thread so as not to distract the original.

 

“  ’Don't split ways if there is no physical separation’ is one of the core 
tenets of highway mapping in OSM.”

 

My query is about how to correctly map an intersection in Perth while abiding 
by the above.  I will try to describe the situation as best I can without being 
able to resort to a sketch:

 

- there is a junction between 2 major highways in Perth (Roe & Tonkin Highways)

- there is a slip road off one (Roe heading west) that merges with the 2 lanes 
of the other (Tonkin heading south)

- from the merge point there are 3 lanes (the slip lane + the 2 through lanes)

- from the merge point, there is no physical barrier down to the traffic lights 
at the next intersection (Hale Rd - which is quite close – hundreds of metres)

- however there is a solid white line between the slip lane and the 2 
continuing lanes – right to the next intersection

- this means you cannot legally come off the slip lane and turn right at the 
next intersection (Hale Rd) because you cannot legally cross the solid white 
line

 

This has currently been mapped “as normal”, ie 1 slip lane joining a 2 lane 
road, becoming 3 lanes after the merge point.

 

Other than maintaining the slip road as a separate way right to the next 
intersection (with a no right turn), how else would this be mapped so people 
coming off the slip road cannot turn right at the next intersection?

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

[osm.talk-au]

I have to disagree with you here in the strongest possible terms.

"Don't split ways if there is no physical separation" is one of the core tenets 
of highway mapping in OSM.

The ways as mapped in this case are simply and unarguably outright wrong, 
because they imply a physical separate that does not exist on the ground.

-Original Message-
From: cleary  
Sent: Friday, 4 March 2022 17:37
To: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding 
intersections

I am not familiar with particular intersections and my mapping of urban 
intersections is limited. However I just looked at satellite imagery for three 
of the identified intersections and the current mapping seems to be an accurate 
reflection of what is on the ground.  While guidelines can be very influential, 
they rarely accommodate all the variations of objects in the real world.  If 
the maps are accurate and do not mislead anyone, I would support them staying 
as they are.  However, if they are inaccurate or misleading then they should be 
made accurate. Conformity with the guidelines is, in my view, secondary to 
accuracy.  In the longer term, the guidelines might need modification or 
clarification that there might be exceptions.


On Fri, 4 Mar 2022, at 4:30 PM, Dian Ågesson wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> I'd like some assistance resolving a disagreement I'm involved with 
> regarding the correct mapping of dual carriageways at intersections. I 
> have previously mentioned this topic on the mailing list here:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-September/01496
> 8.html 
> .
>
> To summarise briefly, a very active contributor prefers to model dual 
> carriageway intersections in a manner that I don't believe is correct.
>
> Turn lanes are split from main carriageways at the start of the new 
> turn lane, then cross over each other in an "X" shape, rather than a 
> Box shape that I've seen documented. (Examples, because I am bad at
> explaining: Burwood Hwy/Mountain Hwy
> , Smith St/Dandenong Rd 
> , Burwood 
> Hwy/Dorset Rd ,
> Princes Hwy/William Rd
> ) Additional 
> highways are introduced for left hand turns where there is no physical 
> separation (eg, Mt Dandenong Tourist Rd/Mountain Highway 
> , Greville St 
> N/Sturt St ,
> Glenleith St/Church St
> ). This editor has 
> been an extremely active contributor for many, many years: I found 
> these examples by just zooming in on a given town or suburb, found 
> intersection that was modelled this way, and checked the history to 
> confirm the source.
>
> I initially engaged with the user in September (111051481 
> ), and after some 
> initial delay, we have engaged in a productive conversation 
>  mmented> since. To the user's credit, they have been patient and 
> understanding in our interactions, and have made adjustments to their 
> mapping style based on my feedback. Unfortunately, we have reached a 
> fundamental point of disagreement 
> , and I don't 
> believe further changeset discussions are going to be productive.
>
> I'm now a little too close to this discussion to be objective, and I 
> would really appreciate some assistance with this disagreement. Due to 
> the extraordinary output of this user, simply avoiding editing in 
> similar areas isn't going to be practical. But am I incorrect in my 
> assessment of intersection modelling? Is this a question of style, or 
> of accuracy?
>
> Kind Regards,
> Dian.
>
> ___
> 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] Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

[osm.talk-au]

I’m in agreement with you that this is not the correct, widely accepted, way of 
mapping these intersections.

 

Ways should only split at the start of physical separations. Intersections of 
dual carriage ways should result in a # like pattern. Turn lanes without 
physical separation should be mapped using appropriate :lanes tags.

 

To give counterexamples of what I think are correctly mapped intersections:

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-27.24256/153.02079

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-27.24173/153.02469

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-27.23018/153.02236

 

 

From: Dian Ågesson  
Sent: Friday, 4 March 2022 15:31
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: [talk-au] Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

 

Hello,

I'd like some assistance resolving a disagreement I'm involved with regarding 
the correct mapping of dual carriageways at intersections. I have previously 
mentioned this topic on the mailing list here: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-September/014968.html 
 
.

To summarise briefly, a very active contributor prefers to model dual 
carriageway intersections in a manner that I don't believe is correct.

Turn lanes are split from main carriageways at the start of the new turn lane, 
then cross over each other in an "X" shape, rather than a Box shape that I've 
seen documented. (Examples, because I am bad at explaining: Burwood 
Hwy/Mountain Hwy  , Smith 
St/Dandenong Rd  , 
Burwood Hwy/Dorset Rd  , 
Princes Hwy/William Rd  ) 
Additional highways are introduced for left hand turns where there is no 
physical separation (eg, Mt Dandenong Tourist Rd/Mountain Highway 
 , Greville St N/Sturt St 
 , Glenleith St/Church St 
 ). This editor has been an 
extremely active contributor for many, many years: I found these examples by 
just zooming in on a given town or suburb, found intersection that was modelled 
this way, and checked the history to confirm the source.

I initially engaged with the user in September (111051481 
 ), and after some initial 
delay, we have engaged in a productive conversation 
  
since. To the user's credit, they have been patient and understanding in our 
interactions, and have made adjustments to their mapping style based on my 
feedback. Unfortunately, we have reached a fundamental point of disagreement 
 , and I don't believe 
further changeset discussions are going to be productive.

I'm now a little too close to this discussion to be objective, and I would 
really appreciate some assistance with this disagreement. Due to the 
extraordinary output of this user, simply avoiding editing in similar areas 
isn't going to be practical. But am I incorrect in my assessment of 
intersection modelling? Is this a question of style, or of accuracy?

Kind Regards,
Dian.

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

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

[osm.talk-au]

As I said before, I don't think I'm qualified to decide what exactly, if 
anything of his changes to keep or not. So my plan was to just revert it all 
and then invite him to discuss his changes here first and he can redo whatever 
finds general approval.

To facilitate that, I've committed a few key versions of the wiki source of the 
ATG into git:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/948193462963015700/unknown.png
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/558999688670609448/948929961580986418/unknown.png

then branched from the oldest one, and cherry picked the changes not from 
Aaronsta

The result, which I've attached to his message, should contain the up to date 
source of the ATG wiki page, with only the changes made by Aaronsta reverted, 
while preserving changes made by everyone else.

At this point, reverting Aaronsta's changes, and only his, should be as easy as 
editing the ATG page and pasting the contents of the attached atg.txt as new 
source for the whole page.

Cheers,
Thorsten

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  
Sent: Thursday, 3 March 2022 20:37
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Cc: Graeme Fitzpatrick ; Dian Ã?gesson 
; OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Anyone mind if I tidy the wiki a bit?

Hi OSM community

Regarding the case of Aaronsta's edits.
I have been unsuccessful for the last week in contacting Aaron.
The DWG has placed a zero hour block on Aaron's account Aaron has not accessed 
his account for the last two days and has not read the block information.

Thorsten, for the community's benefit, can you please detail your planned roll 
back of Aaron's wiki edits. I presume the community will support your plans, if 
they do please action them.

Thanks
Tony

__
> Hi Aaron
>
> My sincere thanks on behalf of the Australian Open Street Map 
> community for your many contributions to the map.
>
> Unfortunately, there is some dissatisfaction in the Australian Open 
> Street Map community with some of your larger edits including wiki 
> changes on bikes and paths and the deletion of the Perth bike route 
> network.
>
> We ask you to seek consensus from the community before making large 
> changes, particularly changes which reverse prior understandings and 
> are large in scope.
>
> Your changes to the wiki on bikes and paths are a particular issue in 
> this letter. We propose a six step process in reverting the Australian 
> Tagging Guidelines to community understandings of tagging practice.
>
>  1 get community support from talk-au for this process
>  2 Contact Aaron and get his agreement
>  3 Thorsten rolls back the wiki to an agreed state
>  4 Dian tidies up the wiki
>  5 Aaron does not edit the wiki until Dian has finished
>  6 we do not call for DWG intervention unless a party will not follow 
> the agreed process
>
> We are at step 2. It is important that we know you have read this 
> letter. Please reply by changeset comment or better by a post to 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/
>
> This is your opportunity to put your case. There is a lot of 
> discussion on talk-au regarding your edits. I suggest you read it and respond.
> Please let us know whether you agree with the 6 step process and if 
> you do not agree, your reasons.
>
> Thanks
> Tony Forster
>
> __
>> Yep, great plan.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 05:28,  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>> Can I suggest the following
>>>
>>> 1 get community support from talk au for this process
>>> 2 Contact Aaron and get his agreement
>>> 3 Thorsten rolls back the wiki to an agreed state
>>> 4 Dian tidys up the wiki
>>> 5 Aaron does not edit the wiki until Dian has finished
>>> 6 we do not call for DWG intervention unless a party will not follow 
>>> the agreed process
>>>
>>> Tony
>>




{{Australia/Tabs}}
{{Cleanup|[https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-February/015855.html
 See talk_au mailing list discussion]}}

The following guidelines are an attempt to document the result of discussions 
that have taken place on the Australian mailing list, and that become common 
practice in OSM mapping in Australia.  If you would like to comment, please 
join the mailing 
[https://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au list] and 
discuss there.

== Australia’s First People ==

===Cultural Sensitivity  - a word of caution...===

When editing Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander place names, editors need to 
be respectful of the community, their language and their wishes. Australia has 
a vast number of Indigenous communities, countries and nations and there is not 
one clear broad statement about what can and cannot be published. Some nations 
are more open to rendering names than others and editors should respect their 
decisions. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples 

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

[osm.talk-au]

Just to make this clear:

I'm not really sure I'm qualified to pick and choose on my own what among his 
changes is acceptable or not. That's the whole issue with them, there are 
extensive changes, some of which replace previous specified tagging with 
fundamental different one, and none of them have in any way be discussed.

There may well be parts of his changes that are fine, but I can't just make 
that determination on my own. That's that same as him just making the changes 
undiscussed in the first place.

I can probably using the history figure out what the source of the page should 
look like without any of his changes, if that's what's meant with "agreed 
state".

Cheers,
Thorsten

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  
Sent: Wednesday, 23 February 2022 05:26
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au; Dian Ã?gesson 
Cc: 'OSM Australian Talk List' 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Anyone mind if I tidy the wiki a bit?

Hi all
Can I suggest the following

1 get community support from talk au for this process
2 Contact Aaron and get his agreement
3 Thorsten rolls back the wiki to an agreed state
4 Dian tidys up the wiki
5 Aaron does not edit the wiki until Dian has finished
6 we do not call for DWG intervention unless a party will not follow the agreed 
process

Tony
Quoting osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au:

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







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

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

[osm.talk-au]

I very much doubt anyone actually looked at these when the fixmes were added 
and it was an automated edit that just looked for highway/water crossings 
without tags.

 

From: Ewen Hill  
Sent: Wednesday, 23 February 2022 12:59
To: OSM-Au 
Subject: [talk-au] 2377 occurrences of fixme="unknown type of water crossing"

 

Hi, 

  A lot of you may have seen and fixed a node on a road adjacent to a stream 
with a single key of fixme="unknown type of water crossing", what I didn't 
realise until I ran an overpass 

   query was that there were 2377 of these fixme remaining in Australia and 
they were all added by a single organisation.  

 

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

 


Row Labels

Count of @version


1

1649


2

604


3

104


4

12


5

5


6

1


7

1


13

1

 

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

 

Any thoughts?

 

Ewen

 

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

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

[osm.talk-au]

Well, rearranging and editing, on top of the questionable edits that are 
currently on top of the stack of revisions, will cement these changes and make 
it harder to revert them.

 

Some of the changes have completely replaced what previously was listed as 
correct tagging practice with something totally different.

 

From: Dian Ågesson  
Sent: Wednesday, 23 February 2022 03:04
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Cc: 'OSM Australian Talk List' 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Anyone mind if I tidy the wiki a bit?

 

Hey Thorsten,

While I don’t intend to simply rearrange sections verbatim, I want to focus on 
tidying, copy editing for spelling/grammar, and consolidating rather than 
making editorial decisions.

As Andrew suggested, I will reach out if there is something egregiously 
incorrect or contradictory, but I’m not intending to validate the entire wiki 
for correctness: I feel as though that would be beyond the remit of “tidying”. 

More than happy to work with simultaneous updates and additions though—I don’t 
think it’s a task that can be done in one edit!

Dian

On 2022-02-22 18:54, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
  wrote:

If you do, please make sure to not just incorporate the recent undiscussed, 
subjective, if not outright wrong changes by Aaronsta.

 

From: Dian Ågesson mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz> > 
Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2022 17:00
To: OSM Australian Talk List mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: [talk-au] Anyone mind if I tidy the wiki a bit?

 

Hello,

The wiki contains loads of really good information, but it's a little bit hard 
to navigate: the Australian Tagging Guidelines page seems to contain the most 
current information but is getting very long. There are a lot of state-specific 
articles that don't seem to have been updated since 2009.

I'd like to do a bit of housekeeping: tidy up some of the sections, mark some 
of the pages as archived, etc, to try and make it more approachable for newbies 
and more maintainable. Nothing substantive would change, nothing would be 
deleted. Does anyone have any objections, thoughts or concerns with regard to 
this?

 

dian

 

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org  
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] Anyone mind if I tidy the wiki a bit?

[osm.talk-au]

If you do, please make sure to not just incorporate the recent undiscussed, 
subjective, if not outright wrong changes by Aaronsta.

 

From: Dian Ågesson  
Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2022 17:00
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: [talk-au] Anyone mind if I tidy the wiki a bit?

 

Hello,

The wiki contains loads of really good information, but it's a little bit hard 
to navigate: the Australian Tagging Guidelines page seems to contain the most 
current information but is getting very long. There are a lot of state-specific 
articles that don't seem to have been updated since 2009.

I'd like to do a bit of housekeeping: tidy up some of the sections, mark some 
of the pages as archived, etc, to try and make it more approachable for newbies 
and more maintainable. Nothing substantive would change, nothing would be 
deleted. Does anyone have any objections, thoughts or concerns with regard to 
this?

 

dian

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

Re: [talk-au] Sidewalks as "Path" when bicycles allowed? was: OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta

[osm.talk-au]

No it’s not. And I’m pretty sure it didn’t say that on the ATGs before he 
vandalised them.

 

From: Dian Ågesson  
Sent: Monday, 21 February 2022 19:18
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Sidewalks as "Path" when bicycles allowed? was: OpenStreetMap Wiki 
page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta

 

Hello,

I noticed in these changes that the Australian tagging guidelines have included 
this note about footpaths (sidewalks) in jurisdictions where cycling is allowed.

"


On all shared use paths which can be used by both pedestrians and cyclists.
*Cycling is permitted on footpaths in ACT, NT, QLD, SA, Tas., and WA, and 
highway  =path 
  should be used in 
general circumstances. Refer to highway 
 =path 
  for further guidance 
on which supporting tags to use.

Is this accepted practice? To be this doesn't seem like a good idea:  it seems 
like the same problem as explicitly tagging sidewalks as bicycle=no; if there 
is any change in legislation the tags won't make sense?

Dian

On 2022-02-13 21:11, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
  wrote:

That's not what happened here. See these examples:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/941255156085948466
/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/941255208787386428
/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/941255284171624489
/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/941255349749547018
/unknown.png

He simply indiscriminately removed all source tags from any loaded (into
JOSM) object, even though he didn't touch these in any way. No tag changes
(outside of deleting the source tags), no geometry changes.

-Original Message-
From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com  > 
Sent: Sunday, 13 February 2022 18:57
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org  
Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines
has been changed by Aaronsta


On 13/2/22 14:18, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
  wrote: 

There is also that he seems to be deleting all source tags on any loaded

objects with many of his changesets. 


I wrote a changeset comment on one of the changesets that do that,



When I make a change I delete the source tag when I'm using a different
source.

The new source can be seen on the changeset. The past source/s can be seen
using the history.


If there are no changes then there should be no change to any of the 
existing tags - source or otherwise.


___
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] train tour

[osm.talk-au]

This came up recently in #oceania on the OpenStreetMap World Discord, and
after looking at it and some contemplate we came to the conclusion that yes,
these are actual routes operating their own trains with multiple scheduled
services, so they should be mapped.

-Original Message-
From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Sunday, 20 February 2022 10:11
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: [talk-au] train tour

Hi,


Someone is mapping a 'train tour' into OSM.

Should such things be mapped?


See https://openstreetmap.org/relation/13806704 - note incomplete as yet.


Humm they have mapped a few of them and they appear to be 'regular' 
services - not one offs as I thought.


https://vintagerailjourneys.com.au


Their route entries don't appear to conform to the 'rules' PTV1 of PTV2...


Any comments or thoughts?



___
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 - Node relocation

[osm.talk-au]

Well, it was showing for me too like in the screenshot when I looked at it at 
first.

 

But as I said, a Ctrl+F5 fixed that.

 

(Lisa, the technical explanation below isn’t really important to you)

 

Now, in this case, because I never looked at that area before, it can’t have 
been my local cache in the browser that was the problem.

 

Ctrl+F5 (instead of just F5) doesn’t just invalidate the cache in the local 
browser, it afterwards sends the requests to reload the data with a “do not 
cache” flag set in the HTTP header, this will in turn force the CDN to not just 
take the tile out of it’s cache but to go back to the actual render server to 
request an updated image.

 

This is exactly why I keep telling people to use Ctrl+F5 (instead of e.g. 
simply turning off caching in their browser, which wouldn’t cause the “do not 
cache” flag on requests to the CDN.

 

Also, in this case a single Ctrl+F5 directly loaded the updated tile, but 
sometimes you have to do it multiple times. The reason why it updated directly 
this time is because the render server already had the new tile rendered, so 
could hand it out directly. But if the render server gets a request for a tile 
that’s “dirty” (needs to be re-rendered) it will still return the dirty tile, 
but will either queue up the rendering of it or possibly push it up the queue 
if it already is queued for rendering. In that case it takes at least one 
additional request after the tile has been rendered to update the tile in the 
browser.

 

From: Stéphane Guillou via Talk-au  
Sent: Friday, 18 February 2022 14:35
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Cc: Stéphane Guillou 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Help - Node relocation

 

Hi Lisa

The tiles (i.e. the rendered images shown on openstreetmap.org) take a while to 
be updated, sometimes a couple of days. It is not immediate.

I assume that that's the issue here?

For example, I just removed a shop that closed down: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117545570

However, on the map, it still shows (at the time of writing): 



Note that I turned on the "layers > map data" option, which shows in blue the 
existing data in the database. As you can see, the database does not include 
the shop Campus News anymore, but it is still shown on the tile.

So if that's the issue, the image should update in the next few hours or days!

Cheers

On 18/2/22 14:16, Lisa wrote:

Thank you for such a quick response :)

 

When I go into Edit mode the old node that needs to be removed isn't 
displaying, but when I am not in edit mode I can see it?

Am I using the wrong method of editing it?

Or do I need to do something else?

 

TIA, Lisa

 

 

On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 2:59 PM stevea mailto:stevea...@softworkers.com> > wrote:

On Feb 17, 2022, at 7:51 PM, Lisa mailto:lisalatha...@gmail.com> > wrote:
(a question)

Hi Lisa:  I'm assuming you are using the iD editor.  It seems you know the 
difference between the new node being correct and the old node "needing to go," 
you can click on a node and delete it like this:

Select the node with a single click,
Press and hold until a pop-right menu toggles off (usually to the right, might 
be to the left), let go of the mouse button,
Slide your finger pointer down to the bottom icon, the trash can icon, and when 
hovered over it, click.

You just deleted the node.

Happy mapping!





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

-- 
Stéphane Guillou
http://stragu.gitlab.io/
 
You can encrypt our communications by using OpenPGP. My public key 4E211060 is 
available on the keys.gnupg.net server.
 
Other ways to interact with me are listed on my contact page: 
http://stragu.gitlab.io/contact/
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Help - Node relocation

[osm.talk-au]

The edit mode shows the data as it exists in the database at that moment. So if 
the node disappears when you go into edit mode, then everything is correct in 
the database and you don’t need to do anything there anymore.

 

The map view outside the editor is not updated in realtime, it can take various 
amounts of time (from seconds to days, depending on zoom level and how busy the 
render servers are) for the new tile to get rendered.

 

In your case I assume the problem is actually that your browser or something 
else between your eyes and the render server is still caching the old tile.

 

You can try Cltr+F5 (repeat 2-3 times if necessary) to force your browser to 
update it’s cache and see if that helps.

 

From: Lisa  
Sent: Friday, 18 February 2022 14:16
To: stevea 
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Help - Node relocation

 

Thank you for such a quick response :)

 

When I go into Edit mode the old node that needs to be removed isn't 
displaying, but when I am not in edit mode I can see it?

Am I using the wrong method of editing it?

Or do I need to do something else?

 

TIA, Lisa

 

 

On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 2:59 PM stevea mailto:stevea...@softworkers.com> > wrote:

On Feb 17, 2022, at 7:51 PM, Lisa mailto:lisalatha...@gmail.com> > wrote:
(a question)

Hi Lisa:  I'm assuming you are using the iD editor.  It seems you know the 
difference between the new node being correct and the old node "needing to go," 
you can click on a node and delete it like this:

Select the node with a single click,
Press and hold until a pop-right menu toggles off (usually to the right, might 
be to the left), let go of the mouse button,
Slide your finger pointer down to the bottom icon, the trash can icon, and when 
hovered over it, click.

You just deleted the node.

Happy mapping!

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

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta

[osm.talk-au]

There is also that he seems to be deleting all source tags on any loaded 
objects with many of his changesets.

I wrote a changeset comment on one of the changesets that do that, to which he 
has simply not replied. (My changeset comments about that and the PBN have been 
made at the same time, he replied to the later, not the former).

This is exactly the behaviour that earned him a block and a mass revert of 
scores of changesets 5 years ago. (See my link to the talk-au archive with 
posts about that earlier in this discussion).

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  
Sent: Sunday, 13 February 2022 10:37
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines 
has been changed by Aaronsta

Graeme

Yes, he has made big changes to the documentation and the map. The same 2 
issues apply to both, some of the changes are contrary to community 
expectations and changes of such scale should be made after consultation. I 
believe he is acting in good faith but his balance between contribution and 
consultation is badly out.

The issue for us is to explain to him what the expectations are for 
consultation without alienating him.

Tony
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 at 09:55, Sam Wilson  wrote:
>
>>
>> The other thing that occurs to me about this discussion is that 
>> aaronsta is not actually subscribed to this list — does anyone 
>> know? I might leave a comment on the changeset instead...
>>
>
> Not having a go at you blokes interested in the bike routes :-), but 
> the whole conversation started because Aaronsta made massive changes 
> to how bikeways etc are written up on the Guidelines!
>
> I don't know about anywhere else, but he has changed them to say that 
> cycling on footpaths is illegal in Qld, which is totally wrong!
>
>  Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> _
> 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 mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta

[osm.talk-au]

Well, he has answered a changeset comment:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116656873

I'll leave it to the WA OSM community if that's a valid reason to simply delete 
a whole bunch of routes for which there definitely are signs on the ground, and 
what to do about it.

-Original Message-
From: Michael Collinson  
Sent: Thursday, 10 February 2022 17:36
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines 
has been changed by Aaronsta

Seems to have it in for Perth cyclists:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116655265#map=12/-32.0362/115.8349

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117224600

Not from Perth so can't judge correctness but it doesn't look right.


On 2022-02-10 18:13, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
>
> Probably
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/aaronsta
>
>  Who is Aaronsta?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Is it anyone participating in this mailing list?
>>
>>
>>
>> Have any of these changes been discussed somewhere?
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Tagging_G
>> uidelines 
>> > Guidelines=revision=2262794=2250661>
>> =revision=2262794=2250661 (ignore the street cabinet 
>> stuff at the bottom, that’s from someone else)
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Thorsten
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
>> Sent: Thursday, 10 February 2022 08:41
>> To: OSM-Au 
>> Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging 
>> Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 at 22:35, OpenStreetMap Wiki 
>> >  > wrote:
>>
>>
>> The OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been 
>> changed on 9 February 2022 by Aaronsta, see 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines for 
>> the current revision.
>>
>> Editor's summary: Fix undiscussed changes
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry but that's a bit ironic, or did I miss the discussion about 
>> these changes?
>>
>>
>>
>> One I noticed is that you've taken it upon yourself to include:
>>
>> "Cycling is not permitted on footpaths in NSW, QLD, or Vic."
>>
>>
>>
>> Would you like to share this with Qld Transport?
>>
>> https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/wheeled-devices/bicycle
>>
>>
>> Riding on a footpath or shared path
>>
>>
>> On footpaths and shared paths, you share the space with pedestrians.
>>
>> You must:
>>
>> *keep left and give way to all pedestrians
>> *always ride to the left of bicycle riders coming toward you.
>>
>> Looks like we may need a major reversion done here?
>>
>>
>>
>> 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] Aust. Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)

[osm.talk-au]

I guess the source of the tagging information might be from the operators
website or such instead of someone having seen a sign on the ground.

 

From: ianst...@iinet.net.au  
Sent: Thursday, 10 February 2022 23:16
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Aust. Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)

 

Message: 2

Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:26:38 +1100

From: "Phil Wyatt" mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> >

To: mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Aust. Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)

Message-ID: <007601d81e0c$7f095af0$7d1c10d0$@wyatt-family.com
 >

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

 

>Hi Folks,

>Thanks for the great discussion on this issue. I have tried to summarise
the discussion and it seems like there is some consensus around the
following tagging

>hiking_scale:awtgs= as the general tag for the grade of the WHOLE track as
that is what is detailed in the AWTGS guidelines 

>and

>source:hiking_scale:awtgs= for the source of the data with values such as

>*   source:hiking_scale:awtgs=user  - Where a user has defined the
grading

>*   source:hiking_scale:awtgs=operator  - Where the grading has
been applied by the operator of the track (and the operator should also be
applied to the track)

>*   source:hiking_scale:awtgs=as_signed  - Where the data has come
from a sign located at the start of the track

>There has also been some discussion on sections of track being graded as
well. I think this needs further work as it doesn?t seem to match the
guidelines and may also depend on how operators have defined the tracks >ie
Is the Larapinta ?Track? all graded the same or are ?sections? rated
differently? I know in the case of Tasmania the Overland Track that PWS has
a single grading for the whole track but some other websites have >graded
each ?section/days travel?.

>There also needs to some further clarification if this goes on the ways or
relations in regards to longer defined tracks with relations.

>If we are close then I reckon an updated wiki with these values on both

>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australia/Walking_Tracks and

>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Bush_Walk
ing_and_Cycling_Tracks

>Cheers - Phil

 

That sounds great to me Phil (nearly ready for me to reapply my deleted
tags).  

However, I'm not sure I understand the difference between your suggested
sources "operator" and "as_signed".  I suggested "as-signed", but surely the
operator is the body that installs the signs - so wouldn't they normally
mean the same thing ?

regards

Ian

 

 

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

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta

[osm.talk-au]

Seems that's not the first time they've done that:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2016-June/010953.html



-Original Message-
From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au  
Sent: Thursday, 10 February 2022 18:06
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines 
has been changed by Aaronsta

Also seems to be zealously removing source tags: 
https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=117189529

-Original Message-
From: Michael Collinson 
Sent: Thursday, 10 February 2022 17:36
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines 
has been changed by Aaronsta

Seems to have it in for Perth cyclists:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116655265#map=12/-32.0362/115.8349

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117224600

Not from Perth so can't judge correctness but it doesn't look right.


On 2022-02-10 18:13, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
>
> Probably
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/aaronsta
>
>  Who is Aaronsta?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Is it anyone participating in this mailing list?
>>
>>
>>
>> Have any of these changes been discussed somewhere?
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Tagging_G
>> uidelines
>> > Guidelines=revision=2262794=2250661>
>> =revision=2262794=2250661 (ignore the street cabinet 
>> stuff at the bottom, that’s from someone else)
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Thorsten
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
>> Sent: Thursday, 10 February 2022 08:41
>> To: OSM-Au 
>> Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging 
>> Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 at 22:35, OpenStreetMap Wiki 
>> >  > wrote:
>>
>>
>> The OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been 
>> changed on 9 February 2022 by Aaronsta, see 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines for 
>> the current revision.
>>
>> Editor's summary: Fix undiscussed changes
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry but that's a bit ironic, or did I miss the discussion about 
>> these changes?
>>
>>
>>
>> One I noticed is that you've taken it upon yourself to include:
>>
>> "Cycling is not permitted on footpaths in NSW, QLD, or Vic."
>>
>>
>>
>> Would you like to share this with Qld Transport?
>>
>> https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/wheeled-devices/bicycle
>>
>>
>> Riding on a footpath or shared path
>>
>>
>> On footpaths and shared paths, you share the space with pedestrians.
>>
>> You must:
>>
>> *keep left and give way to all pedestrians
>> *always ride to the left of bicycle riders coming toward you.
>>
>> Looks like we may need a major reversion done here?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



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



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

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta

[osm.talk-au]

Also seems to be zealously removing source tags: 
https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=117189529

-Original Message-
From: Michael Collinson  
Sent: Thursday, 10 February 2022 17:36
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines 
has been changed by Aaronsta

Seems to have it in for Perth cyclists:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116655265#map=12/-32.0362/115.8349

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117224600

Not from Perth so can't judge correctness but it doesn't look right.


On 2022-02-10 18:13, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
>
> Probably
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/aaronsta
>
>  Who is Aaronsta?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Is it anyone participating in this mailing list?
>>
>>
>>
>> Have any of these changes been discussed somewhere?
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Tagging_G
>> uidelines 
>> > Guidelines=revision=2262794=2250661>
>> =revision=2262794=2250661 (ignore the street cabinet 
>> stuff at the bottom, that’s from someone else)
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Thorsten
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
>> Sent: Thursday, 10 February 2022 08:41
>> To: OSM-Au 
>> Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging 
>> Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 at 22:35, OpenStreetMap Wiki 
>> >  > wrote:
>>
>>
>> The OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been 
>> changed on 9 February 2022 by Aaronsta, see 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines for 
>> the current revision.
>>
>> Editor's summary: Fix undiscussed changes
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry but that's a bit ironic, or did I miss the discussion about 
>> these changes?
>>
>>
>>
>> One I noticed is that you've taken it upon yourself to include:
>>
>> "Cycling is not permitted on footpaths in NSW, QLD, or Vic."
>>
>>
>>
>> Would you like to share this with Qld Transport?
>>
>> https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/wheeled-devices/bicycle
>>
>>
>> Riding on a footpath or shared path
>>
>>
>> On footpaths and shared paths, you share the space with pedestrians.
>>
>> You must:
>>
>> *keep left and give way to all pedestrians
>> *always ride to the left of bicycle riders coming toward you.
>>
>> Looks like we may need a major reversion done here?
>>
>>
>>
>> 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] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta

[osm.talk-au]

Seeing the large number of changes to the ATG being made in the last 2 days by 
Aaronsta  , I got some 
questions.

 

Who is Aaronsta? 

Is it anyone participating in this mailing list?

 

Have any of these changes been discussed somewhere?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Tagging_Guidelines 

 =revision=2262794=2250661 (ignore the street cabinet stuff at 
the bottom, that’s from someone else)

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Thursday, 10 February 2022 08:41
To: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines 
has been changed by Aaronsta

 




 

 

 

On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 at 22:35, OpenStreetMap Wiki mailto:w...@noreply.openstreetmap.org> > wrote:


The OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been
changed on 9 February 2022 by Aaronsta, see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines for
the current revision. 

Editor's summary: Fix undiscussed changes 

 

Sorry but that's a bit ironic, or did I miss the discussion about these changes?

 

One I noticed is that you've taken it upon yourself to include:

"Cycling is not permitted on footpaths in NSW, QLD, or Vic." 

 

Would you like to share this with Qld Transport?

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/wheeled-devices/bicycle


Riding on a footpath or shared path


On footpaths and shared paths, you share the space with pedestrians.

You must:

*   keep left and give way to all pedestrians
*   always ride to the left of bicycle riders coming toward you.

Looks like we may need a major reversion done here?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Aust. Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)

[osm.talk-au]

The source tag should directly name the exact tag for which it specifies the
source, so it should be:

 

source:hiking_scale:awtgs=

 

From: Ian Steer  
Sent: Wednesday, 9 February 2022 15:19
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Aust. Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)

 

With regard to users applying a grade using this system, how about we use a
"source:grade=" tag?  Maybe if the AWTGS grade  has been sign-posted by the
trail manager (whoever that might be), it could be
"source:grade=as_signed"??  If a grade has been assigned by a user,
"source:grade=user" ??

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

Re: [talk-au] Aust. Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)

[osm.talk-au]

Maybe just awtgs=* for officially assigned values and awtgs:informal=* for when 
the mapper came up with it?

 

Or generally awtgs=*, but add a source:awtgs=official/”name of 
organisation”/informal ?

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Tuesday, 8 February 2022 11:30
To: Andrew Harvey 
Cc: Ian Steer ; OSM Australian Talk List 

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Aust. Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)

 




 

On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 at 09:50, Andrew Harvey mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I think either awtgs= or hiking_scale:awtgs= are fine, I'd say just pick one 
and start a wiki page describing the tag and how it's used.

 

Personally, I like awtgs=*.

 

As I raised before I'm still not sure about how it would apply to individual 
ways vs route relations and if it's only tagged based on officially assigned 
values or if mappers can evaluate and decide the value on their own.

 

Looking at those guidelines, it's up to each Council / Organisation to work out 
the value by the "worst" feature of any particular track, so I'd think we could 
do the same - follow the guidelines then designate this track as "Grade 3"?

 

 Thanks

 

Graeme

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

[osm.talk-au]

Well, the advantage of that approach, ***if it were supported by data 
consumers***, is that you could just classify your ways using some tag, and 
then have whatever consequences are of legislation apply to them. If the 
legislation changes, you just make the change to these default definitions, and 
they apply everywhere.

 

Whereas if you explicit tag the access (and whatever else) on each way, then:
a) you can’t tell if a certain access value on the way comes from general 
legislation, or from an explicit sign

b) if the legislation changes, you have to find and change all the ways that 
are affected, and at that time figure out a) because you can’t just blindly 
change all tags if there might be explicit signs in place.

 

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Friday, 4 February 2022 14:12
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

Thanks, both!

 

Yep, get's very messy very quickly :-(

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

[osm.talk-au]

def: can have conditions:

 

“def:highway=footway[walking_track=yes];access:bicycle”=no

 

(I’m not proposing this particular tagging scheme, this is just an example)

 

So if there is any tag on your walking track footways, or paths, or whatever 
that can be used to distinguish them, you could use that as a condition for the 
default value.

 

The issue with this is that we are now quickly moving into territory where it 
would be essential that these def tags are read and interpreted by data 
consumes for the data to make any sense… so that would be a problem.

 

It’s a difficult balancing act between “don’t tag local law” and “this is 
exactly the explicitly specified access for this way, even if it’s derived from 
local law instead of any physical signs or barriers”.

 

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Friday, 4 February 2022 09:06
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 




 

 

 

On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 at 19:32, mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote:

I assume these National parks where different rules are in effect have a 
boundary relation.

 

In which case it would be possible to either:

 

a) tag a def: directly on that boundary relation with the rules that apply
or (maybe better in this case)
b) create a type=defaults relation “Tasmania National Parks Defaults” with all 
the defaults that apply in national parks, then add that relation to any 
national park boundary relation where it applies as member with the role of 
defaults

(b) is basically following the defaults proposal exactly, and allows to define 
the defaults once and the re-use them for all national parks.

 

A problem with that would be that in a number of cases that I know of, you can 
ride a bike along the roads into the National Park, but you can't then take 
your bike onto the walking tracks, so a Park-wide default may not work?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

[osm.talk-au]

I assume these National parks where different rules are in effect have a 
boundary relation.

 

In which case it would be possible to either:

 

a) tag a def: directly on that boundary relation with the rules that apply
or (maybe better in this case)
b) create a type=defaults relation “Tasmania National Parks Defaults” with all 
the defaults that apply in national parks, then add that relation to any 
national park boundary relation where it applies as member with the role of 
defaults

(b) is basically following the defaults proposal exactly, and allows to define 
the defaults once and the re-use them for all national parks.

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

 

From: Phil Wyatt  
Sent: Thursday, 3 February 2022 18:38
To: 'Little Maps' ; 'OSM-Au' 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

I probably should have qualified my comment as I am dealing solely with tracks 
within National Parks (at this stage). I know there are tracks outside of 
National Parks where such bike restrictions do not apply.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Little Maps mailto:mapslit...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Thursday, 3 February 2022 7:19 PM
To: Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> >; OSM-Au 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

Hi all, thanks for a really informative discussion. I’m puzzled by the comments 
I’ve copied below. I’m uncertain when legislative defaults apply (and hence 
explicit access tagging isn’t required) and when tagging is needed. In the 
instance mentioned below, bicycle = no should not be added to urban footways in 
Vic as routers etc should work that out for themselves based on state 
legislation. (Or they could look at the entry in the state’s boundary relation, 
but it seems agreed that few data consumers do that). 

 

On bushwalking tracks in Tassie, bikes are banned on walking paths because 
they’re classed as vehicles. Again this is legislated and, as I interpreted the 
comments below, it’s suggested that data users should know this from 
legislation, and hence not need explicit access tags for bikes, unless access 
on a specific path deviates from the legislation.

 

However, bikes are allowed on footpaths (footways) in Tassie, so the same 
features (highway=footways) is, I assume, subject to 2 different legislations 
in the same state, depending on whether it’s an urban footpath or a bushwalking 
track. I’m curious how a data consumer / router would know which role a footway 
(or a path) was playing unless access restrictions were added to all? 
(Especially if it’s agree that few if any consumers use the National or state 
access guidelines, as was stated earlier). Isn’t it impossible for them to draw 
any conclusion unless tags are added? Or is the consensus that urban footpaths 
(footways) don’t need access tags but bush walking paths (footways) do?

 

Hope this make sense, thanks again, Ian

“ > Mmm, certainly bikes are banned on walking tracks (they are classified as 
vehicles in tas and need to stick to 'roads') (from Phil)
 
Hi. This sounds a bit like the issue a couple of months ago with the User who 
wanted to tag all footpaths in Victoria with bicycle=no and the community 
consensus was that it wasn't OSM's role to document legislation, the data 
consumers could worry about what to do with cyclists and footpaths and OSM 
would concentrate on ground truth. Tony. “
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

[osm.talk-au]

As I mentioned in my previous post, it’s extremely unlikely any data consumer 
is making use of that information.

 

But, there is, as far as I’m aware, no other attempt at defining expected 
defaults in the OSM database. 

 

That, despite the fact that, as can be seen at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions , 
pretty much every country has their own expectations of what the defaults are.

 

I think the best we can do is

a) Document the defaults we assume as part of the Australian Tagging Guidelines 
and also copy the relevant information into the table for Australia in the page 
linked above

b) Use the def: keys as described in the Defaults Proposal, either as that 
proposal envisioned on separate type=defaults relations, or as we are currently 
doing, directly on the boundary relations, to at least make an attempt at 
providing information about the assumed defaults in an easily machine readable 
format.

 

Without that, the current situation is that every data consumer has to figure 
something out on their own, for every country or just make general assumptions. 
And all mappers simply have to come up with their own ideas of what the 
defaults might be when they are deciding which values they are going to tag as 
“being different from defaults”.

 

Obviously, when, in lack of any authoritative source, the idea of what the 
defaults may be are different between individual mappers, and mappers and data 
consumers, the outcome is largely undefined and undefinable. Which is what the 
situation is right now.

 

 

From: Andy Townsend  
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 23:31
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

On 02/02/2022 11:36, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote:

On 2/2/22 21:45, Phil Wyatt wrote:



Is there somewhere to view those defaults for Tasmania? I assume its not 
usually editable by mappers?


See https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2369652

Specifically the tag: def:highway=footway;access:bicycle = yes

In OSM worldwide, that's only set for Australia:

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=def%3Ahighway%3Dfootway%3Baccess%3Abicycle#overview

Do any routers actually read that?

Best Regards,

Andy

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

[osm.talk-au]

I rarely map things that aren’t urban footpaths. 

 

So generally footway or cycleway. As I’m generally mapping in Queensland, where 
there isn’t much if any legal distinction between general footpath and a signed 
“shared path”, I’m using footway or cycleway depending on how cycle friendly 
(wide enough, no low hanging branches, smooth enough surface, …) I find the 
way, simply to get them to render differently in Carto, though the legal access 
restrictions for routing purposes are identical.

 

In the rare cases where I did map paths “in the woods”, I’ve usually used path 
(or track, depending…).

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

 

From: Phil Wyatt  
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 20:13
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au; 'OSM-Au' 
Subject: RE: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

So how do YOU decide which to use when the track is for ‘exclusively for foot 
traffic’ or do you just mix it up on a whim, change each week, go with whatever 
is similar around the object you are mapping?

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
  mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > 
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 8:58 PM
To: 'OSM-Au' mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

In the end, the only thing that counts is what is tagged on the objects in the 
database, and the OSM database API does not impose any restrictions about that.

 

I believe even iD allows you in the end to just freely specify any tags you 
like on any object?

 

I’m sure it’s possible to work out some tagging scheme that adequately 
describes the situation you linked to.

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> 
> 
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 17:29
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
 
Cc: OSM-Au mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

 

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 16:54, mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote:

As far as I’m concerned, footway, cycleway, path(, and bridleway) are all 
essentially the same thing, a non-motor_vehicle path, just with different 
implied default access restrictions.

 

We should probably have a discussion about how appropriate the ones listed here 
are:

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia

 

Yep!

 

How do we handle this: https://goo.gl/maps/x39C4ky1w6S7XoLUA when motorway says 
bicycle=no?

 

& similarly, you can't (at least in iD) add bike lanes to trunk roads.


 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

[osm.talk-au]

Tasmania: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2369652

There seems to be only a single default key defined for Tasmania currently:

 

"def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=yes

There are no default values defined on Australia: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/80500

 

Now, it’s worth pointing out that the proposal that this tagging scheme is 
based on:

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

 

a.  Never went through RFC or voting
b.  Envisions that the def tags are placed on a separate type=defaults 
relation which is then a member of role defaults of the boundary relation, 
instead of being applied directly to the boundary relation as we have done.

 

As such it is exceedingly unlikely that any type of data consumer is actually 
using them.

 

Nonetheless, that proposal represents the only attempt I’m aware of to actually 
define defaults inside the OSM database instead of simply throwing your hands 
up in the air and shout “Who knows? Whatever..”

 

So really, in reality, defaults are whatever the developer of every single data 
consumer decided.

 

Our choices come down to:

a) Just shrug and let all data consumers and mappers make up their mind on 
their own
b) At least attempt to somehow write down on the wiki what defaults mappers 
should assume, and data consumers hopefully accept
c) use (and extend use of) that somewhat unwieldy def: syntax to make our 
wishes in regards to defaults explicit in the database. It would at least allow 
us to point to it and say “see, we explicitly and in a machine readable form 
recorded our assumed defaults,” if any data consumer asks.

 

For the other states and territories, currently defined defaults are:

 

SA:   
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316596

 

"def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=yes

WA: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316598

 

"def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=yes

 

NT: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316594

 

"def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=yes

 

Qld: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316595

 

"def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=yes

 

NSW:   
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316593

 

"def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=no

"def:highway=living_street;maxspeed"=10

"def:highway=residential;maxspeed"=50

 

Vic: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316741

 

"def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=no

 

ACT: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2354197

 

"def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=yes

 

Jervis Bay Territory: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2357330

none

 

From: Phil Wyatt  
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 20:46
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au; 'OSM-Au' 
Subject: RE: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

Hi Thorsten,

 

Is there somewhere to view those defaults for Tasmania? I assume its not 
usually editable by mappers?

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From:   
osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au <  
osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> 
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 9:00 PM
To: 'OSM-Au' <  talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

That table is just the suggested defaults.

 

We actually have default values specified on the state boundaries currently I 
think using the format specified here:  
 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Defaults I think.

 

Any use of explicit access tags will override defaults.

 

There isn’t really a fully accepted way used by all data consumers to specify 
defaults in OSM currently.

 

So at the end, it really comes down to whatever defaults any particular data 
consumer applies.

 

As long as you explicitly tag access, any type of path, foot/cycle/bridle-way 
can be made to reflect whatever you want.

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick <  
graemefi...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 17:32
To: Phil Wyatt <  p...@wyatt-family.com>
Cc:   
osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au; OSM-Au <  
talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 




 

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 17:24, Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:

 

So reading from that chart and in regard to my query about ‘tracks that are 
exclusively for foot traffic’ you would say it can ONLY be a footway?

 

By that list, yes?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

[osm.talk-au]

That table is just the suggested defaults.

 

We actually have default values specified on the state boundaries currently I 
think using the format specified here: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Defaults I think.

 

Any use of explicit access tags will override defaults.

 

There isn’t really a fully accepted way used by all data consumers to specify 
defaults in OSM currently.

 

So at the end, it really comes down to whatever defaults any particular data 
consumer applies.

 

As long as you explicitly tag access, any type of path, foot/cycle/bridle-way 
can be made to reflect whatever you want.

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 17:32
To: Phil Wyatt 
Cc: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au; OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 




 

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 17:24, Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:

 

So reading from that chart and in regard to my query about ‘tracks that are 
exclusively for foot traffic’ you would say it can ONLY be a footway?

 

By that list, yes?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

[osm.talk-au]

In the end, the only thing that counts is what is tagged on the objects in the 
database, and the OSM database API does not impose any restrictions about that.

 

I believe even iD allows you in the end to just freely specify any tags you 
like on any object?

 

I’m sure it’s possible to work out some tagging scheme that adequately 
describes the situation you linked to.

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 17:29
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

 

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 16:54, mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote:

As far as I’m concerned, footway, cycleway, path(, and bridleway) are all 
essentially the same thing, a non-motor_vehicle path, just with different 
implied default access restrictions.

 

We should probably have a discussion about how appropriate the ones listed here 
are:

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia

 

Yep!

 

How do we handle this: https://goo.gl/maps/x39C4ky1w6S7XoLUA when motorway says 
bicycle=no?

 

& similarly, you can't (at least in iD) add bike lanes to trunk roads.


 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

[osm.talk-au]

It can be anything you want, as long as you add enough explicit access tags.

 

From: Phil Wyatt  
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 17:20
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au; 'OSM-Au' 
Subject: RE: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

Thanks Thorsten,

 

So reading from that chart and in regard to my query about 'tracks that are
exclusively for foot traffic' you would say it can ONLY be a footway?

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au

mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > 
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 5:51 PM
To: 'OSM-Au' mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

As far as I'm concerned, footway, cycleway, path(, and bridleway) are all
essentially the same thing, a non-motor_vehicle path, just with different
implied default access restrictions.

 

We should probably have a discussion about how appropriate the ones listed
here are:

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions
#Australia

 

 

 

From: Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > 
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 11:00
To: OSM-Au mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

[osm.talk-au]

As far as I'm concerned, footway, cycleway, path(, and bridleway) are all
essentially the same thing, a non-motor_vehicle path, just with different
implied default access restrictions.

 

We should probably have a discussion about how appropriate the ones listed
here are:

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions
#Australia

 

 

 

From: Phil Wyatt  
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 11:00
To: OSM-Au 
Subject: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Am I using addr:unit correctly?

[osm.talk-au]

Well, in regards to Nominatim, from the horses mouth, so to speak:

 

  

 
https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=W=1024067995=building
 

 why is the addr:unit being ignored here?

 Because it always is.

 what is the reasoning for ignoring unit?

 Nobody has implemented it yet.

 hm, I would have thought that's a pretty common case

 ~1% maybe

 1% of all adresses is a pretty large absolute number

 Not common enough that anybody was willing to spend time and/or money.

 together with addr:flats a bit more, but in total just 2 million

 naturally there's probably a negative feedback loop there

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

 

From: Dian Ågesson  
Sent: Saturday, 29 January 2022 20:30
To: Andrew Harvey 
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I using addr:unit correctly?

 

Thanks Andrew,

 

I was having a bit of a crisis of confidence as unit numbers don't seem to 
render as I expected, nor does nominatim seem to know what to do with them. 
https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=W 

 =1024067995=building

 

Dian

 

On 2022-01-27 10:27, Andrew Harvey wrote:

Your use of addr:unit looks correct here, I don't believe it needs to be 
subdivisions of a single building. You could have villa style townhouses where 
each dwelling is a separate building on a single site, where each building has 
it's own addr:unit and they all share the same addr:housenumber. 

 

We should update the wiki to describe this as a valid scenario.

 

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 10:24, Dian Ågesson mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz> > wrote:

Hello,

I had assumed that the addr:unit tag would be the appropriate place for a unit 
number in a subdivided block (specifically a complex such as this: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1024067987 
 ).

The wiki seems to suggest that the addr:unit is for subdivisions of a single 
building though and doesn't seem to be the right tag?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:unit

Dian

___
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

[osm.talk-au]

“off-track” here implies trail_visibility=no.

 

If it’s NOT visible on the ground. And it’s NOT part of any signed route. Then 
it doesn’t meet the verifiability criteria and shouldn’t be mapped.

 

From: Josh Marshall  
Sent: Tuesday, 25 January 2022 14:42
To: Andrew Harvey 
Cc: talk OSM Australian List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

 

 

Off-track when not part of an official walking route  Walking routes 
off-track without any signage or official route.   Should not be 
mapped in OSM at all, or if they are controversially edited consider 
not:highway=* with a note=* indicating why it should not be mapped.

 

Should this be limited to “within National Parks areas” or something to that 
effect? It contradicts the Informal Walking Track row higher up. I’m invested 
here… there are tons of trails in my area which I believe to be private land 
but have landowners that don’t mind the access, or may be crown land but public 
access, but either way have some well-maintained trails by volunteers. See the 
network of trails at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-32.98762/151.70793 
for instance.

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

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

[osm.talk-au]

OSM is the database.  Not what any particular data consumer does with the data.

 

We don’t have control over what different data consumers do with the data. What 
we have control over is what data appears in the database.

 

My position is that the data in the database should reflect on-the-ground 
reality as close as possible, so that data consumers can then make informed and 
meaningful decisions about how to present that data.

 

If someone objects to how a particular data consumer presents the data, that’s 
between that person and the data consumer and shouldn’t have an impact on the 
OSM database, as long as the information in the database is correct and 
detailed enough for data consumers to make correct decisions.

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Tuesday, 25 January 2022 12:04
To: Tom Brennan 
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

 




 

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 11:26, Tom Brennan mailto:webs...@ozultimate.com> > wrote:


If the tracks were kept in OSM, but tagged appropriately so as not to 
appear in the rendering, 

 

& this is the big thing. Rendering needs to show that this track shouldn't be 
used. Maybe access=no gets a big red X across each entrance to say "closed". 

 

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.

 

Possibly a description would be better than a note, because they carry across 
devices, rather than only being seen on OSM itself? 

 

 Thanks

 

Graeme

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Removing platform for bus stops Was Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 175, Issue 22

[osm.talk-au]

public_transport=platform should not be unconditionally removed from any
highway=bus_stop. 

It should be added to any newly mapped highway=bus_stop IF that single node
is the only thing of the bus stop that's being mapped.

It should in fact be added to existing highway=bus_stop that are missing it,
after review on a case by case basis, and not as a mass edit, if that
bus_stop is the only thing that's mapped.

Where things are less clear, which will probably require some discussion to
sort out, and which is why I was opposed to the undiscussed mass edit, is
what exactly should happen when there is an actual platform present, AND it
is mapped explicitly in some way,
which I would consider the case to be here:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/931073576893825064
/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/931072496403370014
/unknown.png
(please consider the text I added to these images as my opinion on that
matter not as clear current consensus)

The revert of the mass edit happened because it is that, an undiscussed mass
edit, not because of the merits, or lack thereof, of the contents of the
edit. The discussion about the merits of the edit never happened because it
didn't follow the laid out process.

Cheers,
Thorsten

-Original Message-
From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, 19 January 2022 16:38
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] Removing platform for bus stops Was Re: Talk-au Digest,
Vol 175, Issue 22


On 19/1/22 5:15 pm, Nick Hocking wrote:
> Anthony wrote
>
> "Creating new Bus Stop nodes
> Is the consensus to remove the plaform tags from new nodes?"
>
>
> I'm not sure I understand.
>
> If you are creating a new bus stop node, then there won't be any tags 
> to remove, platform or otherwise.


I think he is thinking of removing platform tags from bus stop following hte
'unauthorized addition' of them.

Basically this has already be done.


Note 1: I have changed the thread title to reflect the subject while still
containing the original subject.

Note 2: Anthony .. please clarify what the question is, thanks.






___
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] Discord #oceania channel?

[osm.talk-au]

History is being kept and is searchable on Discord.

 

From: Phil Wyatt  
Sent: Friday, 14 January 2022 13:04
To: 'Graeme Fitzpatrick' ; 'Sam Wilson' 
; 'OSM-Au' 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Discord #oceania channel?

 

Hi Folks,

 

The discord channel is a bit more chatty but I am not sure if old conversations 
are archived. It’s a great place to get tagging advice etc and its also a good 
place to get information from an international perspective. I would still use 
the mailing list for anything specific to Australia.

 

There is also an informal OSGEO Oceania Slack channel which may be of interest 
to some folks (less OSM and more regional focus). You can join here -  

 
https://maptimeoceania.slack.com/join/shared_invite/enQtNDU3MTU3ODkyMjU2LThiMWU4MjZjNjM0ZWRiMWZlNWE2OTZjYjM0ZTMzZDEwMzc5MTAzN2Q2MzMyZDMzYTMwNjc5NGIxYjY4MDRiMjM#/shared-invite/email

 

Cheers - Phil

 

 

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick <  
graemefi...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Friday, 14 January 2022 11:50 AM
To: Sam Wilson <  s...@samwilson.id.au>; OSM-Au < 
 talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Discord #oceania channel?

 




 

On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 at 10:31, Sam Wilson mailto:s...@samwilson.id.au> > wrote:

And mainly I'm just wondering: how much Australia-related discussion is 
happening elsewhere other than this list?

I'm curious about that as well?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed, undocumented mass edit across all of Australia.

[osm.talk-au]

Warin,

 

nobody says that the tagging isn't correct for cases where the bus_stop node
is the only thing there is.

 

But please look at:

 

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/931072496403370014
/unknown.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/931073576893825064
/unknown.png

 

This is a relatively normal bus stop. It clearly DOES have a distinct
platform. In which case the platform should be tagged on the area. 

 

Even if someone decides that's too much work and decides to only to map the
bus_stop node and throw the platform tag onto that, that's fine as long as
it happens on a case by case basis.

 

The issue is that this is an automated mass edit, where the user loaded all
highway=bus_stop nodes in Australia into JOSM via an overpass query, then
unconditionally added the platform tag to all of them (even ones that might
have already tagged a platform on an area close by), and committed these
changes.

 

Furthermore, the user in question was specifically pointed to the Automated
Edit Code of Conduct before making that change and wilfully ignored the
process:

 

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/931094389407768607
/unknown.png

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

 

From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Thursday, 13 January 2022 17:38
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed, undocumented mass edit across all of
Australia.

 

 

On 13/1/22 5:47 pm, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
  wrote:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116091398

To quote my changeset comment:

This undiscussed, undocumented mass edit that didn't follow the
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct is
introducing a huge amount of incorrect data to the database and should be
reverted.

public_transport=platform doesn't automatically go onto every
highway=bus_stop, only in cases where that's the only thing that's mapped. 




If there is an actual waiting area of any kind, the
public_transport=platform belongs on that instead.

see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport#Buses

 

Umm from the above page 

"If there is no real platform and you will only find a simple sign for the
passengers .
Add a node node at the location of the bus stop sign. It gets following
tags:

public_transport=platform
highway=bus_stop
name= or ref=
optional: additional tags like shelter=yes/no, bench=yes/no, bin=yes/no,
etc."

 

In most instances in Australia all there is is a 'bus stop sign' and shelter
with bench if your lucky. So in the majority of cases the tagging would be
correct. 

 

---

I think this came about from 'public transport version 2'. I don't know if
it is 'required'. 

Personally I see platforms for trains, wharf? for ferries and usually
nothing for buses.  

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

Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed, undocumented mass edit across all of Australia.

[osm.talk-au]

Hi Phil,


iD is a major part of the problem here, by very hard pushing an agenda which
doesn't have consensus for it. But that, and even the complete contents of
this edit, is beside the point.

 

The central issue is that this is an Australia wide automated edit of 1000s
of nodes that didn't follow the Automated Edit Code of Conduct. 

 

The planned edit should have been documented, and any discussion about the
merits of it should have taken place before the edit is performed, if it
achieves consensus that it is a desirable edit.

 

On the merits of this edit, the result is now that every place where the
platform has previously been mapped separately as an area now has ended up
with doubled up platform tags on both the area and the bus_stop node. 

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

 

From: Phil Wyatt  
Sent: Thursday, 13 January 2022 17:26
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au; 'OSM-Au' 
Subject: RE: [talk-au] Undiscussed, undocumented mass edit across all of
Australia.

 

Hi Thorsten,

 

I am pretty sure every bus stop in Tasmania has public_transport=platform
but they are predominately nodes (as we have total rubbish public transport
system here!). I am also not sure if it matters that there is a shelter or
seat, it still gets the platform tag. I think its also a validation in the
ID editor as well (cant be 100% sure)

 

The transport enthusiasts will be able to give more information

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au

mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > 
Sent: Thursday, 13 January 2022 5:48 PM
To: 'OSM-Au' mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: [talk-au] Undiscussed, undocumented mass edit across all of
Australia.

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116091398

To quote my changeset comment:

This undiscussed, undocumented mass edit that didn't follow the
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct is
introducing a huge amount of incorrect data to the database and should be
reverted.

public_transport=platform doesn't automatically go onto every
highway=bus_stop, only in cases where that's the only thing that's mapped. 

If there is an actual waiting area of any kind, the
public_transport=platform belongs on that instead.

see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport#Buses

 

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/931071450926964786
/unknown.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/931072496403370014
/unknown.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/931073576893825064
/unknown.png

 

Opinions?

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

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

[talk-au] Undiscussed, undocumented mass edit across all of Australia.

[osm.talk-au]

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116091398

To quote my changeset comment:

This undiscussed, undocumented mass edit that didn't follow the
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct is
introducing a huge amount of incorrect data to the database and should be
reverted.

public_transport=platform doesn't automatically go onto every
highway=bus_stop, only in cases where that's the only thing that's mapped. 



If there is an actual waiting area of any kind, the
public_transport=platform belongs on that instead.

see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport#Buses

 

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/931071450926964786
/unknown.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/931072496403370014
/unknown.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/931073576893825064
/unknown.png

 

Opinions?

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

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

Re: [talk-au] Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

[osm.talk-au]

“This is a human-readable summary of (and not a substitute for) the license 
 .”

 

A) Read the actual license instead of an minimal infographic: 
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

 

B) The waiver tells you exactly because of which clauses it is required.

 

From: John Luan  
Sent: Wednesday, 1 December 2021 14:48
To: OSM Aust Discussion List 
Subject: [talk-au] Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

 

Hi Guys,

 

Had a look at this license

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en

 

Do we really need a waiver from the data provider?  something like this 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/1/17/AADC_CC-BY_Permission_JK_signed.pdf

 

My feeling is that as long as we list the data provider on the contributor 
list, it should be fine.

 

Regards,

John

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

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

[osm.talk-au]

Maybe just create a simple page on the wiki describing what you intent to do 
along with a link to information about the received permission? Just to make it 
easier to find in the future if there are any concerns.

 

From: Andrew Harvey  
Sent: Friday, 26 November 2021 13:46
To: Kim Oldfield 
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Importing 200 emergency markers?

 

That sounds fine to me, this email consulting with the community, informing of 
your plan and what steps you've taken is enough in my opinion.

 

I would ask if you could share more information about the permission you 
obtained? So long as you have sufficient rights to submit the data under the 
OSM contributor terms.

 

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 04:56, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:

Hi,

I have a list of 200 emergency marker locations along 22km of the 
Puffing Billy Railway which were provided to me by the railway with 
permission to include them in OSM.

I've been reading through https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import - 
most of which appears to be geared toward larger imports and using 
publicly available data with various licenses. The data for my import is 
not publicly available, and was provided to me when I asked to import it 
into OSM.

I've searched overpass-turbo and there are no 
highway=emergency_access_points, name~"PBM", or ref~"PBM" near the list 
of nodes I have to import. This indicates that none of the nodes are 
already mapped.

Based on the example file on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM_file_format I've converted the 
emergency marker list into xml, the start of which looks like:




   
   

...

In JOSM I can import this file and merge the layer. I'm intending to 
then upload this with appropriate an comment noting that the data was 
provided by Puffing Billy Railway with permission to include it in OSM.

I'm proposing to import this as a one off, single change set under my 
existing OSM username.

Is this a reasonable way to do this import? Is there anything else I 
should do?

Regards,
Kim





___
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

[osm.talk-au]

Possibly path=link?

 

From: Andrew Harvey  
Sent: Friday, 26 November 2021 12:34
To: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Unconnected ways

 

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 11:54, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
 > wrote:

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

 

Agreed, and while I still don't think it's perfect, it's probably the best 
compromise at the moment.

 

You could also add informal=yes 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal 

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

Re: [talk-au] Service Roads?

[osm.talk-au]

The point of that link was that most of them aren’t highway=service to start 
with, so service=* wouldn’t apply to most of them.

 

From: Andrew Hughes  
Sent: Tuesday, 23 November 2021 08:55
To: Dian Ågesson 
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Service Roads?

 

Thanks All,

 

Graeme: naming might help, but I am not sure if they would conflict with an 
official signposted name.

 

Dian: Interesting with the "frontage road". Yes, that is suitable but the 
tagging guidelines do not have anything unique about these roads. They are 
simply the standard (non _link) highway=* tags. Perhaps "service"="frontage 
road" would help, but I don't know if this would collide with other conventions.

 

Thanks all!

 

 

 

 

 

On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 22:13, Dian Ågesson mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz> > wrote:

Hi Andrew,

>From your description in example A, it sounds like you are describing frontage 
>roads (what we would call service roads in Australia). Rather confusingly, the 
>service tag isn’t the best tag for these roads; 
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Frontage_road has a good explanation.

Dian

On 2021-11-19 15:56, Andrew Hughes wrote:

Hi Again, 

 

With regards to service roads. I would like to know if there is a tagging 
convention that would provide a distinction between roads that appear to all 
fall under highway=service for the following examples:

 

Example A: This is what is referred to "traditionally" as a "service road" 
(outside the OSM world that is). I'd describe it as,a minor road that is 
associated with a major road, it runs parallel to its major road counterpart 
and gives general access to the local area so that the major road is occupied 
by traffic that does not want to stop in the local area 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/118171809

 

Example B: A way (perhaps even a driveway or parking_isle?) that provides 
access to a carpark. It's not really paired with a major road and is not 
designed to "split" the local traffic from traffic passing through as per A  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28262128

 

 

The main difference I feel between A and B is that A is really part of a 
major/bigger arterial way and services the local needs that the arterial way 
will not. B is not really a thoroughfare and is more in line with the 
"destination" rather than a thoroughfare. You only use the B way to access the 
carpark(s). Someone else might have a better interpretation however I do feel 
like on the ground they are very different roads and tagging with 
highway=services alone doesn't reflect that.

 

Thanks in advance,

Andrew

 

___
Talk-au mailing 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] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

[osm.talk-au]

If OsmAnd fundamentally misinterprets/misrepresents access tags, that's not
"disappointing", that's a critical bug that needs to be fixed ASAP.

https://github.com/osmandapp/OsmAnd/issues/11668

Cheers,
Thorsten

-Original Message-
From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Saturday, 30 October 2021 18:01
To: Phil Wyatt ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang
National Park)


On 29/10/21 10:23 pm, Phil Wyatt wrote:
> I think OSMAND only works to exclude access=private, not access=no


It does not exclude, the private ones are still there .. but rendered
differently.

Unfortunately you are correct in that access=no is the same as having no
access tag. Boo, disappointing.


>
> -Original Message-
> From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 10:05 PM
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang
National Park)
>
>
> Some renders can show the difference. OSMand has a setting to show
access... and it works.
>
>

___
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] Fwd: : Re: "Removing closed or illegal trails."

[osm.talk-au]

If there are issues with how the, correctly tagged, map is presented by data
consumers, we should be working on getting these data consumers in line, not
mangle the underlying data. 

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  
Sent: Saturday, 30 October 2021 19:13
To: stevea 
Cc: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Fwd: : Re: "Removing closed or illegal trails."

>> Displaying a closed trail on a map (like OSM) does NOT cause people  
>>  to navigate that trail.  Such behavior is completely up to the   
>> individual who "concludes" from reading said map "hey, I'm going to  
>> hike that closed trail anyway."  (Bzzzt; fail, human logic).
>>
>> OSM is not responsible for human foolishness, scofflaws or illegal   
>> (stupid, dangerous...) behavior.  You simply can't say "the map   
>> made me do it."
>>
>> On the other hand, I do hear loud and clear the "natural preserve"   
>> areas which ARE open to human recreation, DO have "closed trails"   
>> (often with fragile and easily-human-damaged natural resources) and  
>> people, stupidly and ignorantly I might say by way of being
>> candid,  decide to hike (or bike, or motorbike...) there anyway.   
>> This is  not the fault of a map, any map, including OSM.
>>
>> OSM does its best to map "what is."  Period.  It doesn't "make   
>> people" engage in activities people shouldn't engage in.  Anybody   
>> who says so hasn't got it right, but MIGHT be worth listening to at  
>> how the map can be improved.  This includes better instructions to  
>> end-users ("downstream apps...") when warranted.

Steve, this is a restatement of the "guns don't kill people people do"  
argument.
Guns and maps are not morally responsible for what people do, they are
inanimate objects. They can never be guilty.

But the issue is not whether the guns and maps are morally responsible, the
issue is what kind of world we want to live in. If we can't control what
some people will do with guns and maps and we can't, we have the choice of
making guns less available and maps not render tracks into vulnerable
ecosystems.

Its not a moral decision, its a utilitarian decision. I am very happy to
live where guns are strictly controlled. I would rather maps be more nuanced
on the implementation of the "if it exists map it" rule which does us very
well 99.999% of the time.

Tony



___
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] "Removing closed or illegal trails." specifically motor bikes

[osm.talk-au]

With the caveat that the access tags should reflect legal basis of access, not 
physical suitability or actual usage.

 

If the path in question is not legally allowed for motorcycle, then don’t tag 
motorcycle=yes, even if it’s physically possible and people (illegally) use it 
that way.

 

If you want to indicate that a path or track is physically not wide enough for 
larger vehicles, just tag width=* (to specify the width of the path on the 
ground) or maxwidth:physical=* (to specify the maximum physical width of a 
vehicle that fits through) on it (but not maxwidth=*, as that implies that 
there is a legally defined limit).

 

While not widely used, you might also use access tags with :physical suffix, 
e.g. motorcycle=no + motorcycle:physical=yes

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Saturday, 30 October 2021 12:17
To: EON4wd 
Cc: ianst...@iinet.net.au; OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." specifically motor 
bikes

 

I would have thought highway=track would have been good, but that page is quite 
adamant that a "track" is for 4-wheel vehicles, & anything smaller is supposed 
to be a highway=path.

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dtrack#use_for_narrow_paths

 

They also say that specifying motor-bike, but not car is done via access=*, but 
don't suggest just how!

 

I'm guessing highway=path + motor_vehicle=no + motorcycle=yes?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

On Sat, 30 Oct 2021 at 11:46, EON4wd mailto:i...@eon4wd.com.au> > wrote:

That would be logical, but motor bikes are classified as a vehicle and are the 
only ones using this ‘path’ which ends up being mapped as a track via the 
satellite picture.

Path does not imply motor bikes. 

Legally it is allowed to be used as a path, but motor vehicles are not allowed.

The motor bike tracks would be difficult to use as a walking track and also for 
a bicycle.

If the tracks were reclassified as a path, it would at least show something 
that is on the ground plus also imply that it is not allowed for vehicles.

What if the motor bike track is legal, how would you then classify the track if 
it is not wide enough for any car?

Thanks Ian

 

From: ianst...@iinet.net.au   
mailto:ianst...@iinet.net.au> > 
Sent: Saturday, 30 October 2021 11:11 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org  
Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National 
Park)

 

I’ve always mapped a track that’s not wide-enough for a vehicle as a path.

 

Ian

 

 

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2021 10:19:36 +1100

From: "EON4wd" mailto:i...@eon4wd.com.au> >

To: mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >

Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in   Nerang

National Park)

Message-ID: <01d7cd1b$70f144b0$52d3ce10$@eon4wd.com.au 
 >

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

 

>>Question ? how to map a track that is only wide enough for a motor bike. 
>>There is a track width tag but it doesn?t seem appropriate. 

___
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] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

[osm.talk-au]

OSM is the database. 

If there are things incorrectly tagged in the database, they should be
fixed. Nobody is saying otherwise.

So yes, if in the example you gave below the legal authority has specified
that you are only allowed to use specific marked trails with specified modes
of transport, then the tags should reflect that and need to be fixed if they
don't.

Simply completely deleting features clearly visible on the ground does not
do that, and just invites the next person who comes past to map them again,
possibly with wrong tags once more.

OSM is NOT how any particular consumer decides to use and present the
information from the database. That includes Carto.

I don't think it's acceptable to compromise the database because you don't
like how a particular data consumer uses it.

If you are unhappy about how something is being presented:

a) ensure that the database correctly reflects reality
b) engage with the data consumer (be it Carto or any of the countless other
consumers of OSM data) to convince them to represent the data the way you
want.

This is the nature of an open database like OSM, you don't control how data
consumers use the data.

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  
Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 20:34
To: Frederik Ramm 
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang
National Park)

Hi Frederik, Thorsten

1. "a park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track
in order to keep people from exercising their rights".

Does this happen, has it ever happened? I would be surprised if it happened
here. Anyway its not what I thought we were talking about, illegal trails.

2. 3. and 4. "knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be
helpful, might even save lives" possible but very unlikely. I could equally
argue that the types of illegal trails that I am seeing, the "I rode my
mountain bike down this way" type of trail (see #951362516
later) can reduce map utility, they are often barely visible but are
rendered the same as the type of trail a lost person would follow.  
Neither Frederik's nor my argument is particularly strong.

I mentioned women's refuges earlier. Its irrelevant that we map the polygon
but not the label. Its not because they are not verifiable, I could ground
truth them by knocking on the front door and asking. We do not map women's
refuges because that is the right thing to do. We search for justifications
later.

Finally Frederik and Thorsten stress the importance of lifecycle tagging,
access tagging and rendering by the data users. I agree with them.

We at OSM are not doing a great job of rendering. Go to
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93168/145.30667
There are 3 trails,
Way: 476219417 which is access=no
Way: Granite Track (56176535) which is legal These 2 tracks are rendered
similarly, very few map users would notice that one of them was closed

We are not doing a great job on tagging either The third track Path
#951362516 is illegal but not tagged as such. The editor should know that it
is illegal they say "Probably unofficial but reasonably well used" there is
a good chance they knew. It was clearly signed at every entrance to "stay on
formed trails" and there are lots of maps on sign boards showing all the
legal trails.

Now this trail is mapped, it is going to attract lots of traffic. Its never
going to save a lost walker's life. Its going to take many many hours of
volunteer labour to keep it closed for long enough to revegetate and get
deleted from the map. That's the consequence of the Parks Service respecting
OSM's consensus policy.

I support OSM's consensus form of government and as a consequence support
the consensus position on illegal tracks. But it causes others a lot of
problems and I think we can be more responsible and nuanced within the
consensus position.

Tony

> Hi,
>
> On 29.10.21 09:08, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
>> You could map a track under the "if it exists then map it" rule but 
>> you don't have to. We do not map women's refuges and they exist. We 
>> don't have to map every informal trail.
>
> This is true, and we shouldn't go out of our way to thwart the efforts 
> of park managers. Having said that,
>
> 1. Sometimes the matter can be a civil rights issue - depending on the 
> legal situation, people might have the *right* to use a path but a 
> park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track 
> in order to keep people from exercising their rights. In that 
> situation, while the park manager might want the best for the 
> environment, the park manager would have to work to change the legal 
> situation instead of trying to mislead people about what they are allowed
to do.
>
> 2. In similar discussions we had people working with search and rescue 
> teams say that they prefer to use OSM maps because those show the 
> informal trails, and if you're searching for someone who got lost, 
> knowing 

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

[osm.talk-au]

I still fail to see how that's a valid argument for not mapping the
geometry.

We have lifecycle prefixes (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_of_decay ) and
access tags (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dno#Illegal_objects ) for
this.

And I would argue that in the majority of cases we probably would map the
physical buildings of women's refuges (or their absence from the map might
become a beacon), just not label it's purpose.

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  
Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 17:08
To: Phil Wyatt 
Cc: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au; 'OSM Australian Talk List'

Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang
National Park)

Hi all

This also came up in 2015,
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2015-July/010619.html
The consensus, which I was not happy with, was "if it exists then map it".

I volunteer with a park Friends Group and see things more from a Parks
Service perspective. There are usually good environmental reasons for
closing informal tracks. Unfortunately there is a loop, if it exists then
map it, if its mapped it gets used and becomes more distinct. It takes an
enormous amount of work by volunteers like me to close a track and keep it
closed till it can revegetate sufficiently to remove it from the map under
the "if it exists then map it" rule.

So I support what Phil Wyatt is saying. Act cautiously and responsibly. You
could map a track under the "if it exists then map it" rule but you don't
have to. We do not map women's refuges and they exist. We don't have to map
every informal trail.

Tony

> HI Folks
>
>
>
> My opinion on the topic (as a past track/trail manager) is that if you 
> are not a local actively involved with the trail managers then you 
> need to be very careful. There can often be rehabilitation at the 
> start and end of closed/illegal tracks and no active rehabilitation on 
> other parts. Despite the fact that they 'appear on the ground' they 
> may be part of a larger plan for removal or rehabilitation.
>
>
>
> Best to contact the managers of the area and see what their 
> preferences are for illegal tracks. In general, areas actively used by 
> walkers and bikers will have some connection with the trail manager 
> and are likely working to some agreed plan. Its clear this area is an 
> active location for bikers so I would defer to them.
>
>
>
> Biking and walking groups often go to a lot of trouble to get the 
> managers on side and in agreement with development of trails.
>
>
>
> By 2 bobs worth
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
> 
> Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 2:05 PM
> To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' 
> Subject: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang 
> National
> Park)
>
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/112722497
>
>
>
> "Removing closed or illegal trails. Tidy up of Fire Roads and places"
>
>
>
> My opinion on the topic is:
>
>
>
> If it exists on the ground, it gets mapped. If there is no legal 
> access, that's access=no or access=private. If it's a path that has 
> been created by traffic where it's not officially meant to go, it's
informal=yes.
>
>
>
> That seems to be in line with the previously established consensus on 
> the list here:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-September/01286
> 3.html
>
>
>
> I have no local knowledge of the area and am not really invested in 
> this one way or another, but I feel that paths that verifiably 
> physically exist on the ground (which I assume these are) shouldn't be 
> simply deleted. If access is legally prohibited in some way, then the 
> tags should reflect that, not the way simply being deleted.
>
>
>
> What's the general opinion about this?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thorsten
>
>







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

[talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

[osm.talk-au]

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/112722497

 

"Removing closed or illegal trails. Tidy up of Fire Roads and places"

 

My opinion on the topic is:

 

If it exists on the ground, it gets mapped. If there is no legal access,
that's access=no or access=private. If it's a path that has been created by
traffic where it's not officially meant to go, it's informal=yes.

 

That seems to be in line with the previously established consensus on the
list here:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-September/012863.html

 

I have no local knowledge of the area and am not really invested in this one
way or another, but I feel that paths that verifiably physically exist on
the ground (which I assume these are) shouldn't be simply deleted. If access
is legally prohibited in some way, then the tags should reflect that, not
the way simply being deleted.

 

What's the general opinion about this?

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

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

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

[osm.talk-au]

Looking on mapillary, it seems you can also enter there, so the current mapping 
is wrong.

 

Also, I can’t see any legal reason, besides it being dangerous if there is 
traffic, to cross all the way from the parking lot at the top to that Burnwood 
Highway Service Road at the bottom, or the other way around.

 

I’m not going to actually touch it, as it’s way outside my usual mapping area, 
but personally I would map it like this:

 

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/901351143542784050/unknown.png

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Saturday, 23 October 2021 14:23
To: Dian Ågesson 
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Service road highway areas as frontage road access

 




On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 at 13:54, Dian Ågesson mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz> > wrote:

On the most recent edit, a highway=service area has been introduced for a 
roadway between a main road, a frontage road and a side street

  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/995553123

I have not seen this before, and it doesn’t strike me as correct. 

 

No, I would agree that it is not correct, & there's no real need for it to be 
there.

 

>From looking at what's already mapped, it would appear to be OK, with one 
>possible exception?

 

Can traffic from the Hwy enter the service road at the Rose St intersection, or 
is it one-way outwards only?

 

If it's two-way, then Rose St should be broken, & the section between the 
service road & the Hwy made two-way. At the same time, you could also move it 
to the middle of the intersection, but that's only my OCD neatness coming out! 
:-)

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Lifeguards & "Swim Between the Flags"

[osm.talk-au]

In Australia, maybe. Globally? Very unlikely.

 

From: Andrew Harvey  
Sent: Thursday, 21 October 2021 13:53
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Lifeguards & "Swim Between the Flags"

 

Isn't it always the case though that patrolled beaches will have flags and that 
is the area patrolled? My point is then what's the difference between 
`lifeguard=yes` and `lifeguard=yes @ flagged_area / red_and_yellow_flags`, to 
me they mean the same thing.

 

On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 18:06, Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> > wrote:

That's it!

 

Today the flags are here, tomorrow they may be 100m South, then the next day 
they're 100m North of here, but the flags will always show where the lifeguards 
are at any time.

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 16:11, Adam Horan mailto:aho...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I think I see.

 

The lifeguards are where the flags are.

The flags are somewhere on this beach.

There'll be flags/lifeguards at certain times.

 

 

 

 

On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 17:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Agree entirely but I'm not trying to map the flags, I was trying to work out a 
way of saying that the lifeguards are where the flags are?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 15:49, Adam Horan mailto:aho...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Flag position will vary daily based on weather conditions, tides, rips, 
proximity to the toilets, other stuff?

 

I think you'd just need to mark the whole beach.

 

Adam

 

On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 15:04, Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Thanks everybody!

 

In response to a couple of points ...

 

No, I'm not trying to mark that the lifeguards are "in this spot", I just 
thought that some way of indicating where on the beach (i.e the flags) they 
would be would be good.

 

& yes, we're all taught to swim between the flags, but is that standard 
teaching everywhere?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 12:26, Simon Slater mailto:pye...@iinet.net.au> > wrote:

On Wednesday, 20 October 2021 9:54:22 AM AEDT Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> A little while back, I put the emergency=lifeguard proposal through,
> together with lifeguard=yes to describe those times when there is a
> lifeguard/s on the beach, but they may not be in a fixed location.
> 
 
> Or do we just not worry about it, & work on the idea that =yes is
> sufficient?
> 
When I were a lad, we were taught to always look for the flags when going to 
any beach to swim, teaching personal responsibility and obey the flags because 
the lifesavers know that beach better.  Therefore, actual flag positions need 
to be known as variable.

However, tagging a beach that does have a SLSC is good because those 
unfamiliar with the area, tourists say, or families with young children, can 
then preferentially choose such beaches.  Similarly, the more adventurous, or 
those desiring solitude, can preferentially choose alternate locations.

-- 
Regards
Simon Slater

Registered Linux User #463789 @ http://linuxcounter.net

___
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] Source material.

[osm.talk-au]

I might be wrong, but from reading the metadata of the derived dataset, I think 
the base dataset basically only has parcels, but not forestry specific 
information attached to that, while the derived dataset uses the parcels and 
then adds forestry specific information to them.

 

From: Little Maps  
Sent: Monday, 18 October 2021 20:26
To: Brendan Barnes ; OSM Australian Talk List 

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Source material.

 

Brendan, the original (i.e. pre-derived) VMPROP.PARCEL_CROWN_APPROVED file is 
also available at:

 

http://services.land.vic.gov.au/SpatialDatamart/dataSearchViewMetadata.html?anzlicId=ANZVI0803004688
 

 =1

 

Hence, if there were to be any issues in using the derived file, the original 
file could still be used (if permission has been granted). I imagine that it is 
a much bigger file and contain lots of other info. The SF boundary data should 
be the same in both presumably. Cheers Ian





On 18 Oct 2021, at 7:38 pm, Brendan Barnes mailto:brenbar...@gmail.com> > wrote:



Thanks Ian, I was getting lost in all the Forestry datasets! Cheers.

 

Unfortunately I'm also unclear as to whether we have permission to use these. 
If a CC-BY-4.0 dataset is "derived" from a base layer, and we have permission 
for that base layer, is permission inherited? That is assuming the "VMPROP" 
product listed is "Vicmap Property", of course. Two assumptions made just then.

 

@Andrew Harvey  , or anyone else familiar with 
our requirements, is it worthwhile revisiting the Vicmap waiver to get clarity 
on Vicmap derivatives? 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Vicmap_CCBYPermission_OSM_Final_Jan2018_Ltr.pdf

 

..Brendan

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

Re: [talk-au] Path discussion tagging guidelines

[osm.talk-au]

The only other difference was a general ambivalence on how shared paths are 
tagged. The wiki says highway=cycleway & foot=designated, people here were also 
happy with highway=footway & bicycle=designated. Two sides of the same coin I 
guess, and depends on which camp you're in. 

 

Personally, I use both of these for shared paths depending if I consider them 
more or less suitable for cycling (primarily based on width).

highway=cycleway
foot=designated
segregated=no

 

and

 

highway=footway
bicycle=designated
segregated=no

 

both adequately describe a shared path IMO, but I would expect a “cycleway” to 
be wider and generally more suitable for cycling than a footway. They do render 
differently, and I would expect a bicycle router to give shared path cycleways 
some preference over shared path footways.

 

From: Adam Horan  
Sent: Wednesday, 13 October 2021 17:05
To: Brendan Barnes 
Cc: talk-au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path discussion tagging guidelines

 

I'd say it does, except I think there was a desire not to universally tag 
bicycle=yes/no on footway, given it's broadly redundant information. This 
should be derived from tags applied at a State level.

But retaining bicycle=no if there was an explicit sign forbidding cycling.

 

The only other difference was a general ambivalence on how shared paths are 
tagged. The wiki says highway=cycleway & foot=designated, people here were also 
happy with highway=footway & bicycle=designated. Two sides of the same coin I 
guess, and depends on which camp you're in. 

 

Adam

 

On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 17:49, Brendan Barnes mailto:brenbar...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Hi all,

 

There's been great discussion over the past few weeks about cycling and/or 
footpath tagging. Personally, it's been hard to keep up with all the messages.

 

Does the tagging guidelines wiki reflect a summary of what has recently been 
discussed?

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Urban_Footpaths_and_Cycleways

 

Thanks.

___
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] Cycling on Victorian paths

[osm.talk-au]

While I'm normally all for "you made the mess, you clean it up", this might
be something better tackled by someone with extensive experience in
reverting multiple changesets?

Have we got any experts in that?

-Original Message-
From: stevea  
Sent: Wednesday, 13 October 2021 14:13
To: fors...@ozonline.com.au
Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

I did my best to help Sebastian, but near the point where we got the first
launch of JOSM (he DID install Java, he DID have to move the .jar file to
his Applications folder, he apparently was NOT using a capital A in
Applications...) he suddenly went "radio silent" on me and didn't answer any
more email ping-pongs.

I had all primed my next email how to install a reverter, but didn't send
that because it seems he remained in a low gear, and running a JOSM reverter
is for those who are, um, "in a higher gear."

Good luck getting your data in shape, there, mates.

SteveA
(where it is getting to be bedtime Tuesday night)

> On Oct 12, 2021, at 9:06 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> 
> Adam
> 
>> Spotting these
>> and knowing how far back to revert to might be tricky I guess?
>> eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/47771844/history
> 
> Yes. I have never been involved in a reversion so complex and it worries
me too. I presume they should be reverted in reverse date order, ie most
recent first. And acting in a timely manner is important, before others do
edits on the same objects.
> 
> Taking your example, the first reversion is important and the following
two swapping between path and footway make little difference.
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Cycling on Victorian paths

[osm.talk-au]

If there is a sign, then it’s =designated, not =yes

 

From: Adam Horan  
Sent: Tuesday, 5 October 2021 09:24
To: Kim Oldfield ; OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

 

Hi Kim,

highway = pedestrian is for pedestrianised roads/areas rather then 
footpaths/sidewalks/pavements for those I think the current tag is 
highway=footway.

bridleway isn't in use in Australia much for the path types we're discussing 
here.

 

I'd prefer a normal footpath to be

highway=footway - and no additional bicycle= or foot= tag, unless there's a 
sign specifically barring cycling in which case bicycle=no

 

Shared paths (the most common ones after a walking only path)

either

highway=footway + bicycle=yes (I prefer this one)

or

highway=cycleway and a foot=yes tag to make it clear (I don't prefer this one, 
but it's a mild preference)

 

This is mostly with a VIC perspective.

 

Adam

 

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:

Hi Andrew and list,

How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a vote process, or 
does someone take it upon themselves to document in the wiki any consensus we 
reach on this list?

We should document in the wiki when to add bicycle= and foot= tags which 
duplicate the default values for highway=footway/cycleway? (As per Andrew's 
email below).

We should also decide on, and document the default access rules for various 
highway= values at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
 and remove the "Not endorsed by the Australian OSM community (yet)." Currently 
these are mostly the same as "Wordwide", except:

highway=pedestrian - bicycle=yes. Sounds reasonable.
highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know enough about bridleways 
in Australia to have an opinion on this.
highway=footway - currently bicycle=yes. This I think should be broken up by 
state to reflect the state laws for adults riding on the footway. In Victoria 
and NSW:  bicycle=no. Is Queensland bicycle=yes? What about the other states?
These decisions should be replicated in the Australia or state relations with 
def:... tags so they can be found and used by routing engines.

On 4/10/21 10:14 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:

With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme, Tony, Thorsten, Kim all 
advocate for not blanket tagging bicycle=no to every normal footpath (for the 
record I also support this, an explicit bicycle=no can still be tagged where 
signage is indicating such). Matthew has pointed out cases where Sebastian / 
HighRouleur has added bicycle=no but Mapillary shows bicycle markings. 
Sebastian, unless all of this you've actually surveyed in person and confirmed 
that the situation has change recently (happy to be proven if this is the case, 
though I think it unlikely) then we should proceed to roll back your changes 
because it's evident it goes against the community wishes here and the bulk 
changes have brought in these errors.

 

Sebastian, thanks for joining our mailing list and engaging with this 
discussion, but due to the consensus indicated here would you be willing to 
work through and revert these changes you've made?

 

___
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] Cycling on Victorian paths

[osm.talk-au]

This really is all already covered under:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability

and 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_render
er

(which should also apply to "don't map for the [broken] router").

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  
Sent: Sunday, 3 October 2021 16:34
To: Kim Oldfield ; Kim Oldfield via Talk-au

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

Hi all

I am thinking that unless we pay a lawyer and get a legal opinion we will
never be sure what the law is.

Given that uncertainty we have two principles to choose from, I'll call them
the "precautionary principle" and the "somebody else's problem" principle.
(Maybe better called the ground truth principle.)

I hope this does not misrepresent anybody's position but I think Sebastian
Azagra would say that we have a moral responsibility to protect people from
the risk of getting a large fine.

I and others have argued that we OSM should stop at recording what is on the
ground and leave the difficult legal interpretation to map renderers.

Not sure how we arrive at a resolution.

Tony

> On 3/10/21 9:13 am, Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au wrote:
>> In my view, some of the data in OSM is incorrect as a footpath will  
>>  some times have permission bicycle=yes which is incorrect. The   
>> majority of the time allowed access will have bicycle=unspecified   
>> (not defined)which I think is fine.
>> The issue is that cycling software, apps and gps units used by   
>> cyclist takes information from OSM and then creates a route based   
>> on the permission assigned to the road/path in OSM.
>
> In Victoria cycling is not allowed on most footpaths (for most adults).
> The is defined in the wiki at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restri
> ctions#Australia and more formally in OSM at 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316741
>
> As far as I'm concerned, routing software should be using these as 
> part of the decision on when to route bikes down footpaths. Any 
> software which ignores these should be have a bug report logged. We 
> should not tag all footpaths with bicycle=no just for software which 
> doesn't understand the defaults already configured in OSM.
>
> It looks like Thosten Engler[*] has just said the same thing.
>
> [*] Is that the name of the person using 
> osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au? You don't appear to have used a 
> name in your email so I'm guessing based on your email domain, but as 
> domains often get used by multiple people there is no guarantee that 
> I'm right.
>
> Regards,
> Kim





___
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] Cycling on Victorian paths

[osm.talk-au]

Except for the missing r, you are correct. 

 

Outlook is unfortunately a bit finicky and doesn’t send a Name when you use 
sender address different from the primary one of the email account. But I’m 
forced to send emails using the exact address that is subscribed to the list.

 

I’m using different email addresses for for every list, website, person that I 
give an email address to, but *@thorsten.engler.id.au 
  all ends up in the same inbox. (Using 
different email addresses makes it pretty obvious when some site has been 
hacked or has passed on your information to some undesired third party, and it 
allows me to block the whole email address at the mail server level if it 
becomes a major spam vector.)

 

From: Kim Oldfield via Talk-au  
Sent: Sunday, 3 October 2021 15:36
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

 

It looks like Thosten Engler[*] has just said the same thing.

[*] Is that the name of the person using osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
 ? You don't appear to have used a 
name in your email so I'm guessing based on your email domain, but as domains 
often get used by multiple people there is no guarantee that I'm right.



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

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[osm.talk-au]

>>>
In addition there is Karl Cheng's opinion (Mon Sep 20 talk-au) that "this
whole "Road Rules" regulation only applies to "roads" and "road related
areas".
Only footpaths adjacent to a "road", or any path explicitly designated for
cyclists are considered to be "road related areas". See rules 11-13 of the
Road Rules for details."
<<<

Looking at the Road Rules for NSW:

---
13   What is a road related area

(2)  However, unless the contrary intention appears, a reference in these
Rules (except in this Division) to a road related area includes a reference
to-

...

(c)  any other area that is a footpath or nature strip as defined in the
Dictionary,

Dictionary:

footpath, except in rule 13(1), means an area open to the public that is
designated for, or has as one of its main uses, use by pedestrians.
---

Putting that together you get:

A road related area includes a reference to any other area that is open to
the public that is designated for, or has as one of its main uses, use by
pedestrians.

Meaning, if it's public, and it's meant for use by pedestrians, it is a
"road related area" and the Road Rules apply.





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

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[osm.talk-au]

bicycle=designated implies the presence of one of these signs:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/894078435264196668
/unknown.png

bicycle=no implies the presence of this sign:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/894078611248807946
/unknown.png

The absence of any explicit sign should be tagged by the absence of an
explicit bicycle tag.

In that case, routers should follow the
"def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=no
tag on the state boundary relations:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316593
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316741

Routers that incorrectly assume a bicycle=yes for footways in the absence of
an explicit bicycle tag are faulty and need to be fixed.

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  
Sent: Sunday, 3 October 2021 13:58
To: Sebastian Azagra ; Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

Hi Sebastian
Welcome to talk-au

A NOTE FOR NON-AUSTRALIANS reading this
a UK pavement or a US sidewalk is an Australian footpath



I agree with Graeme Fitzpatrick's opinion that blanket bicycle=no on
*all* footpaths is wrong.

In addition there is Karl Cheng's opinion (Mon Sep 20 talk-au) that "this
whole "Road Rules" regulation only applies to "roads" and "road related
areas".
Only footpaths adjacent to a "road", or any path explicitly designated for
cyclists are considered to be "road related areas". See rules 11-13 of the
Road Rules for details."

Thirdly there is the issue of ground truth
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground
"Don't map your local legislation, if not bound to objects in reality Things
such as local traffic rules should only be mapped when there are objects
which represent these rules on the ground, e.g. a traffic sign, road surface
marking. Other rules that can not be seen in some way should not be mapped,
as they are not universally verifiable." I note that if they changed the
legislation, we would have to find and edit maybe a million ways.

Fourthly (as Graeme Fitzpatrick also notes) you say "Members of the
community have even sought confirmation of permissions from Vic police who
have confirmed to the affirmative that unless a path is specifically signed
to be used by a cyclist, then cyclists are not permitted to use it from a
legal perspective."
You have been asked before but not answered the question, is this verbal or
written advice, if written, can you give a URL?

Thanks
Tony

> Hi there,
>
> I?m starting a new thread in relation to recent discussion regarding  
> access on footpaths which have bicycle=No
>
> In the Melbourne Bikepath cycling community there has been vigorous   
> discussion relating to the strict rules the cyclists must follow and  
>  not ride on footpaths due to Victorian Road Rules. Victorian   
> cyclists know that we are not permitted to ride of footpaths.
> Members of the community have even sought confirmation of   
> permissions from Vic police who have confirmed to the affirmative   
> that unless a path is specifically signed to be used by a cyclist,   
> then cyclists are not permitted to use it from a legal perspective.
>
> In my view, some of the data in OSM is incorrect as a footpath will   
> some times have permission bicycle=yes which is incorrect. The   
> majority of the time allowed access will have bicycle=unspecified   
> (not defined)which I think is fine.
> The issue is that cycling software, apps and gps units used by   
> cyclist takes information from OSM and then creates a route based on  
> the permission assigned to the road/path in OSM.
>
> I?d be keen to hear from other Victorian cyclists in the OSM   
> community on the best way to tag paths so that they do not allow   
> cyclists.
>
>
>
> 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

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

[osm.talk-au]

The correct offset for imagery can change very quickly from one place to 
another (alignment could be right at one place and off 100m down the road if 
the imagery is distorted).

 

JOSM has an “imagery offset database” if you install the right plugin:

 

https://learnosm.org/en/josm/correcting-imagery-offset/

 

you can use that to upload your corrected offset for a specific place and 
imagery layer so that others can get that offset from the db.

 

But this requires that people are conscious of the need to check the imagery 
offset before they do any work, and I think it’s only used by JOSM, not iD and 
other editors.

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Sunday, 3 October 2021 12:20
To: Andrew Davidson 
Cc: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au; OSM Australian Talk List 

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

 

Is there any way for all of the various sets of imagery to be automatically 
corrected to each other to get around this problem?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 at 12:02, Andrew Davidson mailto:thesw...@gmail.com> > wrote:

On Sat, Oct 2, 2021 at 10:46 PM Thorsten Engler via Talk-au
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
> I would assume that the lot boundaries recorded in DCDB are "exact" and any
> discrepancy between them and the physical world come down to the margin of
> errors the surveyors did when placing boundary pegs at some point.

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

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

> Bing is almost right: -0.15; 1.79

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

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

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

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

Re: [talk-au] Shared driveways

[osm.talk-au]

Fair enough. That’s a very different situation from what I’m usually mapping.

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Saturday, 25 September 2021 10:54
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Cc: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Shared driveways

 

I don't disagree with any of your comments!, but these are in a rural, rather 
than a built-up area, so IMHO the situation is slightly different?

 

I've done a similar thing on a property I know in Western Qld where the 
"driveway"is ~2 k long from the road to the house paddock, & also named that 
with the property name.

 

Sure, you can put the name on the property itself, but which one of the tracks 
actually leads to the house, rather than the shearing shed?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

On Fri, 24 Sept 2021 at 22:44, mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote:

Where driveways end at a garage door (which is pretty much all driveways I’ve 
mapped), I’ve connected the driveway to a node shared with the building outline 
and tagged as entrance=garage. As the garages are pretty much all part of the 
main buildings, which have address tags on them, data consumers should be able 
to clearly identify the address of the driveway in that case.

 

From: Kim Oldfield via Talk-au mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > 
Sent: Friday, 24 September 2021 21:33
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org  
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Shared driveways

 

The wiki suggests you should use the addr tags instead:

addr:street=Jardine Road
addr:housenumber=32
addr:unit=a/b/c or leave off for common driveway

I have tried this in the past, but validation tools complained.
I'm not sure if it is acceptable to set an address on a driveway.

On 24/9/21 10:02 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

z

On Fri, 24 Sept 2021 at 09:40, mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au> > wrote:

Hi
I see that you have named the driveways. How does this sit with  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

 

I don't "think" it goes against the grain of anything listed there?

 

No, driveways aren't (usually) signposted, but there will usually be a mail box 
beside them saying "32" - is that good enough to use as a street sign?

 

As mentioned, I did it that way to help people find the property - if there's 
overwhelming objection to it, I'll stop!

 

 Thanks 

 

Graeme


?

Tony

> 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

 

___
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

[osm.talk-au]

Where driveways end at a garage door (which is pretty much all driveways I’ve 
mapped), I’ve connected the driveway to a node shared with the building outline 
and tagged as entrance=garage. As the garages are pretty much all part of the 
main buildings, which have address tags on them, data consumers should be able 
to clearly identify the address of the driveway in that case.

 

From: Kim Oldfield via Talk-au  
Sent: Friday, 24 September 2021 21:33
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Shared driveways

 

The wiki suggests you should use the addr tags instead:

addr:street=Jardine Road
addr:housenumber=32
addr:unit=a/b/c or leave off for common driveway

I have tried this in the past, but validation tools complained.
I'm not sure if it is acceptable to set an address on a driveway.

On 24/9/21 10:02 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

z

On Fri, 24 Sept 2021 at 09:40, mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au> > wrote:

Hi
I see that you have named the driveways. How does this sit with  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

 

I don't "think" it goes against the grain of anything listed there?

 

No, driveways aren't (usually) signposted, but there will usually be a mail box 
beside them saying "32" - is that good enough to use as a street sign?

 

As mentioned, I did it that way to help people find the property - if there's 
overwhelming objection to it, I'll stop!

 

 Thanks 

 

Graeme


?

Tony

> 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

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[osm.talk-au]

Yeah, I’m aware of that. As far as I can tell, there is no legal difference 
between (unsigned) footpaths and (signed) Shared Paths in regards to bicycles 
in Queensland as far as I can tell.

 

e.g. 
https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/wheeled-devices/bicycle#footpath

 

simply lists the two cases together as one.

 

On one hand, that makes bicycle tagging easy.

 

On the other hand, because of the equivalence, the local council, at least in 
my suburb, doesn’t seem to bother putting up any shared path signs, despite the 
fact that some paths are by their construction (2.5m+ in width) pretty clearly 
designed as shared paths.

 

I noticed yesterday that some of them have this stamped on the surface every 
few 100m: 
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/889335852357025822/unknown.png

But, legally speaking, because of the absence of shared path signs, they are 
still footpaths.

 

Now, under the Australian Tagging Guidelines, I’m supposed to tag all of these 
as highway=footway as far as I can tell: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Australian_Footpath_.28no_sign.29

 

But I don’t think that really makes sense in this context because you do want 
the 3m paths perfect for cycling to stand out from the 80cm footpaths.

 

When I started mapping my suburb donkey years ago, some of these larger 
“footpaths” where mapped as highway=cycleway with various inconsistent tags on 
top. I’ve since standardized them to:

 

highway=cycleway

foot=designated (should that be only yes?)

bicycle=yes (to distinguish them from signed “real” shared paths which are 
designated)

segregated=no

 

I believe this falls under the inverse of the rule:

Unfortunately, it is possible in Australia for a legally designated cycle 
facility to be completely unusable. A bicycle lane that is really a parking 
lane, or a shared path sign on a obstructed or even non-existent path. Mappers 
should use common sense and discretion, and map the effective facility that 
exists on the ground if it differs to what is defined by the Australian road 
rules.

 

But, given that I think this situation (councils not bothering to put up shared 
path signs for paths that are clearly designed as such) is probably common in 
Queensland and other states where there is equivalence of unsigned paths and 
shared paths in regards to bicycle rules, maybe it would be worthwhile to reach 
some kind of consensus about this and document it in the ATGs?

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Monday, 20 September 2021 09:26
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Cc: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

 

& in Qld, at least, bicycles are allowed to be ridden on the footpath, unless 
specifically barred.

 

" Riding on the footpath
In Queensland, cyclists of any age are allowed to ride on a footpath unless 
prohibited by a ‘NO BICYCLES’ sign. You must give way to pedestrians and ride 
in a manner that does not inconvenience or endanger other footpath users."

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

On Sun, 19 Sept 2021 at 23:16, mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote:

Well, that pretty much matches what I said before:

 

Anything that remotely looks like a footpath (is meant for people to walk on) 
is, in the absence of one of the 4 (3 + one mirrored) official signs I linked, 
a footpath.

 

It is not in any way limited to things that would be tagged as “sidewalk” in 
OSM.

 

e.g. take this example from my local neighbourhood: 
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/889134418067881994/unknown.png

 

In the absence of any signs saying otherwise (spoiler, there aren’t in this 
case) all of these are “footpaths” as defined by law.

 

From: Kevin Pye mailto:kevin@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Sunday, 19 September 2021 22:09
To: fors...@ozonline.com.au  
Cc: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
 ; OpenStreetMap 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

 

Hi all
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s250.html
ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 250
says "Footpath is defined in the dictionary" but it doesn't say which  
dictionary.

 

"The dictionary" is the dictionary in schedule 5 pf the Road Safety Road Rules 
-- http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/sch5.html

 

The definition there is fairly broad: ""footpath", except in rule 13(1) 
 , 
means an area 

  open to the public that is designated for, or has as one of its main uses, 
use by pedestrians"

 

Not particularly helpful.

 

On Sun, 19 Sept 2021 at 21:44, mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au> > wrote:

> In regards to your changeset comment: "I doubt 

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[osm.talk-au]

Well, that pretty much matches what I said before:

 

Anything that remotely looks like a footpath (is meant for people to walk on) 
is, in the absence of one of the 4 (3 + one mirrored) official signs I linked, 
a footpath.

 

It is not in any way limited to things that would be tagged as “sidewalk” in 
OSM.

 

e.g. take this example from my local neighbourhood: 
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/889134418067881994/unknown.png

 

In the absence of any signs saying otherwise (spoiler, there aren’t in this 
case) all of these are “footpaths” as defined by law.

 

From: Kevin Pye  
Sent: Sunday, 19 September 2021 22:09
To: fors...@ozonline.com.au
Cc: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au; OpenStreetMap 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

 

Hi all
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s250.html
ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 250
says "Footpath is defined in the dictionary" but it doesn't say which  
dictionary.

 

"The dictionary" is the dictionary in schedule 5 pf the Road Safety Road Rules 
-- http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/sch5.html

 

The definition there is fairly broad: ""footpath", except in rule 13(1) 
 , 
means an area 

  open to the public that is designated for, or has as one of its main uses, 
use by pedestrians"

 

Not particularly helpful.

 

On Sun, 19 Sept 2021 at 21:44, mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au> > wrote:

> In regards to your changeset comment: "I doubt that means that all   
> paths are footpaths unless otherwise signed."
> Generally speaking, yes, they are. In the absence of one of these signs

Hi all
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s250.html
ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 250
says "Footpath is defined in the dictionary" but it doesn't say which  
dictionary.

Apparently the word "footpath" is used differently in different  
countries. In Australia it means a US "sidewalk".
"A sidewalk (North American English), pavement (British English),  
footpath (Oceanian English), or footway, is a path along the side of a  
road."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidewalk

This is what my understanding of the footpath rule is in Victoria  
Australia, don't ride on the path that runs between the property line  
and the kerb.

That's not we are talking about here
ways 157071087 and 304507133 intersection
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.92361389015 

 =145.329104=17=941113219764485=photo

So I disagree with the suggestion that all paths are, for legal  
purposes, footpaths unless otherwise signed.

Tony



___
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] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[osm.talk-au]

In regards to your changeset comment: "I doubt that means that all paths are 
footpaths unless otherwise signed."

Generally speaking, yes, they are. In the absence of one of these signs:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/889007668096819260/unknown.png

Everything that sort of looks like a footpath has to be assumed to be a 
footpath.

After having a quick look, I think most of what got really is a footpath. But 
there are probably some errors.

e.g. this here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/850699423/history

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.994347=145.275723=19.334804029853068=973985916705405=photo=0.4859326202768015=0.5905877763133818=0

should really be tagged as :

highway=cycleway
foot=designated
bicycle=designated
segregated=yes

The fact that the footpath is mapped separately, but the cycleway is tagged as 
cycleway:left=track on the road complicates things unnecessary. It would be 
better to either tag both separately (as above) or tag both on the road.

and further up the road, here:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.991993667=145.2760858332=17=168126275188591=photo=0.4901788209737611=0.36933104386182475=0

should be split into separate:

highway=footway
and 
highway=cycleway

It's a bit annoying that the council did a really bad job with signing here, 
because this sign:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.990109333=145.276258=17=1126201011221699=photo=0.4920214322722534=0.4508931174020654=0

Should also have been at the point where the footpath and cycleway split.



-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  
Sent: Sunday, 19 September 2021 09:16
To: Andy Townsend 
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

Hi all
HighRouleur has replied at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111016252

"In case you weren’t aware, Victorian roads rules state that riding not a 
footpath is not permitted. Hence there does not need to be a sign to indicate 
no bikes.
The only exception apply to shared paths (bike and pedestrians) which are 
signed for use by bikes."

And I have in turn replied

Tony

>
> On 18/09/2021 14:05, Adam Horan wrote:
>> I think I've tried to contact this user before.
>
> Yes you did:
>
> http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=11210886
>
> For info, to see who you've commented on the changesets of, go to "My 
> Edits", click on a changeset, click on "changeset xml" at the bottom 
> of the screen, note the "uid" that appears, and create a URL like 
> http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=61942
> nted
> that includes that "uid".
>
> Similarly, to see who has commented on a user's changesets use a URL 
> like http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=61942 .
>
>>
>> However when I wanted to contact them it was for the opposite   
>> problem, they were putting bicycle=yes on paths that didn't allow   
>> cycling. I have only ever seen changeset comments of 'updates' ,
>
> They've now specifically been asked about that in
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111016252 , so they do now 
> definitely know that it is an issue.  Sometimes it might also help to 
> mention https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments to 
> explain things a bit more.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> ___
> 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 mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] New Bing imagery?

[osm.talk-au]

Yes there is. Has also shown up in NSW and Qld.

We were discussing that today in #oceania on the OSM Discord.

-Original Message-
From: Sam Wilson  
Sent: Wednesday, 1 September 2021 22:25
To: OSM-Au 
Subject: [talk-au] New Bing imagery?

For Perth at any rate, it seems that there is new Bing imagery available,
taken this year. I might be a bit slow off the mark, but this makes tracing
buildings far far better! I'm sure it was crappier last week.


___
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] highway=service

[osm.talk-au]

I think this way is wrong: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/676954097

 

It’s currently mapped as a parking aisle, but as far as I can see from the 
imagery, that appears to actually be a pedestrian area, and not a roadway at 
all.

 

Yes, very clearly:

 

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-33.8547285,151.06632,3a,68.2y,95.57h,92.03t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swmU2inPdEll5F_KUNUqO4g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DwmU2inPdEll5F_KUNUqO4g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D98.22062%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

 

From: Andrew Harvey  
Sent: Monday, 16 August 2021 21:15
To: Mateusz Konieczny 
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] highway=service

 

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

 

Agreed. Surprise no one fixed this already, I've done so now.

 

On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 at 19:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:

Are you allowed as a cyclist to leave sidewalk using them?

 

Well in NSW you can't cycle on the sidewalk...

 

Is it OK to use them for u-turn?

 

Yes.

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

Re: [talk-au] Sidewalks in Australia

[osm.talk-au]

My personal preference is to map sidewalks separately like Graeme described 
below, plus:

 

sidewalk:left=separate and/or sidewalk:right =separate on the road

street relation with sidewalks added using “sidewalk” role

 

I’m also mapping driveways and the intersections between driveways and 
sidewalks, that way the sidewalks have a high level of connectivity with the 
road.

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Tuesday, 10 August 2021 13:23
To: Tom Brennan 
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Sidewalks in Australia

 

 

On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 at 13:00, Tom Brennan mailto:webs...@ozultimate.com> > wrote:


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.

 

G'day Tom

 

I don't think there is one, either in Australia, or Internationally!

 

I must admit to preferring highway=footway, tracing the line of the visible 
footpath on imagery, & only adding crossings at recognised crossing points, 
where a ramp has been provided down over the gutter.

 


Thanks

 

Graeme

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Can anyone make sense of this?

[osm.talk-au]

He added another 100 to 200 pointless "no u turn" restrictions as far as I
can see, without replying to my previous changeset comment (or any of his
previous changesets that anyone has ever commented on as far as I can tell):

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/108815135

 

Like, if there is a roundabout and the entries/exits have been mapped as a
short distance of split one-way roads, he's added a "now u-turn" restriction
to every point where these come together.

 

Could someone please have a look and tell me if I'm completely out of line
thinking this introduces a huge amount of unnecessary noise to the map?

 

From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au  
Sent: Monday, 26 July 2021 15:20
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] Can anyone make sense of this?

 

I just noticed this change set:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/108562320

 

And I have a hard time making sense of it.

 

As far as I can tell, these are primarily 100s of totally unnecessary turn
restrictions?

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

[talk-au] Can anyone make sense of this?

[osm.talk-au]

I just noticed this change set:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/108562320

 

And I have a hard time making sense of it.

 

As far as I can tell, these are primarily 100s of totally unnecessary turn
restrictions?

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

Re: [talk-au] Street Lamps

[osm.talk-au]

At first glance, and without digging any deeper myself, that dataset seems to 
be licensed under CC BY 4.0. Is it covered under any waiver we already have?

 

https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/

 

 

From: Andrew Munday  
Sent: Saturday, 12 June 2021 10:00
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] Street Lamps

 

Hello everyone. I'm not sure what I'm doing with this mailing list thing so 
bear with me. I'm building an augmented reality game ala Pokemon Go and one of 
the objects in the game are street lamps. I've been adding a lot of changes 
around my house in Canberra for around a year and the other day I found out 
about automated edits and figured I could use the street lamps dataset at 
https://www.data.act.gov.au/Infrastructure-and-Utilities/ACT-Streetlights/cfpr-4tpw
 to speed up the process. I did look at the automatic edits code of conduct 
page and I couldn't figure out who I should contact about my plans to do it so 
I submitted a few changesets and ticked the box saying I wanted someone to 
review my edits which got someone to tell me to message here. I'm happy to undo 
the changesets if needed but I'd like some guidance on how to do this sort of 
thing.

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

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[osm.talk-au]

Well, the website of the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 
website specifically lists “Local Traffic Only” as an official state level sign.

 

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/signs/instruction (see section “Local 
traffic restriction signs”)

 

 

From: Michael James  
Sent: Monday, 11 November 2019 09:20
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

 

They existed prior to 1997 and were removed when the national rules were 
introduced that year.

 

It’s likely that local councils are unaware that they no longer have any legal 
purpose.

 

From: Sebastian S. mailto:mapp...@consebt.de> > 
Sent: Sunday, 10 November 2019 9:50 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org  ; Andrew 
Harvey mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> >; Mateusz 
Konieczny mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com> >
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

 

So the sign is put up by the council. Is it not an official sign?

Could someone elaborate on the legal side mentioned here. E.g. is there 
catalogue of street signs in the road rules and this one is not among them?

Are people confusing lax enforcement of the sign with it having no legal 
meaning?

On 9 November 2019 11:37:49 am AEDT, Andrew Harvey mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> > wrote:

On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 02:24, Mateusz Konieczny mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com> > wrote:

Why it would be irrelevant?

 

access tag family is for legal access (with some space for officially 
discouraged access),

access=destination is for "transit is illegal", not "local residents dislike 
transit traffic".

 

OSM is not a place to add a nonexisting ban on transit traffic

 

Yeah realised this later, see my other post in this thread at 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-November/013188.html, 
which I suggested motor_vehicle:advisory=destination to tag a suggested or 
advised but maybe not legally enforceable destination only restriction.

 

On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 01:55, Mateusz Konieczny mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com> > wrote:

Is it "local traffic only" as in "resident only" or "no transit"?

 

Is permission required to enter this area?

 

AFAIK there is no tagging scheme for distinguishing "only with permission of

homeowner" and "available to all residents of closed community".

 

It just means this road is indented to be used if you're traveling to somewhere 
along this road, but not if you're just driving through as a shortcut.

 

It's still public land, not private property. 

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

Re: [talk-au] network=Translink SEQ vs network=TransLink SEQ

[osm.talk-au]

Use download from overpass api in JOSM with this query:

 

[out:json][timeout:999];

(

 node["network"="Translink SEQ"];

  way["network"="Translink SEQ"];

  relation["network"="Translink SEQ"];

);

out body;

out skel qt;

 

after download completes, press Ctrl+A to select everything

 

change network tag value to TransLink SEQ

 

perform “Upload data” action

 

That should do it. (I’ve tried it out till just before the last click where it 
would really upload.)

 

But before this is done, we should probably discuss it more, and also use a 
separate account to perform this update, like for mass imports.

 

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Wednesday, 11 July 2018 08:07
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Subject: Re: [talk-au] network=Translink SEQ vs network=TransLink SEQ

 

On 11 July 2018 at 06:14, mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote:

I’ve just noticed that there are 3-4k of both network=Translink SEQ and 
network=TransLink SEQ

 

Given that tag values are generally considered case sensitive, shouldn’t these 
two be conflated into one or the other?

 

Yes, they probably should be.

 

I've just checked & the name is TransLink, so that should be the version we use.

 

How do you even go about doing a mass edit like that though?

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

Re: [talk-au] network=Translink SEQ vs network=TransLink SEQ

[osm.talk-au]

With all 7700 objects (both network variants) loaded, I also noticed that there 
is some variation in the operator tag (excuse the screenshot):

 



 

Which could probably be cleaned up at the same time if we agree on which ones 
are the correct ones.

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Wednesday, 11 July 2018 08:07
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Subject: Re: [talk-au] network=Translink SEQ vs network=TransLink SEQ

 

On 11 July 2018 at 06:14, mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote:

I’ve just noticed that there are 3-4k of both network=Translink SEQ and 
network=TransLink SEQ

 

Given that tag values are generally considered case sensitive, shouldn’t these 
two be conflated into one or the other?

 

Yes, they probably should be.

 

I've just checked & the name is TransLink, so that should be the version we use.

 

How do you even go about doing a mass edit like that though?

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

[talk-au] network=Translink SEQ vs network=TransLink SEQ

[osm.talk-au]

I've just noticed that there are 3-4k of both network=Translink SEQ and
network=TransLink SEQ

 

Given that tag values are generally considered case sensitive, shouldn't
these two be conflated into one or the other?

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping houses and addresses in Sydney

[osm.talk-au]

From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Monday, 18 June 2018 20:57
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Mapping houses and addresses in Sydney

 

On 18/06/18 20:30, Andrew Harvey wrote:

On 18 June 2018 at 19:21, Dion Moult mailto:d...@thinkmoult.com> > wrote:

Thanks Andrew for your reply!

 

1. Thanks for the link to the import guidelines. My responses to the import 
guidelines below:

 

First up I think any changesets that import addresses in this way should have 
an extra changeset tag so if we need to we can identify which changesets did 
the import (so more than just source=LPI NSW Base Map). Something like 
import=NSW Address Points or something.


source:import=LPI API via ?? something like that?




 

Following the import guidelines and using a dedicated account for such imports 
should already make it clear?

 

(sorry for replying to the wrong mailing list first)

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping houses and addresses in Sydney

[osm.talk-au]

From: Andrew Harvey  
Sent: Monday, 4 June 2018 05:13
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Mapping houses and addresses in Sydney

 

What do you mean by "ESRI as a base map" do you mean the "ESRI World Imagery" 
available in ID and JOSM? ESRI's map layers are not allowed, just like Google 
Maps or Google Street View which must not be used as we don't have the 
copyright permissions to use these.

 

 

That statement does not seem to match the information on the wiki?

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Esri#Legal_permissions

 

Using Esri imagery in editors

The easiest way to do this is to select the “Esri satellite imagery” layer as 
an option in either iD or JOSM. 

Legal permissions

Esri and its imagery contributors grant Users the non-exclusive right to use 
the World Imagery map to trace features and validate edits in the creation of 
vector data. Users that create vector data from the World Imagery map may want 
to publicly share that vector data through a GIS data clearinghouse of its own 
or through another open data site. This public sharing could be achieved 
through ArcGIS Open Data   or the 
OpenStreetMap (OSM) Initiative. For ArcGIS users that want to contribute such 
vector data to OSM, Esri provides applications and services directly accessible 
from ArcGIS platform. Users acknowledge that any vector data contributed to OSM 
is then governed by and released under the OpenStreetMap License (e.g. ODbL). 

Except for the additional limited rights granted above, any and all other uses 
of the World Imagery map remain subject to the terms and conditions set forth 
in the Esri Master Agreement or Terms of Use, as applicable. Esri and its 
imagery contributors retain all right, title, and interest in and to their 
respective imagery data contributed to the World Imagery map. (source 
 ) 

Attribution should be in either  
 source=Esri or  
 imagery_used=Esri tags 
on a changeset. 

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Small culverts/bridges in bushland

[osm.talk-au]

From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, 30 May 2018 19:17
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Small culverts/bridges in bushland

 

I quoted the whole off-list "discussion" with Thorsten. Since it was short and 
not controversial, I assumed it was in error not using reply all. Apologies if 
this is against some sort of mailing list etiquette, but in my use of mailing 
lists it is common people forget to reply all.

Depends on the other person .. some see it as 'private'. Others have just made 
an error. 
Personally I try to keep the replay to the list only ... no point in have a 
separate To: or Cc: thing in the address bar ... and it keeps my mail filters 
happy :) 




 

Not sending it to the list was an unintentional mistake on my side in this 
case… I wouldn’t have noticed that it didn’t went to the list if you hadn’t 
mentioned it…

 


It is less complex the way you have it :) ... but less 'truthful'. :( 
The broken up roads are a pain when you try to change there classifications .. 
you have to do it for each bridge and way ... at least that is the present 
arrangement .. possibly if they were relations it would be easier for the name, 
classification ... 

 

 

For roads, if you want to make a change that should affect all segments, what I 
found works very well is just to use the search function in JOSM to look for 
name=”xxx” then do a quick visual check to make sure it’s all and only the 
segments you want. Then you can directly and easily edit tags and it affects 
everything.

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

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

[talk-au] FW: Open Mapping team at Microsoft Australian edits

[osm.talk-au]

I only just noticed that these didn’t go to the mailing list. I was wondering 
why everyone behaved like these posts hadn’t be made…

 

 

From: Nemanja Bračko  
Sent: Saturday, 5 May 2018 17:37
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Open Mapping team at Microsoft Australian edits

 

Thanks for the feedback!

I'll inform rest of the team about that!

 

On Sat, 5 May 2018, 09:24 ,  > wrote:

The central point is not the (minor) misalignment of the imagery, but the fact 
that you then didn’t take the placement attribute of the way into account when 
fixing the geometry.

 

You can use the “lane and road attributes” map style in JOSM to visualize this.

 

It is described in detail here: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/placement

 

And here is a real world example from that particular changeset (I fixed it 
again already):

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ulmnym4jcwh3fue/placement_fixed.jpg?dl=0

 

You can see how the way stays in the middle of the 3 permanent lanes, even when 
the 4th lane is added.

 

This is indicated by the placement=middle_of:3 tag on the 4 lane section. 
(middle_of:3 indicates that the way is in the middle of the 3rd lane from left, 
where the definition of left depends on the direction of the way).

 

The “fixed geometry” version you uploaded was instead like this:

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lt4g36o6ewib4kf/placement_wrong.png?dl=0

 

 

Having the way move to the middle of the 4 lanes every time a temporary 4th 
lane was added (entry or exit lanes) instead of keeping the way in the middle 
of the 3 permanent lanes as the placement tag indicated.

 

Don’t get me wrong, that motorway was in need of having it’s geometry adjusted 
in many places. Thanks for that. But this particular section of it was already 
mapped correct down to the individual lanes just a couple of days earlier, and 
then someone came along and messed it all up again.

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

 

 

From: Nemanja Bračko  > 
Sent: Saturday, 5 May 2018 16:53
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
 


Subject: Re: [talk-au] Open Mapping team at Microsoft Australian edits

 

Hi!

 

My name is Nemanja and I would like to try to answer this.

Our goal is to fix as many as possible geometries and two of the routes that 
had high priority geometry issues are roads that connects Brisbane and 
Townsville. DareDJ is not the only one who is involved in this task.

 

All of us are taking in account GPS traces as well (when there are many of 
them), and trying to align with geometry. In that point we get exact position 
and high quality of geometry. If that's not a case, then there is no enough GPS 
traces (we can not guarantee that just one or very few GPS traces are correct) 
we are mapping per imagery, and one day, when we get enough GPS traces, we can 
apply just offset without any remapping and spending hours and hours on mapping.

 

I just want to clarify why one or very few GPS traces can not be considered as 
ground truth. It is because we do not know which GPS is used and what is the 
precision and how much satellites was in that moment. Some of these GPS traces 
are very old or taken with old devices, e.g. Nokia N95 which has tolerance of 
+-30 meters. That can be 60 meters of offset!

 

I hope I had explained it well.

Please excuse if there are typos, I'm typing on my phone.

 

PS. DareDJ (as most of us) was offline and will be until Monday, so that's the 
reason why he didn't answer on your message.

 

Best Regards,

Nemanja

On Sat, 5 May 2018, 05:10 ,  > wrote:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/58382600

This user, which on his user page says "I am proud to be in Microsoft Open Maps 
team." Has been making a lot of "Fixed geometry" changesets.

Now, the motorway he worked on did indeed in part need fixing, as it was in 
places 10-30m out of position.

But the particular stretch in that changeset I just fixed up myself a few days 
earlier, using imagery with corrected offsets, and taking into account tagged 
lane information (because of the placement tag, the "way" that defines the 
motorway is not always in the absolute centre of all lanes).

I made a changeset comment to which I didn't get a reply, so I send a direct 
message to the user on 29th April to which I also didn't get a replay.

Cheers,
Thorsten

> -Original Message-
> From: Ewen Hill  >
> Sent: Saturday, 5 May 2018 12:07
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org  
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Open Mapping team at Microsoft Australian
> edits
> 
> Thanks for the heads up.
>I have found a large number of canals/ditches added as minor
> roads or tracks 

Re: [talk-au] Open Mapping team at Microsoft Australian edits

[osm.talk-au]

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/58382600

This user, which on his user page says "I am proud to be in Microsoft Open Maps 
team." Has been making a lot of "Fixed geometry" changesets.

Now, the motorway he worked on did indeed in part need fixing, as it was in 
places 10-30m out of position.

But the particular stretch in that changeset I just fixed up myself a few days 
earlier, using imagery with corrected offsets, and taking into account tagged 
lane information (because of the placement tag, the "way" that defines the 
motorway is not always in the absolute centre of all lanes).

I made a changeset comment to which I didn't get a reply, so I send a direct 
message to the user on 29th April to which I also didn't get a replay.

Cheers,
Thorsten

> -Original Message-
> From: Ewen Hill 
> Sent: Saturday, 5 May 2018 12:07
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Open Mapping team at Microsoft Australian
> edits
> 
> Thanks for the heads up.
>I have found a large number of canals/ditches added as minor
> roads or tracks in NW Victoria as well as fences as tracks etc. I
> have sent a message however has anyone else noticed other issues in
> the following areas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Australia-f5416966.html
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



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

Re: [talk-au] FW: Am I doing intersections right?

[osm.talk-au]

through_route belongs to the transit tag (and is documented in the wiki on that 
page) 

I'm highly doubtful if any router is actually making proper use of lane 
attributes beyond turn:lanes currently.

I think it's actually the angle at which the slip road splits off, that's 
responsible for the strange routing instruction. But I haven't had time to 
experiment with that yet.

> -Original Message-
> From: Michael 
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 April 2018 22:12
> To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' 
> Subject: [talk-au] FW: Am I doing intersections right?
> 
> Sorry,
> 
> Though not all of those slip lanes is the same, the broken one has
> through_route which is not a valid tag. (Category rejected)
> 
> Several other relations there also have that tag, however they are
> all named ways.
> 
> Perhaps that is the cause?
> 
> 
> (Second reply for the list)
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au  a...@thorsten.engler.id.au>
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 11:36 PM
> To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?
> 
> Please don't break my placement tags. (I've restored them.) They
> were there on purpose, and they are not what causes OSRM to
> generate that "Turn left onto unnamed road" instruction.
> 
> Also, please don't delete my transit relations, these things take a
> lot of work to properly setup without explicit editor support.
> 
> In case you are wondering what these tags are for, they are part of
> detailed lane tagging as you can see here:
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/ednlniwp6bcl5wk/1521024394681.jpg?dl=0
> 
> The placement=transition tag is necessary to indicate that this
> particular segment is not actually where it is in the real world,
> but is necessary because of the discrepancy between mapping roads
> as lines and roads having a width an multiple lanes in the real
> world.
> 
> The transit relation is necessary to define which of the lanes from
> one way segment connect to which of the lanes in the next way
> segment. In this case it indicates that the leftmost turn lane
> flows straight into that slip road.
> 
> 
> The other 3 slip roads at this intersection have the same tags, and
> they do not result in OSRM producing such a driving instruction. If
> there were any obvious tagging mistakes, I would have fixed them
> already.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Thorsten
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Michael 
> > Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 19:33
> > To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' 
> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?
> >
> > Ok it seems the OSM website will not centre you on an area from a
> link
> > but takes you back to the last area you looked at.
> >
> > Now ... I have removed 2 tags from the slip lane sections.
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Michael 
> > Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 7:13 PM
> > To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' 
> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?
> >
> > For some reason it wont show me the location of the pins when I
> go to
> > that link.
> >
> > I had looked at that area once before and noticed some odd stuff
> in
> > josm but left it alone.
> >
> > I've gone back in with josm and made some changes, if the routing
> > starts working (note sure on caching times before we see it) then
> I
> > would call it fixed.
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au  > a...@thorsten.engler.id.au>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 6:46 PM
> > To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' 
> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?
> >
> > From: Andrew Harvey 
> > Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 17:01
> > To: OSM Australian Talk List 
> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?
> >
> > > I agree, if there if is not named via a sign or otherwise on
> the
> > > ground then I would leave the name field on the link road empty.
> > > Routers should be able to work out the best instructions to
> give
> > > without a name on the link via the network already.
> >
> > I fully agree that that's the way it should be, unfortunately the
> > routers don't seem to always get it right:
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=-
> > 27.24200%2C153.02386%3B-27.24130%2C153.02422
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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
> > 

Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?

[osm.talk-au]

Please don't break my placement tags. (I've restored them.) They were there on 
purpose, and they are not what causes OSRM to generate that "Turn left onto 
unnamed road" instruction. 

Also, please don't delete my transit relations, these things take a lot of work 
to properly setup without explicit editor support.

In case you are wondering what these tags are for, they are part of detailed 
lane tagging as you can see here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ednlniwp6bcl5wk/1521024394681.jpg?dl=0

The placement=transition tag is necessary to indicate that this particular 
segment is not actually where it is in the real world, but is necessary because 
of the discrepancy between mapping roads as lines and roads having a width an 
multiple lanes in the real world.

The transit relation is necessary to define which of the lanes from one way 
segment connect to which of the lanes in the next way segment. In this case it 
indicates that the leftmost turn lane flows straight into that slip road.


The other 3 slip roads at this intersection have the same tags, and they do not 
result in OSRM producing such a driving instruction. If there were any obvious 
tagging mistakes, I would have fixed them already.


Cheers,
Thorsten

> -Original Message-
> From: Michael 
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 19:33
> To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?
> 
> Ok it seems the OSM website will not centre you on an area from a
> link but takes you back to the last area you looked at.
> 
> Now ... I have removed 2 tags from the slip lane sections.
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael 
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 7:13 PM
> To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?
> 
> For some reason it wont show me the location of the pins when I go
> to that link.
> 
> I had looked at that area once before and noticed some odd stuff in
> josm but left it alone.
> 
> I've gone back in with josm and made some changes, if the routing
> starts working (note sure on caching times before we see it) then I
> would call it fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au  a...@thorsten.engler.id.au>
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 6:46 PM
> To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?
> 
> From: Andrew Harvey 
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 17:01
> To: OSM Australian Talk List 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?
> 
> > I agree, if there if is not named via a sign or otherwise on the
> > ground then I would leave the name field on the link road empty.
> > Routers should be able to work out the best instructions to give
> > without a name on the link via the network already.
> 
> I fully agree that that's the way it should be, unfortunately the
> routers don't seem to always get it right:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=-
> 27.24200%2C153.02386%3B-27.24130%2C153.02422
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Am I doing intersections right?

[osm.talk-au]

From: Andrew Harvey  
Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 17:01
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?

> I agree, if there if is not named via a sign or otherwise 
> on the ground then I would leave the name field on the link 
> road empty. Routers should be able to work out the best 
> instructions to give without a name on the link via the network 
> already.

I fully agree that that's the way it should be, unfortunately the routers don't 
seem to always get it right:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=-27.24200%2C153.02386%3B-27.24130%2C153.02422



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

Re: [talk-au] Coastline mods leading to problems with other features.

[osm.talk-au]

The Sydney Harbor MP was broken (not sure if "now" or "still", the ways
didn't form a closed loop). There was one "coastline" way across the mouth
that didn't belong to the MP. I've added it and uploaded the change.

 

From: Derya Dilmen (Insight Global Inc)  
Sent: Friday, 6 April 2018 03:28
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Coastline mods leading to problems with other
features.

 

Hello,

 

Thank you much for the correction, I reverted my coastline changes , added a
comment of " reverted the changes made in coastline". It will fix the broken
relations, hopefully. Here is the changeset for my revert ( 57842079). 

 

Thanks 

Derya

 

 

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

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[osm.talk-au]

> All that said, does data.gov.au actually have any geospatial
> datasets anymore? Seems as if that has moved to
> http://www.nationalmap.gov.au

For Queensland, all geospatial data is now available from:

http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/





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

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[osm.talk-au]

I’ve looked through a number of the “open data policy” documents published by 
different Queensland government departments, and I’ve noticed that a lot of 
them contain references to the “Open Data Institute Queensland”. I’ve searched 
for their website, and it’s here: https://theodi.org.au/

 

Looking at their mission statement: “We are a pioneer node of the Open Data 
Institute. Pioneer nodes bring together communities, host events, showcase open 
data use cases, and help promote awareness and understanding of open data.”

 

I’m wondering if it might be worthwhile to contact them, lay out the problem 
OSM has with utilizing data published under CC BY 4.0 and get them to help 
advocate the granting of the waiver for us, instead of us trying to convince 
every single data stakeholder directly.

 

Looking wider, behind the Australian Open Data Institute stands the 
international Open Data Institute: https://theodi.org/

 

As this CC BY 4.0 issue is not just Australian in Nature, it might make sense 
for the appropriate working group at OSM to get in contact with them and try to 
get them to publicly advocate for granting the necessary waiver, not even 
specifically to OSM, but make it a general “CC BY 4.0 vs ODbL” compatibility 
waiver.

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

 

From: Jonathon Rossi  
Sent: Monday, 12 March 2018 22:23
To: Simon Poole 
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

 

Cheers Simon, that makes sense. I have to defer to those who have contacted 
DNRM via private email whether DNRM have made any explicit remarks over the 
previous permission. I was initially getting the feeling from some comments 
that there was some legal evidence, but I've not seen anything. I guess since 
there isn't any legal evidence, that is the reason nothing was changed on the 
contributors page, at least now that we don't have permission to use the CC BY 
4.0 data that is explicitly noted.

 

I'm glad we've got a clear picture of what is allowed and what isn't at this 
point in time.

 

@AndrewH that looks great, once the page has got a heap of green it'll be 
useful. I noticed you are missing the BCC datasets, although I've not used them.

 

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:57 PM Simon Poole  > wrote:

 

Am 12.03.2018 um 11:47 schrieb Jonathon Rossi:

Sorry Simon, I really didn't intend to make things more complicated. I just 
wanted to ensure someone else doesn't get caught in the future after thinking I 
was doing the right thing, and no one else has done this each time this has 
come up in the past.

Jonathon the effort is clearly appreciated. At the time the issue was rather 
hotly debated and (as I wasn't really involved at the time) we would likely 
need to ask Michael Collinson for the historic information. 





 

I've made your suggested change to the page in regards to CC BY 4.0 datasets, 
I've also moved it to the bottom line of the section since that made sense.

 

If we don't doubt the validity of the permission granted as you mentioned we 
obviously don't know internal government arrangements way back, then does that 
mean we'd allow people to continue using the DNRM (and others) CC BY 2.5 
datasets?

 

There are (at least) two aspects here:

- has the DNRM explicitly made a statement on the validity of the explicit 
permission from data.gov.au   back then?  If no, then I 
don't see a reason to change our approach.
- we have tightened our regime wrt CC BY 4.0  relative to CC BY 2.5, because it 
is a significantly changed licence and a number of the concerns we have with 
4.0 don't exist in such a form in 2.5 (in particular the for OSM very relevant 
section on database rights), and to be consistent we've asked, going forward, 
for the equivalent terms in older CC licenses to be waived too. We've however 
not asked anybody to go back to CC BY 2.X sources from which we have received 
permission in the past and assume that such permission continues to be valid 
for the datasets it was given at the time.



Simon  





On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 8:17 PM Simon Poole  > wrote:

 

 

Am 12.03.2018 um 11:13 schrieb Simon Poole:



Making clear that we don't the validity of the permission granted for the CC BY 
2.5 datasets, but don't extend it to covering the current ones and avoid 
speculating on internal government arrangements way back.

That should have been:

.. that we don't doubt the validity ..

___
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