Re: [talk-au] "Bad" directions on Outback roads

[stev391]

 

The challenge with specifying months is the "wet"/"dry" season is it is not always fixed.  i.e. Lakefield National Park is not expected to open to June this year, and other roads in the area further north are closed till July. (Some didn't even open at all last year, but that was more to do with damage from the wet season not being repaired and COVID-19 complicating things).

 

All that I can see we achieving, is tagging roads to "seasonal=dry_season" or "seasonal=yes" and leave the day to day status up to the router. (potentially including a reference to where the day to day status can be drawn from would be useful, if the licences allow us to refer to them).  We of course require a source to determine the seasonal status from, so would either need a survey or an appropriately licenced data set to draw from. (Can't get that from aerial images, and not many Mapillary images in the area to spot signs if they exist).


 

Stephen.

 

Thanks, fellas! It's not an utterly stupid idea then!



 



On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 at 14:46, Brendan Barnes  wrote:


 
If a road has definitive closure dates we might be able to utilise opening_hours. I tried to start something similar on Victorian Alps seasonal road closures, for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/105842220. However these closures are usually described something like "closed to vehicles from Queens Birthday weekend to Cup Weekend" and are proving difficult to describe in OSM tag format without having to upload new dates each year.



 

I've been mapping Surf Life Saving clubs with:


opening_hours=Sep-Apr Sa-Su 08:00-17:00, which seems to work?

Would just opening_hours=May-Nov work?

 


I know a lot of the roads in Cape York Peninsula are only open during the "dry" season, but not sue how they're tagged, if they are at all?

 

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] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks

[stev391]

Tony,



No objections to the proposed tagging in your email below.



Thanks for providing your case for the tagging (and the good photos) and ensuring OSM reflects the world.



Stephen.



Sent:Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 4:57 PM
From:fors...@ozonline.com.au
To:stev...@email.com
Cc:talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject:Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks

Thanks Stephen

 In regards to item 10, the photo that I have referenced is from the
 intersection of Granite and Abrahams tracks, which is un marked(no
 sign), only wheel ruts/indents in the grass to indicate the
 intersection.

Yes, I looked there today and I cant see any signs either.

 If I understood correctly, the access requirements you have
 described for Ant Track, are better suited to an access=no tag, vs
 the individual tagging of uses currently applied. (This is in line
 with the signs on the entry to the park and the description of a
 formed track from your email below.)
 That is my 2 cents, not fussed either way, just prefered it to be
 clear what the access/use requirements are.

Yes, I agree, it should be tagged access=no. (This was always my
preference, I think the confusion was over what was allowed vs what
was enforced. The signage is clear and now I have clear advice from
Parks.)

I propose that the bicycle=no horse=no tags be removed from Ant Trail
and that Ant Trail and the trail at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93253/145.30901 both be
tagged access=no

Thanks
Tony










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

Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks

[stev391]

Tony,



In regards to item 10, the photo that I have referenced is from the intersection of Granite and Abrahams tracks, which is un marked(no sign), only wheel ruts/indents in the grass to indicate the intersection.



If I understood correctly, the access requirements you have described for Ant Track, are better suited to an access=no tag, vs the individual tagging of uses currently applied. (This is in line with the signs on the entry to the park and the description of a formed track from your email below.)



That is my 2 cents, not fussed either way, just prefered it to be clear what the access/use requirements are.



Stephen.



Sent:Monday, August 24, 2015 at 2:52 PM
From:fors...@ozonline.com.au
To:talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject:Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks

Hi all

Thanks for the delay while I contacted Parks Vic. Parks Vic have
confirmed that Ant Trail is closed to the public for all uses as is
the trail at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93253/145.30901

stev391 proposed that my edit should be reverted as he says:
(1) The track is there and more well defined than other features in the area.
(2) OSM is a map of what is in the world, not what copyrighted maps
have stated.
(3) This is a commonly used mountain bike track, with a recognised name.
(4) bicycle=no requires this to be indicated in the real world.

Here are my answers to these and other issues raised:

(1)
The track is there and more well defined than other features in the area.
Ant trail is 20cm wide and consists of bare earth where bicycle
traffic has killed the vegetation. It is not signposted. Conversely
all the designated trails are signposted.

The photo that stev391 posted in support is of the intersection of Ant
Trail and Abrahams Track. Abrahams track is vehicle width and is
formed, that is it was created by earthmoving equipment. Ant Trail is
neither signed nor formed (no earthworks). See later in this post for
more photos of this intersection. There are no designated trails that
are less well defined than Ant Trail.

(2)
OSM is a map of what is in the world, not what copyrighted maps have stated.
There is a lot of information that Ant Trail is closed to cyclists
without needing to refer to copyright maps. There are signs at all the
main entry points stating that only formed and designated trails can
be used and that the use of informal trails is not permitted. All the
designated trails are signposted. Ant Trail is not formed, signed or
designated.

(3)
This is a commonly used mountain bike track
Is it suggested that common use rather than legal status should
determine the access tag? There is no credible dispute to the fact
that Parks Vic has the authority to close tracks and impose penalties.
This is not like Cyprus, Kosovo or Crimea where the legal authority is
disputed. We have unambiguous on ground evidence that all informal
trails have no legal access.

(4)
bicycle=no requires this to be indicated in the real world.
Signs at all main entry points to the park specify that trails should
be designated and formed and that informal trails should not be used.
All the designated tracks are signed. Ant Trail is not formed,
designated or signed, it is informal. This is real world indication.

(5)
If you are not allowed to ride there is a no bikes symbol
Yes it does say this. It is obvious that this is badly worded. It is
obviously impractical to signpost every informal trail, shortcut and
animal track. The no bikes signs are only used on signed and
designated walking tracks. Is it suggested that its OK to use informal
bush trails up to the point that Parks notices them and puts up a sign?

(6)
When in doubt, also consider the on the ground rule
There is no doubt in this case. Parks Vic is the undisputed
responsible authority, this is not disputed territory like Cyprus,
Kosovo or Crimea. Parks Vic has declared Ant Trail and other informal
trails closed. There is ample evidence on the ground of this.

(7)
The only formed management trail is the Dargon Track ...
Formed means earthworks, eg by a grader, spade or bulldozer but not
necessarily graveled. Dargon, Abrahams, Sunset, Lanes tracks all fit
this definition. Ant Trail is a worn trail not a formed trail.

(8)
Both maps on the parks site are out of date and do not show all the
signed tracks, let alone the unsigned tracks...
Yes the website pdf is dated 2007 and does not show The Aneurism which
is a signed and designated bike track. Any unsigned tracks should not
be used. The Aneurism is shown on the maps at the Horswood Rd and
Hallam North Rd carparks, these signs are a few weeks old.

(9)
what regulation governs the restriction to ride a bike on an existing trails
It is the National Parks Act. It is an offence to use a vehicle in an
area not set aside for vehicles. A Bike is included in the definition
of vehicle in the National Park Regulations 2013

(10)
there is no sign at this intersection of the fire trails
I cant view the photo

Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks

[stev391]

I agree David,



Hence why these tracks were left just as highway=path




Stephen.




Sent:Monday, August 10, 2015 at 2:11 PM
From:David Clark dbcl...@fastmail.com.au
To:talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject:Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks





I come acrosssimilar situations quite often and you could write an essay on access to each individual trail but its not worth it and still doesnt improve the accuracy or clarity.



My opinion is that the situation is sufficiently vague enough that I wouldnt tag any specific access or restrictions.



Its an interesting topic Tony I hope youre not discouraged, keep mapping. :-)



David




Hi all

Sorry, I referred to signs and brochures as maps in my last mail,

yes they do contain maps which cant inform our decision, but they

also contain text information which can.

Tony




Thanks stev391 and others for the feedback and the welcome.



Re real world indications of bicycle=no, there is a lot of signage in

the area indicating that only formed and signed bike trails can be used

and that the creation and use of other tracks is illegal.



https://app.box.com/s/a7215oibuxni7igetyr1onq7yhowfkk1

Map of authorised bike paths at Horswood Rd

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.96593/145.30346



https://app.box.com/s/v0d7q8og4qwtzp6ke43u84a9jbkkha84

Detail of above stating Ride only on formed trails designated for

cycling. Do not take shortcuts or make new trails.



https://app.box.com/s/v2s8dl3q3a86gnuwlig2ez9ygsbzngif

sign at cnr Logan Park Rd and Wellington Rd Please remain on formed

Management tracks only, penalties apply

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93742/145.31140



https://app.box.com/s/t66300e74l19nr9dwsl7h9b8l25jt0bd

Detail of sign Cyclists are not permitted ... to ride on tracks...

other than those designated for mountain bike riding



https://app.box.com/s/rldybfj6gfscfr3zwc7jd20tac7yho7y

Detail of sign, map showing authorised trails



https://app.box.com/s/wawk2d19abv5ic65h5daslgqj6xrhqut

Sign at cnr Dargon Tk and Wellington Rd



https://app.box.com/s/gy198r926p05g3f6wgt41hkm2p0jwswy

Example of signage on authorised bike track (Dargon Track)



Thanks for the photo of Ant Trail. Another at the link below

https://app.box.com/s/n13xkced9ra4bv97xf1xqspl3xptnht5

Ant trail at Sunset Tk looking east



It appears that this is not a formed track or a designated track.

The signage in the area therefore indicates that its use is illegal.



https://app.box.com/s/zbdg27crru77njfsvj58proe87qj0oif

A similar but unnamed track at

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93253/145.30901



Park notes

http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/315692/Lysterfield-Lake-mountain-bike-ridingPark-note-Lysterfield-Lake-mountain-bike-riding.pdf

http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/315693/Lysterfield-Park-and-Churchill-NPPark-note-Lysterfield-Park-and-Churchill-NP.pdf

map the authorised trails and indicate that the use of other trails is

illegal. We do not always rely on on ground signage for tagging, for

example footpaths would be tagged as cars=no even though there are no

barriers or signs.



Re the name of the trail, it is unclear how widely the name Ant Trail

is known, it is not supported on the ground by eg signage.



I spoke briefly with the head ranger Lysterfield last week and expect

to talk again in the next 2 days and hope to get an official answer on

(a) the exact legal status of these trails

(b) whether Parks Vic has a position on how they should be mapped



So please hold off retagging for a couple of days.



Thanks

Tony






TONY,THANKS FOR FIRSTLY RAISING YOUR PROPOSED EDIT PRIOR TO MAKING

THE CHANGE (AND ALSO WELCOME TO THE OPENSTREETMAP COMMUNITY). I HAD

NOT BEEN TO THAT TRACK IN ABOUT 6 MONTHS, SO NEEDED TO REVISIT TO SEE

WHAT WAS ON THE GROUND BEFORE PRESENTING MY ARGUMENT. PLEASE DO NOT

TAKE THIS AS AN ATTACK ON YOURSELF AND I HOPE THAT YOU CONTINUE TO

CONTRIBUTE TO THE MAP. I AGREE WITH BRYCE, IT IS DEFINITELY NOT

BICYCLE=NO AS THERE IS NOTHING IN THE REAL WORLD TO INDICATE THAT

THIS NOT ALLOWED TO BE ACCESSED. SEE:

HTTP://WIKI.OPENSTREETMAP.ORG/WIKI/BICYCLEWHICH STATES WHEN USING

BICYLCE=NO: WHERE BICYCLES ARE NOT PERMITTED, ENSURE THIS IS

INDICATED AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE BELOW REFERENCED PHOTOS, THERE

IS NO INDICATION THAT THIS IS NOT PERMITTED. THE TRACK IS QUITE WELL

DEFINED AND WELL USED, HERE IS SOME PHOTOS OF THE

TRACK:HTTP://WWW.MAPILLARY.COM/MAP/IM/YU6LBMRK8FBJT1LPJZJLHW/PHOTO(YOU

MIGHT NEED TO SCROLL OUT USING THE SCROLL WHEEL IF THE PHOTO LOOKS TOO

ZOOMED IN)IN THAT SEQUENCE OF PHOTOS YOU CAN SEE THE FIRE ACCESS TRACK

WHICH IS VERY UNDEFINED (JUST LOW CUT GRASS, WITH OCCASSIONAL WHEEL

RUTS) AND A VERY CLEAR MTB TRACK. TO COUNTER THE ARGUMENTS THAT IT

NEEDS TO BE SIGNED, THERE IS NO SIGN AT THIS INTERSECTION OF THE FIRE

TRAILS, DOES THIS MEAN IT IS NOT DEFINED AND IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE

ACCESSED?HTTP://WWW.MAPILLARY.COM

Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks

[stev391]

Hi.

I'm user Steve91.

I did not put the original track in OSM, the changeset that is referenced is to 
me improving the accuracy of the upper (eastern) section of the track. The 
upper section of the track has been in existence for over a year or two. And 
appears to be well used/good condition. 

I do not know where the name came from. I only map what is on the ground and 
the way this track is follows what I know as single track mtb.

There is no signs stating no access, this is a formed path. As are many others 
in the area. Even the official ones aren't signed.

I strongly discourage the removal of the track as OSM is a map of the world and 
not the map of parks vic. If it exists then it can be mapped.

I don't mind removal of the name, however the original author might.

These are just my views, always happy to consider other views.

Steve.

-Original message-
Sent: Thursday, 30 July 2015 at 03:52:28
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
Thanks for the replies

The track exists and is mappable. It is not blocked off.

Parks Vic prefers light handed regulation so I used mild language to  
describe the track status.  
http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/315692/Park-note-Lysterfield-Lake-mountain-bike-riding.pdf
 actually states: Cyclists are not permitted to create new tracks, ride 
through bush or ride on tracks other  
than
those designated for Mountain Bike riding.

Possibly tag it access=no and rename it to Track closed depending on  
how widely the name Ant Track is known. It may be known as Ant Track  
by a very small group of riders.

Thanks for the contact info, I didn't want to start an edit war with  
the author. I will contact them.

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] Vicmap data

[stev391]

Nick,



It is currently working for me JOSM, this is my imagery URL:

tms:http://whoots.mapwarper.net:80/tms/{zoom}/{x}/{y}/WEB_MERCATOR/http://api.maps.vic.gov.au/geowebcacheWM/service/wms?VERSION=1.1.1TILED=true



Maybe it was down last night?



Sent:Saturday, September 13, 2014 at 6:38 PM
From:Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com
To:talk-au@openstreetmap.org talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject:[talk-au] Vicmap data



I just tried to add some more Victoria missing road names but cant get the Vicmap imagery working in either JOSM or Potlatch.



Does it still work for anyone else



Nick

___ 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] Address tagging guidelines for Australia

[stev391]

I have no strong views on the question regarding the use of addr:city, in the 
past I have utilised it in some areas and not in others as described in your 
email (sometimes I have put the suburb in the city tag, as it makes sense in 
areas, that I do not know are part of a greater city), due to the lack of 
guidance on applicability in Aus.

I am not familar of a current postcode boundary details, I tend to try and 
identify this information from what I can gather in the field, like addresses 
on menu's/pamphlets from restaraunts, shops, businesses, or another source is 
friends addresses in the area.

Agree that street and housenumber are the required tags, with others optional.

That is my 2 cents worth.
Stephen.
- Original Message -
From: Stéphane Guillou
Sent: 03/13/14 01:56 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Address tagging guidelines for Australia

Dear all

Sorry to resend this but I just wanted to have some feedback on my 
recommendations about addresses and my question about the postcodes, if anyone 
is able to help, before I add these recommendations to the wiki.

Cheers!

On 20/01/14 12:41, Stéphane Guillou wrote:Thanks Ben and Warin for your input.

So my understanding of it so far is that we could recommend to tag as follows:

 *addr:housenumber=*separated with semicolons if several, or range using a 
hyphen (current general addressing recommendations)
 *addr:street=*full way name
 *addr:postcode=*four-digit postcode
addr:suburb=suburb name
addr:city=large conurbation (is this the right term?) e.g. Sydney, Melbourne
addr:state=whole name (as general rule is to make it as human-readable as 
possible)
addr:country=AU (country code as currently recommended)

Housenumber and Street should be pointed out as the most important bits, as Ben 
explained. Tags in italic are the less important ones as they can be deduced 
from existing boundaries, and thus ignored to minimise a risk of confusion or 
inaccuracies. (?)
I understand from this page 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Import/Catalogue/ABS_Data  
that the suburb boundaries already exist. About Australian postcodes, the same 
page says that an older dataset was removed due to a change in licensing. Is 
there any postcode boundary data currently in use for Australia?

Add:city is a particular case as I understand there is no official boundaries 
for those conurbations - am I getting this right, Ben? In that case, should 
we recommend users not to use this tag at all as it might end up being 
confusing?

Cheers

chtfn

On 20/01/14 09:35, Ben Kelley wrote:
Hi.
There is an admin boundary level for local government areas. This is like a 
British county.
Note that all these can be derived for an address simply by looking where the 
address node is. Is it inside the boundary for the country Australia? Then then 
the address is in Australia. No need to tag it as well. Same for suburb/town, 
LGA and state.
The things you can't infer from an address's location are the street number, 
and which street it is associated with.
The boundaries for state and country are well defined. Less so for town and 
LGA, but tools like Nominatum will use these boundaries to describe addresses 
where they are present.
 - Ben Kelley.

On 20 Jan 2014 09:22, Warin  61sundow...@gmail.com  wrote:

On 19/01/2014 8:48 PM, Ben Kelley wrote:
Hi.
I think in Australia, as far as gazetted places go, suburb=town, but for these, 
you can derive it if the suburb has an admin boundary.
City is not gazetted. E.g. Sydney is a suburb. An address in nearby Pyrmont is 
not in Sydney (the suburb), so saying it is in a city called Sydney might be 
confusing.
 - Ben Kelley.
Perhaps better to deal with it as a county/shire issue? As we are british based 
then this may be of some assistance?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/English_Counties 

This should separate any two suburbs of the same name (I hope!). Unfortunately 
these are not in common use here (unlike britain) so may not be helpful for 
general navigation.

As for the post office - I'd think they use the post code first rather than the 
city/suburb. I'd think the OS Map is for navigation, not for the post office? 
So it should make sense in a navigational way?

On 19 Jan 2014 14:01, Stéphane Guillou  stephane.guil...@gmail.com  wrote:
Thanks everyone for your input.

I wonder what was the rationale behind using abbreviations for countries and 
states as I understood that the database must be as human-readable as possible.
Still, I will be following the recommendations on the Key:addr page for 
addr:country=AU.

However, I am still unsure about suburb vs city. Key:addr tells us to watch out 
for the Australian definition of suburbs, and Wikipedia says the following:

In Australia and New Zealand, suburbs have become formalised as geographic 
subdivisions of a city and are used by postal services in  * addressing*.

As we are here tagging the address, I was wondering: are we tagging so the 
addresses appear as they should 

Re: [talk-au] Growth in OSM usage.

[stev391]

Group,

Just letting you know I have made some friendly contact with Linking Melbourne 
Authority, and they have acknowledged the issue and are working to include the 
appropriate attribution.

Steve
- Original Message -
From: Leon Kernan
Sent: 03/05/14 10:01 PM
To: stev...@email.com
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Growth in OSM usage.

They are using Mapbox, which provides the attribution string (it's in the 
source code) but its up to the user to display it appropriately. 

Looks like they didn't read this page when they set it up:

https://www.mapbox.com/help/attribution/ 

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:11 PM,  stev...@email.com  wrote:More and more 
people are using the data now, it is quite good and rewarding to know that it 
is useful.

One thing I couldn't find on the website was links to the attribution etc.
Were you able to find it? If not either email linking melbourne with a polite 
email or let me know and I can do it.

Cheers,
Steve
- Original Message -
From: Dssis1
Sent: 03/05/14 07:20 PM
To:  talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: [talk-au] Growth in OSM usage.

Hi, just letting you guys know that the East-West Link page now uses a OSM map 
to show drilling locations. Link attached: 
http://linkingmelbourne.vic.gov.au/east-west-link/technical-studies/geotechnical-studies
  . Thanks, David. -- View this message in context: 
http://openstreetmap-australia.2291470.n4.nabble.com/Growth-in-OSM-usage-tp4642240.html
  Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com. 
___ Talk-au mailing list  
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au 


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

Re: [talk-au] Growth in OSM usage.

[stev391]

More and more people are using the data now, it is quite good and rewarding to 
know that it is useful.

One thing I couldn't find on the website was links to the attribution etc.
Were you able to find it? If not either email linking melbourne with a polite 
email or let me know and I can do it.

Cheers,
Steve
- Original Message -
From: Dssis1
Sent: 03/05/14 07:20 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] Growth in OSM usage.

Hi, just letting you guys know that the East-West Link page now uses a OSM map 
to show drilling locations. Link attached: 
http://linkingmelbourne.vic.gov.au/east-west-link/technical-studies/geotechnical-studies
 . Thanks, David. -- View this message in context: 
http://openstreetmap-australia.2291470.n4.nabble.com/Growth-in-OSM-usage-tp4642240.html
 Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com. 
___ Talk-au mailing list 
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Opps - may have done the wrong thing with a multiple restriction?

[stev391]

Warin,

Just thought I would through my 2 bits in.

I'm not absolutely certain that multiple vias, tos and froms works. I follow 
the KISS principle as well, and do seperate restrictions where required.

You will find lots of map errors left over from last years (or was it the year 
before?) license change, where the OSMF Redaction Bot removed all the material 
contributed by people who did not agree to the license change. (Hence the OSMF 
Redaction account). As for Alexonthebus, I have noted an occasional error here 
and there by that user, but nothing that is reoccurring.

The circular way issue is easily identified in JOSM as there validator 
identifies this, and the ways have arrows on them when selected. To remove them 
you can unglue them (select the node and hit 'g'), seperate the ways into 2 
ways (select way and node(s) and hit 'p'), or just delete a node to remove the 
extra section of the way.

Well that is my 2 bits, keep up the mapping
Stephen
(steve91)
- Original Message -
From: Warin
Sent: 01/31/14 11:00 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Opps - may have done the wrong thing with a multiple 
restriction?

Ok ...

The reason why I'm look at these turn restrictions .. there is a section - 2 
nodes that give an error of overlapping ways .. one road .. finally worked it 
out.. put another node on it and dragged it off - to reveal the overlap - a 
circular way .. consisting of two nodes.. fixed that now.

Back to the turn restrictions: I've removed the 'group';. Put in two (or more?) 
restrictions on individual nodes .. from my previews OSM garmin map that I 
have. If the renderer has not resolved the original intended turn restrictions 
then that is a further reason for going with individual turn restrictions 
rather than a 'group' where one turn restriction has multiple vias, froms and 
tos. Working on the KISS principle. Thought, would someone combining a number 
of ways into one way, join the turn restrictions into one turn restriction to 
make this mess?

In doing this I expanded 'my' area .. and that has now revealed more errors - 
both overlapping ways and more turn restrictions stuff .. I fixed what I could 
work out in a given time .. but I've left the rest ...
Authors appear to be cleary, Alexonthebus and OSMF Redactivation account. Area 
is Pennant Hills Road - North Parramatta to Carlingford, Sydney.

On 30/01/2014 10:22 AM, Warin wrote:
Hi,

On the corner of 'my area' I've a restriction .. that has multiple 'from' and 
multiple 'to' ... I thought that was a mistake ... but it may not be. The via 
was indicated as 'incomplete' .. that may just reflect that my area does not 
include all of the vias? It is confusing to me. Possibly this is a long string 
of 'no right turns' all combined into one restriction. It would be clearer to 
me if they were all individual restrictions - and this would reduce the 
possibility of confusion in the future?

So my question is .. what is the preference for multiple restrictions on 
consecutive turns? Tag as one, or individual restriction/s?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Openstreetmap Quality Issues

[stev391]

G'day Neil,

Steve, aka Steve91 here, if I have been one of the mappers that have caused 
issues with this intersection I apologies.

As for the source of nearmap, it must have been a copy and past error, from the 
adjacent section of the road. I use AGRI, Bing sat images and survey for areas 
already mapped. The history of the some sections of the offramp show the 
nearmap as a source tag going back to 10/05/10.

The intersection in question I do remember having a look at, but only for 
routing issues due to: disconnected ways, incorrect one-way road leading to 
islands, duplicate ways etc. (i.e. trying to improve the quality of the map, as 
per the comment on the changeset). I identify items for attention via OSM 
Inspector or the validator in JOSM. I don't believe I added the ways. It 
appears that I changed the 2 ways in question from 'track' to tertiary and may 
have reconnected one end of them. 

If the intersection has been remodelled, as per the google earth imagery, then 
the sections of roads should not exist as 'track' and the ways should be 
removed. Also the onramp that is one way should be one way through the entire 
section, not have one way followed by bi-directional followed by one way.

I have no issues with you reverting the changes I made to the intersection, as 
long as the traffic routing is consistent along the ways.

Regards
Steve.

- Original Message -
From: Neil Penman
Sent: 10/22/13 12:10 PM
To: Nick Hocking
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Openstreetmap Quality Issues

Hi Nick,
Yep thats a good idea to add the survey tag. Interestingly the ways did not not 
have a source tag up until jan 2013 however Steve91 added the source of Nearmap 
then. Which I wasn't aware we still had access to.
I'll be heading past the intersection later this week and will check it out.

regards
Neil

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Nick Hocking  nick.hock...@gmail.com  wrote:
Hi Neil,

I think the way to get this fixed permanently could be...
Fix it one more time, re-add the note saying that the imagery is out of date 
and that this intersection has been surveyed.
Change the source tag from nearmap to survey.
Now even though one of the mnappers has a fairly colourful history of edit wars 
and non response to polite messages, it may be useful to send both of them a 
message pointing out that you have actually surveyed the area and that the Bing 
imagery is out of date. You could send links to the Google map sattelite view 
that shows the new layout and also the Google street view that shows the old 
layout.
I guess that it's possible (but not likely) that the local council have decided 
that what they originally had was better and have resealed the parts that were 
removed. You could check whether the latest mapper actually surveyed it or just 
traced it from imagery.

I also think it would be nice if all edit software flashed up a warning (once 
per session) if you change an object that has a survey tag. This warning 
would disappear on the next click but may serve to give the mapper second 
thoughts as to whether his changes are for the better or not.

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



--

Smap Consulting  http://smap.com.au/ | Mobile Data Collection Solutions
Application Developer -  minqiang.hu...@gmail.com 
Twitter: @dgmsot
Skype: ianaf4you
Phone: +61 402 975 959
Blog: http://blog.smap.com.au http://smap.com.au/blog
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Openstreetmap Quality Issues

[stev391]

Neil,

Once again, sorry if I caused any issues. I try to be careful with my map edits.

The changes that you have made (just now) are more substantial than what was 
there prior to my work on that section of the map. The West side had the 
southbound access left on it and the others on the west side as highway track.

Good luck for the weekend and hopefully once you have surveyed the junction it 
will remain correct...

Steve.
- Original Message -
From: Neil Penman
Sent: 10/22/13 02:38 PM
To: stev...@email.com
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Openstreetmap Quality Issues

Hi Steve,

I left those track sections where the old off ramps were as they still 
existed although they have been blocked off at both ends. I think I marked 
those with bollards. The only current access between Diggers Way and the old 
Calder is a T junction on the East side. I'd be surprised if I left routing 
issues there though its possible I guess. All the rest of the tracks / road 
segments should have been in accessible.

I just made the change and removed completely all of those old road fragments 
as you suggested. This weekend I will go past with a GPS and get the correct 
position of the T junction.

regards

Neil

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:22 PM,  stev...@email.com  wrote:G'day Neil,

Steve, aka Steve91 here, if I have been one of the mappers that have caused 
issues with this intersection I apologies.

As for the source of nearmap, it must have been a copy and past error, from the 
adjacent section of the road. I use AGRI, Bing sat images and survey for areas 
already mapped. The history of the some sections of the offramp show the 
nearmap as a source tag going back to 10/05/10.

The intersection in question I do remember having a look at, but only for 
routing issues due to: disconnected ways, incorrect one-way road leading to 
islands, duplicate ways etc. (i.e. trying to improve the quality of the map, as 
per the comment on the changeset). I identify items for attention via OSM 
Inspector or the validator in JOSM. I don't believe I added the ways. It 
appears that I changed the 2 ways in question from 'track' to tertiary and may 
have reconnected one end of them. 

If the intersection has been remodelled, as per the google earth imagery, then 
the sections of roads should not exist as 'track' and the ways should be 
removed. Also the onramp that is one way should be one way through the entire 
section, not have one way followed by bi-directional followed by one way.

I have no issues with you reverting the changes I made to the intersection, as 
long as the traffic routing is consistent along the ways.

Regards
Steve.

- Original Message -
From: Neil Penman
Sent: 10/22/13 12:10 PM
To: Nick Hocking
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Openstreetmap Quality Issues

Hi Nick,
Yep thats a good idea to add the survey tag. Interestingly the ways did not not 
have a source tag up until jan 2013 however Steve91 added the source of Nearmap 
then. Which I wasn't aware we still had access to.
I'll be heading past the intersection later this week and will check it out.

regards
Neil

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Nick Hocking  nick.hock...@gmail.com  wrote:
Hi Neil,

I think the way to get this fixed permanently could be...
Fix it one more time, re-add the note saying that the imagery is out of date 
and that this intersection has been surveyed.
Change the source tag from nearmap to survey.
Now even though one of the mnappers has a fairly colourful history of edit wars 
and non response to polite messages, it may be useful to send both of them a 
message pointing out that you have actually surveyed the area and that the Bing 
imagery is out of date. You could send links to the Google map sattelite view 
that shows the new layout and also the Google street view that shows the old 
layout.
I guess that it's possible (but not likely) that the local council have decided 
that what they originally had was better and have resealed the parts that were 
removed. You could check whether the latest mapper actually surveyed it or just 
traced it from imagery.

I also think it would be nice if all edit software flashed up a warning (once 
per session) if you change an object that has a survey tag. This warning 
would disappear on the next click but may serve to give the mapper second 
thoughts as to whether his changes are for the better or not.

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



--

Smap Consulting  http://smap.com.au/ | Mobile Data Collection Solutions
Application Developer -  minqiang.hu...@gmail.com 
Twitter: @dgmsot
Skype: ianaf4you
Phone: +61 402 975 959 tel:%2B61%20402%20975%20959 
Blog: http://blog.smap.com.au http://smap.com.au/blog 

--

Smap Consulting  http://smap.com.au/ | Mobile Data Collection Solutions
Application Developer -  minqiang.hu...@gmail.com 
Twitter: @dgmsot
Skype: ianaf4you
Phone: +61 402 975 959
Blog: