Re: [talk-au] camp sites
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: The corresponding categories may be better held in a software ruleset, and the mapper just enumerate the amenities on the campsite that they are aware of. Agreed. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] camp sites
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:35 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: It could be compared to using highway=. Yes, and highway is terrible ;-) Truth is, we like to classify things, places and people into groups, it is how we handle the complexity of the world, we do it unconsciously and often blur the edges. But we need to do it ! No, that's what mere humans do. ;-) We are OSMers, and we're designing a schema. I am 100% with Ian on this one. If there's no need to blur edges, as you put it, why oh why would we want to introduce that fuzziness into our data? Sensing that we may be at an impasse, I would at least insist that mappers are strongly encouraged to also enter information about specific amenities, even if they additionally use some fuzzy summarization tag. And app designers should make use of those specific tags, even if they additionally unpack the summarized tags. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] camp sites
Its not mapping for the renderer but is about mapping in such a way that the data is usable. Agreed that we should map in such a way that makes the data most usable. I think raw data is more usable for app designers. You seem to think composite tags with fuzzy definitions are more usable. I could be wrong. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] camp sites
I have an ideological objection to introducing key values that represent composite keys (e.g. serviced === standard + shower + power). Over time, the definition of such values becomes more and more convoluted (e.g. how do I tag a campsite that is standard + shower? Introduce another bloody campsite=* value, of course!). This also introduces unnecessary complexity that makes the data harder to use (e.g. an app that allows search for showers suddenly needs to know about the definition of campsite=serviced). I've made this point several times over the last several years, but either I haven't made it effectively, or I'm wrong. On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 3:39 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Sat, 2015-05-02 at 14:36 +1000, Ian Sergeant wrote: Hi, My only observation would be that in Australia toilets and no water seems a very common combination at camp grounds. You know the kind of campground I'm talking about, with either drop toilets or unpotable water. Thanks Ian. The 'standard' level has water, not necessarily potable or drinking water. So much of your use case is covered. Some effort was put in to minimise the number of steps. Too many and the idea would be unwieldy. So that call had to be made. I reckon at least 95% of camps with a toilet also had water, probably better. So we are playing the odds ! Please consider voting ! david ___ 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=path
The Australian Tagging Guidelines says to tag them highway=path, foot=yes. I think surface=unpaved or dirt or ground should be included too. Yup. I've long argued that objectively verifiable tags, like surface, are very useful. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Highway=path
Sounds good to me David. On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 9:42 AM, David Clark dbcl...@fastmail.com.au wrote: I probably should clarify, I'm really talking about paths that have been tagged highway=path without including any other tags. I'm sure with a bit of direction and encouragement people would include the surface=what ever it is tag. If the mapper doesn't know the surface, then fair enough, leave it out. But I think more often than not the mapper probably would know at least enough to tag it paved or dirt. It's a case of mapping what is physically there, a rocky, rooty bushwalking trail for example should be tagged differently to a concrete path that parents push a kiddies pram along. All the best, David - Original message - From: David Clark dbcl...@fastmail.com.au To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: [talk-au] Highway=path Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 09:45:55 +0930 I've been mapping stuff on OSM for a while but I've recently started doing my own rendering for gps. From this I've gained a new insight into the highway=path tag so am posting here. Firstly my focus is on tracks and trails so that is where I'm coming from. The basics of what I have noticed is that a lot ways are tagged highway=path with no other information. I have found this to be a difficult problem when it comes to rendering. The highway=path tag is a little different to the other highway tags. Firstly it covers quite a broad range of features for walking, cycling, horse riding. Secondly it has no default surface type. For example roads default is paved unless otherwise specified, highway=track defaults to unpaved. Highway=path doesn't have a default. Before messing around with rendering I would tag as highway=path and not bother too much with the other assortment of tags. Partly this is because there are heaps of tags that can be used and there was no particular direction on their priority or importance of use. For rendering I really need a surface tag included to separate the paths into practical catagories. Having no surface tag results in such a large mix of data that it becomes impractial to define any further. However if the surface=paved,dirt.. whatever is used the usefulness of the data is massively increased. For rendering I (and other examples of rendering I have seen) use the highway=path, surface=paved,dirt..etc tag to split the data into paths that are paved and paths that are not paved. This results in a practical ability to split surfaced paths (butumen, cement, pavers etc) and trails (gravel, dirt etc). I'd like to see the difference between: walking trails, dirt trails, single track etc. and paved paths, bitumen paths, concrete paths etc. And I'm sure I'm not alone in this. So in summary: highway=path is a unique tag because it covers a broader range of features than most tags. highway=path has no surface default like most other way tags do. adding the surface=paved,dirt,..,.. etc adds a much need qualifier for pratical rendering. My request: Firstly that people tagging paths consider adding the surface tag as well. You probably already know the surface (as I always did even though I didn't realise the significance of adding the tag) and if you're interested in paths your likely one of those most interested in having it rendered in a practical way. Secondly I think this is worth adding to the Australian Tagging Guidelines wiki in some form. ie Please add the surface=paved,dirt,..,.. etc when tagging paths. Preferred minimum being paved or dirt. What do you think? All the best, David *___* 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 -- *I'm trekking 100km non-stop for charity! To support our team:* [image: otw-email-banner.png (400×45)] https://trailwalker.oxfam.org.au/team/home/17313 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] QLD GTFS Data Imports
My only requirement being to understand where the qroti:surveyed is from (a government employee survey date or a morb_au survey date?) My thinking is that morb_au didn't survey 6,000 bus stop across Brisbane and that this was information held in a dataset that he had access to. This: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=qroti+osml=1 ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/QROTI). I think morb_au really did survey 6,000 bus stops, as: morb_au is also the sole surveyor of bus stop locations; last_surveyed: Last survey time in the field. I assume last_surveyed is equivalent to surveyed, though I can't confirm that. my thinking here is that if stops are at v1 then they are as imported by morb_au and those nodes are a mechanical import...and candidates for removal I would advise against removal of anything unless verified by survey. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] QLD GTFS Data Imports
Ah goodo, sorry, my incorrect impression was that you hadn't seen that page. Bummer that you can't get in contact with morb_au...But regardless, I reckon the best solution would be to facilitate and encourage locals to grab a MapCraft slice and merge the data in themselves by local knowledge/survey. On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Jason Ward jasonjwa...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for that. I have read that several times and in fact link to it in the Wiki page for this import (my prior email contains that link). That is the clearest indication yet that I might need to rethink the existing dataset. I would advise against removal of anything unless verified by survey. I am very much in agreement on this point. If morb_au doesn't wish to respond to my enquiry or hasn't seen my email/LinkedIn comms then I have to take that at face value (he is the author of the Wiki section you've quoted in the email). You've also assumed the meaning of last_surveyed. I wish to remove that uncertainty as much as possible and really understand why in the field has been surrounded in double quotes. Could 231 Bus stop nodes really have been accurately surveyed in 1 day? [1] That's a proper effort survey if that is the case. I'm keen to understand the mechanics of that day, and all qroti surveys, better so I can appropriately conflate the new nodes. [1]: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2BK (The highest daily node count of the qroti dataset) If I don't get it then I'll err on the side of caution and retain all existing data, not shift its location and merge in the new key:value details that comes with this later dataset. If anyone else has any input I am all ears. Remove QROTI keys? I'm thinking its a good idea as a post implementation of this import purely to keep references within OSM to current datasets. If its a bad idea could you tell me why? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] South Australia - Public Transport / OSM data
Exciting to have you on board, Garth. I'm in Brisbane but would be happy to help with 'armchair' tasks if and when they arise. Hope you get a good response from SA mappers. Cheers, Roy On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Walker, Garth (DPTI) garth.wal...@sa.gov.au wrote: Hi all, I was lucky enough to get in contact with Alex Sims who is the local OSM contact for media here in SA. I’m working on supporting one of our Public Transport Initiatives Open Trip Planning which uses OSM mapping data, and looking to the community for support to enhance the current mapping data available for metropolitan South Australia. Currently we’ve identified that there are several areas of OSM which require tagging for pedestrian access, which impacts our open trip planning routing options. · Street Address Limitations ( missing streets and street numbers) · walking paths data not included across many of the highways (North East and Main North Gepps cross) connected to transport infrastructure, such as railway stations, and bus interchanges. Grange is a hot spot, as has been Aldinga, Blackwood and Belair, Mclaren vale ( which looks like its improving) and some areas around · Southern and Northern suburb areas not detailed · Smaller Shopping Centres, Councils and other places of interest not named. I’d be very happy to help as I am also involved with the Government Open Data program at http://data.sa.gov.au/ I’m keen on building some good relationships with contributors and application developers so would like to gather some more support for OSM in South Australia. Hope to hear from you all. Kind Regards *Garth Walker* *Customer Information Project Officer* *Client Experience Project Manager* Customer Experience | Public Transport Services Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure GPO BOX 1553, Adelaide, SA, 5001 Government of South Australia *Telephone (Primary): (08) 8218 2108 %2808%29%208218%202108* *Email: garth.wal...@sa.gov.au garth.wal...@sa.gov.au* Web: www.dpti.sa.gov.au http://www.dtei.sa.gov.au/ For all your public transport information go to www.adelaidemetro.com.au The information in this e-mail may be confidential and/or the subject of legal privilege or public interest immunity. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error please phone +61 8 8303 0832. This e-mail and any attached files should be scanned to detect viruses, however no liability will be accepted for any loss or damage whatsoever (whether direct or consequential) resulting from the use of any attached files. Think BEFORE you print and consider the environment ___ 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 in Government
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 11:19 AM, David dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Waldo, you suggest that people mapping dirt roads (and others?) need to record every relevant characteristic of that road. No, no one NEEDS to record EVERY characteristic (though that would be great, obviously). All I insist is that the information that is entered is verifiable. (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap in Government
For a subjective tag, verifiability is more difficult and would normally be statistical e.g. Recommended or Yes could be defined as, say, 95% of the target population successfully pass through. Assuming of course such information is avaialble. If such information is available, then the subjective tag ceases to be subjective and becomes objective, in which case I have no problem with it :-) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap in Government
4wd tracks ? There are simply too many factors at play here for us to measure, should we measure the height or spacing of corrugations, the 'softness' of sand, the depth of run outs, the narrowness, the slope, the wetness of the mud, the effect of weather on the track ? Well, what information did the mapper gather in order to judge its suitability? Did the mapper notice the width(/narrowness) of the track? If so, enter it. Did the mapper notice the maximum depth of run outs? If so, enter it. Did the mapper notice something else? Enter it. Alternatively, did the mapper follow a clearly laid out specification on the wiki of what suitability means, in terms of the above factors? If so, follow the objective procedure in the wiki to enter the suitability as a summary that still has a clear meaning. That is the compromise I'm suggesting. Even if we could, how could the average map user possibly comprehend the data ? If the objective information is directly entered, it is straightforward (e.g. width=*)! If it is entered in the form of some summary tag (e.g. suitability=*), it is harder. The user would need to look up what that means in the wiki. If the wiki description is vague, they have no hope of comprehending what the tag indicates. Again, I say, we need to put data in there that is likely to be usable. Agreed. Usable by applications like renderers, routers, search engines, etc. In this case, the user wants advice on should they use the track in question. The end user, yes. But the map should not DIRECTLY offer advice, because advice is a function of the map that we all must share (i.e. representing the state of the world on the ground) PLUS a user's preferences. There's no sense muddling the two up when entering tags. Compare that to the alternative, no information, a map user assumes every track shown is suitable for them to drive ! Dangerous indeed. That's a straw man argument. The alternative is entering observable facts, either directly or in the form of summary tags with objective definitions in the wiki. I'm really only repeating what has already been said here - please read it if you haven't yet: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap in Government
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Ken Self kens...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Just jumping in here with some ideas. If you have an objective tag it is a function of the track. But if you have a subjective tag then it is a function of the user of the road/track. A tag that is true for some and not true for others is not a good tag. e.g. 4WD_Suitability=Recommended may be true for some daring driver but not for some other cautious driver. What I'm saying has been said many times before -- please see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability. This guideline is well-established and makes perfect sense to me. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap in Government
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Sometimes people think that it's better to slice up information into lots of little objective facts, like (in the case of mountain bike trails), width, surface, grade, etc, rather than a subjective fact like trail rating. But in practice, it's impractical to collect that much information, and it's impractical to combine it back into a usable form for data consumers, so we lose twice. The important point is that a subjective tag at least needs an objective definition. See e.g. the pretty good definitions on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Grade. The subjective tag tracktype=grade1, according to the definition Paved track or heavily compacted hardcore could easily be replaced with the objective tags surface=paved or surface=compacted. I would argue that entering objective facts (e.g. surface=* in the previous example) is a much better option than subjective tagging. It requires no more information than you already have, and is no less practical for data consumers. It's actually more powerful, specific, clear, verifiable (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability), and reduces the dependency of mappers and consumers on the wiki to make sense of the data. Point is: if you insist on using subjective tags as a short-cut, please, please at least ensure they have objective definitions in the wiki. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap in Government
David, to me your response seems to be mostly in agreement with what I said. On what point, exactly, do you disagree? Do you at least agree that a useful tag is one whose meaning is either 1) immediately obvious (e.g. like width=*) OR 2) clearly/objectively described in the wiki? On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:09 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.netwrote: I am not sure I agree with you Waldo.. (???). Its useful in my opinion when ever storing data (of any nature) to think about how that data will be used. While we will often find other use cases later on, addressing the primary one is important. I think very few users of map data are prepared to, eg, install mapnik or grep through the downloaded data relating to a particular road they may consider using. Instead, they want to get a idea of just how passable a road might be. They are asking a very subject question and expect a subject answer. They want to know if its a sealed or not. If not, they will ask if its suitable for a conventional car, an SUV, a 4wd, a blood and guts 4wd. Armed with that info, they look at their own car and their willingness to take risks and/or have some fun. Thats all very subjective ! My point is, most of that process is, of necessity, completely subjective, not just the tagging we are talking about here. The smoothness= tag ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness ) tries to address this, but smoothness is quite often not the issue and the values given to smoothness= are simple horrible (pun intended). (I suggested, in the past, we should alias something like 'drivability' to 'smoothness'). Anyway, smoothness= has all those subjective problems, its there and usable. If I could get over the idea of calling my favorite tracks 'horrible', I'd use it ! So, at the risk of being called politically incorrect, I think we need to collect data that can and will be used. David On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 07:58 +1000, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Sometimes people think that it's better to slice up information into lots of little objective facts, like (in the case of mountain bike trails), width, surface, grade, etc, rather than a subjective fact like trail rating. But in practice, it's impractical to collect that much information, and it's impractical to combine it back into a usable form for data consumers, so we lose twice. The important point is that a subjective tag at least needs an objective definition. See e.g. the pretty good definitions on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Grade. The subjective tag tracktype=grade1, according to the definition Paved track or heavily compacted hardcore could easily be replaced with the objective tags surface=paved or surface=compacted. I would argue that entering objective facts (e.g. surface=* in the previous example) is a much better option than subjective tagging. It requires no more information than you already have, and is no less practical for data consumers. It's actually more powerful, specific, clear, verifiable (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability), and reduces the dependency of mappers and consumers on the wiki to make sense of the data. Point is: if you insist on using subjective tags as a short-cut, please, please at least ensure they have objective definitions in the wiki. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Brisbane new City Plan Interactive Mapping tool
Hi all, Brisbane City Council has just released a new interactive map with a plethora of layers available (too many to list!). Please 1) check it out herehttp://draftnewcityplanmaps.brisbane.qld.gov.au/CityPlan/ and 2) find out if we can use it for OSM. I haven't looked into license, etc. Cheers, Roy ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Brisbane new City Plan Interactive Mapping tool
Would suggest contacting BCC directly. They are quite responsive via their Facebook page. Sorry don't have time myself right now. On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Andrew Elwell andrew.elw...@gmail.comwrote: haven't looked into license, etc. http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/planning-building/current-planning-projects/brisbanes-new-city-plan/draft-new-city-plan-mapping/terms-and-conditions/index.htm * All information published on this website, including the images/maps, remain the intellectual property of the Brisbane City Council or the listed copyright owners and such information must not be reproduced, whole or part, without the express permission of the Brisbane City Council or the copyright owner. * Brisbane City Council and the copyright owners grant you a non-exclusive licence to reproduce the contents of this website in your web browser (and in any cache file produced by your web browser) for the sole purpose of viewing the content. Brisbane City Council reserves all other intellectual property rights. neither of those scream osm friendly ... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] When is a road a cycle route?
Hey, Just weighing in here. Ben, you listed several tricky situations, and gave detailed definitions of the situation on the ground. I suggest tagging according to what is on the ground, rather than getting caught up in how to summarise all this nice information in a single overarching tag. For example, one of your tricky situations: A council map says this is a cycle route, but there are no markings. In fact the council does not use road signs or paint to mark any of its cycle route. This is tricky, but I would not mark this in OSM, as the (copyright) map cannot be verified on the ground. I would tag that situation basically like this: council map says this is a cycle route -- lcn=yes + source:lcn=council_map there are no markings -- lcn:signed=no + source:lcn:signed=survey If you try to add any more information, or try to distill this clear information into a single tag, that will ALWAYS be tricky. Leave the tricky decisions to the map producer/router. IMHO. :-) On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote: Hi. I think we should specify a little more what constitutes a cycle route on the tagging guidelines. Some background: For the cycle map layer you can tag any way as a local cycle route (lcn=*), a regional cycle route (rcn=*) or a national cycle route (ncn=*). The tag can be applied to the way, or a relation can be defined. On the cycle map these ways are highlighted, and some routing engines use this information to route cyclists differently to other vehicles. (e.g. ridethecity.com) In some sense, any street or path you can ride a bike on is a potential cycle route, but I don't think this makes it a cycle route in the OSM sense. I would reason that the way (streets especially) need some kind of marking (signs, or road markings such as painted bike symbols) to indicate that the arm of government who maintains that street has designated the street to be a cycle route, before we mark it as a cycle route in OSM. Does that seem reasonable? Where it gets more complicated is when we start to think what kind of marking we should expect to see on the ground before we say that this is a cycle route in the OSM sense. The same applies when deciding that some street is not really a cycle route. Note that I am not talking about a legal definition on whether you can ride a bike there (bicycle=yes or bicycle=no), and I am not talking about how we tag paths/footpaths/cycleways. That is a different discussion. How about the following cases: (bicycle=yes is true for all of these) Some that are not cycle routes: * Normal residential street. No road markings. No signs. No maps listing this street as a cycle route. I would say this is not a cycle route. * As above, but where I think this is a handy street to ride down. I would say this is not a cycle route. * As above, but where some other people also think this is a handy street to ride down (and in fact I saw some just the other day). Again, not a cycle route in the OSM sense. * As above, but there is a council map that says this street is a cycle route. (The map also lists other streets as cycle routes, and other streets do have signs, but this street does not.) I have found this to be fairly common. I would say this is not a cycle route. Tricky ones: * A council map says this is a cycle route, but there are no markings. In fact the council does not use road signs or paint to mark any of its cycle route. This is tricky, but I would not mark this in OSM, as the (copyright) map cannot be verified on the ground. * A section of street that does not have any markings connects other streets that do have markings (e.g. bike symbols painted on the road). Cyclists commonly use this street to connect. Maps show this street as a cycle route. This also is tricky. * A shared use path that does not connect to any other known cycle routes. I would probably not mark this as a cycle route, but it depends on where it is. * A section of road has a cycle lane (where the law requires cyclists to ride in it), but the section of road does not connect to any other known cycle routes. Again tricky, and it probably depends on where it is. Easier ones: * In states where riding on footpaths is normally not allowed, a shared use path that connects known (marked) cycle routes. Yes this is a cycle route. * A number of other maps show this as a cycle route. It has bikes painted on the road. Signs every 500m saying Cycle Route. Signs at every intersection with a picture of a bike, and showing the destination. Yes this is a cycle route. I can think of more tricky edge cases, but in general I am more concerned with whether some physical presence on the ground is required, as opposed to I thought this might be a nice street to ride my bike down. - Ben Kelley. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Re: [talk-au] Redaction recovery
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote: Hi. For the moment the cycle map still has the pre redacted data, which will give some tips. snip Could you clarify what you mean by give some tips, please? This is a sensitive issue, right? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Great checking/fixing progress
Hey, I'll be back in the country in August, looking forward to helping out in Brisbane. Nice job so far :-) On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Ben Johnson tangarar...@gmail.com wrote: I'm amazed at the progress being made in some regions as per the task manager at http://rebuild.poole.ch/ Brisbane-Gold Coast - http://rebuild.poole.ch/job/29 (10% checked / fixed) Sydney Basin - http://rebuild.poole.ch/job/8 (27% checked / fixed) Sydney-Newcastle coastal strip - http://rebuild.poole.ch/job/9 (83% checked / fixed) We are going to need a few validators. BJ __**_ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-auhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] LTUAE
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:02 PM, John Inkson jink...@bigpond.net.au wrote: Hi from another newbie Hey John, great to have you on board :-) For your questions on relations, the holy bible is here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations. Copying other existing relations as a start may seem like a good idea but, unfortunately, there's a good chance the existing ones are wrong... :-P My advice would be stick to the wiki, and ask specific questions like you have done. Even better if you can provide a *direct* link in your email to the relation(s) in question. ... If it is any encouragement, for the old hands around in here. I am only new by a few weeks and I knew full well what was coming re the redaction process. I've decided to hang around and do what I can. So, I came here at the worst time and have decided to stay. I don't think I will be alone in that. There will be others as well. That is great encouragement indeed! :-) Roy ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Redaction progress
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 11:29 AM, waldo000...@gmail.com waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Show of hands - Who's going to 1) stick around and help fix the Australian OSM map, and who's going to 2) jump ship and contribute to a fork (and if so, which one)? I'd love to stay with OSM but we gotta work together so inevitably I'll go with the majority... Thanks everyone for your responses. Seems like a great amount of interest still remains in fixing the OSM Australia map :-) Any Brisbane OSM mappers still around? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Remapping assistance from the Philippines
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: ... Of course there are few suburbs that will just need a comprehensive survey. I've done one or two this morning, and I'll enter them over the next couple of days. Just a reminder about Simon's task manager that might come in handy for coordinating these sort of tasks on a suburb level: http://rebuild.poole.ch/job/8 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [OpenStreetMap] intersections
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:47 AM, Ben Johnson tangarar...@gmail.com wrote: ... However, we need to break these rules in order to put small but important isolated townships on the map, so it's a case where tagging for the renderer is accepted, ... Well it's not accepted by me - IMHO you just need some more tags to express the information you want: place=township place:important=yes (perhaps not necessary, but hopefully you get the gist) place:isolated=yes Then, if a renderer wants to put small but important isolated townships on the map, it can! ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Sam Couter s...@couter.id.au wrote: Richard, is it possible to simply forward the communications you have from data.gov.au to this list, or otherwise make them publically available? That should put the matter to rest one way or another. +1. Surely forwarding the emails is less work for you anyway than transcribing parts of the emails (?!). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Chris Barham cbar...@pobox.com wrote: ... Making the licence negotiation details public could hand to those who do not have good intentions towards OSM, potential tools to try and damage the project. Wow. If this is true, then the situation is worse than I thought. Is the only option left for OSMF to withhold this kind of important information from contributors? That's not the sort of community I want to be a part of. :-( Anyway, if I understand correctly, I don't think anyone cares about the negotiation details, but rather we want to see the final, formal document authorised by the necessary parties. Regardless of how scared OSMF is of detractors, I think such a document is still a valid request of contributors/supporters (like me). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Taking yes for an answer.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: After long email correspondence data.gov.au have viewed the text of the attribution page[1] and they find it terrific. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#Australian_government_public_information_datasets Hi. I haven't participated in talk-au for quite a while. I'd like to get back into it though if the legal matters settle down. I'm trying my best not to feed the trolls, but I honestly would like to know: 1) Are the legal representatives of OSM (OSMF, I guess? Grant?) accepting this brief offhand remark of terrificness as an official legal statement of permission? Or... 2) Do the legal representatives have a separate official legal statement of permission that they don't want to share with us? Maybe I should CC the legal list, I don't know - From what I gather, Grant is basically their representative, right? Thanks, Roy ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: 1) I generally take yes to mean yes rather than looking for reasons why it should mean no. Just so you know, this kind of statement may be interpreted by some as go away, don't ask for details, I don't care if you have concerns, I know better than you. In Australia (and Britain, I guess), we say that one feels one has been fobbed off (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/fob) Nevertheless, thanks for the other details. :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hitting reset on talk-au
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: So - what do we do now? Ignore the trolls (meaning troll-like messages, not troll-like people). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
At the time that I stopped, that's right, there was no other aerial imagery. I just checked again now and Bing actually seems pretty ok... Maybe I'll start again sometime...but honestly, I'm not really in the mood lately. Maybe after a steak dinner or two... :P On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: Why did you stop then? Is there no aerial imagery where you are other than nearmap? On 7/7/2011 8:03 AM, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: ...I believe we should spend energy enlightening aerial providers (or wait for them to catch up) Yup, I'm waiting... (I just wanted to point out why I have stopped contributing - it's not in protest, and not because I've been perverted by 80n. Thanks for your responses anyway.) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: You've been very successful at perverting certain sections of the community, Australia being a good example ... Steve, please don't underestimate the ability of Australia to filter bullshit. I just want to: 1) be able to contribute with the confidence that my data will never be deleted. 2) continue using nearmap, which is insanely awesome. Give me that, and you'll have me back. :-) P.S. Don't feed the trolls. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: ...I believe we should spend energy enlightening aerial providers (or wait for them to catch up) Yup, I'm waiting... (I just wanted to point out why I have stopped contributing - it's not in protest, and not because I've been perverted by 80n. Thanks for your responses anyway.) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.comwrote: Are you going to stop contributing data altogether? Or are you putting you efforts on hold at the moment. My efforts are on hold at the moment. Still disillusioned... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
Make a new specific tag (unsuitable_for_caravans=yes; source:unsuitable_for_caravans=survey), and document it on the wiki (with a photo of a sign). At least that's explicit and clear. On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:58 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: Saw a couple of roads signed unsuitable for caravans which seems like council butt covering but I'm not sure how to tag it since it's a sign to discourage rather than to disallow. -- Sent from my mobile device ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Brisbane Flooding on NearMap
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: flood_prone=yes Need to expand it a little to cover how often that level is likely to occur etc and/or height above the normal river level. Jan 2010 added to it somehow would be adequate? I think it would be better to describe the flood by a height, rather than by a date. This way, it is generalisable to future floods. Something like: flood_prone=yes flood_prone:height=* Obviously, we'd need to carefully define height (is it normally with respect to some marker, or with respect to sea level, etc.?) Anyway, the idea is that this field would describe under what conditions the area (or way) is flood prone. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Brisbane Flooding on NearMap
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 8:11 AM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: Something like: flood_prone=yes flood_prone:height=* Obviously, we'd need to carefully define height (is it normally with respect to some marker, or with respect to sea level, etc.?) Anyway, the idea is that this field would describe under what conditions the area (or way) is flood prone. ... ...we can mark the edge as being inundated at X+4.3metres... Isn't that exactly what we want in this case? I.e. doesn't the following exactly describe the information that we are recording?: flood_prone=yes flood_prone:observed_river_height=4.3 flood_prone:gauge=Brisbane City Gauge This qualifies the conditions under which the area (or way) is flood prone (or actually...flooded). there are generalised standards avail off BOM where floods are major:moderate:minor, and those terms are defined here http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/flooding.shtml#definitions_terminology On that page, I think only the following could be helpful for describing a flood prone area: * Observed River Height (see the example above, where you still need to identify the gauge) * metres above mean sea level or Australian Height Datum (AHD) So you could also have flood_prone:gauge=Australian Height Datum. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Flood prone areas
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Craig Feuerherdt craigfeuerhe...@gmail.com wrote: Would it not be better to map the extent of the flood plain rather than tag individual road segments? But within a flood plain, some roads may be prone to flooding while others may be protected (e.g. raised, with good drainage underneath, etc.). I would have thought that both tagging methods (plains vs roads) could be useful in different situations. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
