Re: [talk-au] Tagging "boundary" roads with addr:*
Hi Michael, Agree, roads (and other major infrastructure) will almost always be in dedicated cadastre parcels (alternatively easments). I raised this thread because there's vast amounts of non-spatial data including Government Gazzetted, which related to roads and they are typically identified by "Street Name, Suburb/Locality (and possibly LGA)". I can't easily identify a huge number of such roads in OSM, when the roads and located along/on boundaries. Cadastre might help, but doesn't exist in OSM. Fun and games, thanks for everyone's contribution to the thread thus far :) AH p.s. Also as a side note. Govt roads are often located where the road "should" be. Which is of course, within the legally allotted cadastral parcels. In many cases, the road on the ground is not within the parcel. This is very very rare in populated areas, but out in more rural areas these roads were initially constructed sometimes 100 years ago. They weren't surveyed and they would work around the geography of the land as they did the construction. Most if not all Govt datasets need to retain topology, so roads say within their cadastre. OSM places roads where they are on the ground so there will always be a inconsistencies between the two for that reason. On Sat, 8 Jan 2022, 8:11 am Michael James, wrote: > There is some conceptual misunderstandings with how the spatial data is > stored by Government and how it is different to the way we store it in OSM > > > > Government data does not define a road as a line like we do rather it is > the space between property allotments, that space is not always even and > the road as used by cars often is much smaller then the total area. > > > > Checking my area, when a suburb boundary follows a road it is in the > centre of the gap between the properties that are either side of the road > and that centre line is not always the paved road that you see on the > ground. > > > > Michael > > > > > > *From:* Dian Ågesson > *Sent:* Friday, 7 January 2022 9:29 PM > *To:* Andrew Hughes > *Cc:* OSM Australian Talk List > *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Tagging "boundary" roads with addr:* > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > There a few conceptual things I don't understand about how is_in would be > implemented with regard to suburbs > > I'm curious; if the border of a suburb is defined by a road; does the > border change when the road is changed? If, for some reason, the boundary > road was moved 10m north, does the suburbs grow/shrink accordingly? Is the > suburb border an infinitely narrow line in the "centre" of the roadway, or > does the road sit entirely within one suburb or another? What if a lanes > are uneven? > > If it is not bound to the roadway, and is instead "static" geometry, then > you could have a situation where a road which is supposed to be the border > is actually entirely misaligned with the legal border. Is_in doesn't cause > these issues, but I think it may worsen individual situations by providing > a misleading explanation about where a road actually is. I'd also be > concerned about maintenance in growth areas where new suburbs are declared, > etc. > > Dian > > On 2022-01-07 18:38, Andrew Hughes wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > Since I am only trying to define those that cannot be determined > spatially, this sounds correct to me: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:is_in > > > > Explanation: Yes, they do say that the use is discouraged, but that is > purely on the basis of boundaries being used as spatial relationships. I'm > looking at exactly when that is not possible. I wouldn't want to tag > something that clearly has a spatial relationship (topologically correct) > with a boundary. Then, there's not discussion aroune what to do when this > happens, only that others still advocate its use for such a scenario. > > > > For the record, an example of why this is needed > > > > We'll have a list of roads "Evergreen Terrace, Springfield" and we'll have > some information about the road like "Cars from Shelbyville are not > allowed". If we can't locate these road(s) in OSM because the topology of > the road/suburb is inaccurate - we can't map it. Thus, either the > topology needs fixing (which I believe is impossible and I'm not going to > bother talking about that) or the roads on the boundary can have a tag > which is absolute and can be used preferentially (if desired). > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Cheers, > > AH > > > > On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 09:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 at 20:03, Ewen Hill wrote: > > Hi Graeme and happy new year, > >How m
Re: [talk-au] Tagging "boundary" roads with addr:*
There is some conceptual misunderstandings with how the spatial data is stored by Government and how it is different to the way we store it in OSM Government data does not define a road as a line like we do rather it is the space between property allotments, that space is not always even and the road as used by cars often is much smaller then the total area. Checking my area, when a suburb boundary follows a road it is in the centre of the gap between the properties that are either side of the road and that centre line is not always the paved road that you see on the ground. Michael From: Dian Ågesson Sent: Friday, 7 January 2022 9:29 PM To: Andrew Hughes Cc: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: Re: [talk-au] Tagging "boundary" roads with addr:* Hi Andrew, There a few conceptual things I don't understand about how is_in would be implemented with regard to suburbs I'm curious; if the border of a suburb is defined by a road; does the border change when the road is changed? If, for some reason, the boundary road was moved 10m north, does the suburbs grow/shrink accordingly? Is the suburb border an infinitely narrow line in the "centre" of the roadway, or does the road sit entirely within one suburb or another? What if a lanes are uneven? If it is not bound to the roadway, and is instead "static" geometry, then you could have a situation where a road which is supposed to be the border is actually entirely misaligned with the legal border. Is_in doesn't cause these issues, but I think it may worsen individual situations by providing a misleading explanation about where a road actually is. I'd also be concerned about maintenance in growth areas where new suburbs are declared, etc. Dian On 2022-01-07 18:38, Andrew Hughes wrote: Hi All, Since I am only trying to define those that cannot be determined spatially, this sounds correct to me: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:is_in Explanation: Yes, they do say that the use is discouraged, but that is purely on the basis of boundaries being used as spatial relationships. I'm looking at exactly when that is not possible. I wouldn't want to tag something that clearly has a spatial relationship (topologically correct) with a boundary. Then, there's not discussion aroune what to do when this happens, only that others still advocate its use for such a scenario. For the record, an example of why this is needed We'll have a list of roads "Evergreen Terrace, Springfield" and we'll have some information about the road like "Cars from Shelbyville are not allowed". If we can't locate these road(s) in OSM because the topology of the road/suburb is inaccurate - we can't map it. Thus, either the topology needs fixing (which I believe is impossible and I'm not going to bother talking about that) or the roads on the boundary can have a tag which is absolute and can be used preferentially (if desired). Thoughts? Cheers, AH On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 09:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 at 20:03, Ewen Hill mailto:ewen.h...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Graeme and happy new year, How much can you datamine from a suburb:left , suburb:right ? I would suggest suburb polygons and street names only which would cover all eventualities and allow for the change in the suburb area without having to touch each road affected I agree entirely & wouldn't use it myself, but was suggesting a possible option! I'd leave it as Sandgate Road by itself, but with 436 Sandgate Road, Clayfield Qld 4011, & 475 Sandgate Road, Albion Qld 4010, tagged on the individual buildings themselves, as they currently are. Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Tagging "boundary" roads with addr:*
Hi Andrew, There a few conceptual things I don't understand about how is_in would be implemented with regard to suburbs I'm curious; if the border of a suburb is defined by a road; does the border change when the road is changed? If, for some reason, the boundary road was moved 10m north, does the suburbs grow/shrink accordingly? Is the suburb border an infinitely narrow line in the "centre" of the roadway, or does the road sit entirely within one suburb or another? What if a lanes are uneven? If it is not bound to the roadway, and is instead "static" geometry, then you could have a situation where a road which is supposed to be the border is actually entirely misaligned with the legal border. Is_in doesn't cause these issues, but I think it may worsen individual situations by providing a misleading explanation about where a road actually is. I'd also be concerned about maintenance in growth areas where new suburbs are declared, etc. Dian On 2022-01-07 18:38, Andrew Hughes wrote: Hi All, Since I am only trying to define those that cannot be determined spatially, this sounds correct to me: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:is_in Explanation: Yes, they do say that the use is discouraged, but that is purely on the basis of boundaries being used as spatial relationships. I'm looking at exactly when that is not possible. I wouldn't want to tag something that clearly has a spatial relationship (topologically correct) with a boundary. Then, there's not discussion aroune what to do when this happens, only that others still advocate its use for such a scenario. For the record, an example of why this is needed We'll have a list of roads "Evergreen Terrace, Springfield" and we'll have some information about the road like "Cars from Shelbyville are not allowed". If we can't locate these road(s) in OSM because the topology of the road/suburb is inaccurate - we can't map it. Thus, either the topology needs fixing (which I believe is impossible and I'm not going to bother talking about that) or the roads on the boundary can have a tag which is absolute and can be used preferentially (if desired). Thoughts? Cheers, AH On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 09:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 at 20:03, Ewen Hill wrote: Hi Graeme and happy new year, How much can you datamine from a suburb:left , suburb:right ? I would suggest suburb polygons and street names only which would cover all eventualities and allow for the change in the suburb area without having to touch each road affected I agree entirely & wouldn't use it myself, but was suggesting a possible option! I'd leave it as Sandgate Road by itself, but with 436 Sandgate Road, Clayfield Qld 4011, & 475 Sandgate Road, Albion Qld 4010, tagged on the individual buildings themselves, as they currently are. 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] Tagging "boundary" roads with addr:*
Hi All, Since I am only trying to define those that cannot be determined spatially, this sounds correct to me: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:is_in Explanation: Yes, they do say that the use is discouraged, but that is purely on the basis of boundaries being used as spatial relationships. I'm looking at exactly when that is not possible. I wouldn't want to tag something that clearly has a spatial relationship (topologically correct) with a boundary. Then, there's not discussion aroune what to do when this happens, only that others still advocate its use for such a scenario. For the record, an example of why this is needed We'll have a list of roads "Evergreen Terrace, Springfield" and we'll have some information about the road like "Cars from Shelbyville are not allowed". If we can't locate these road(s) in OSM because the topology of the road/suburb is inaccurate - we can't map it. Thus, either the topology needs fixing (which I believe is impossible and I'm not going to bother talking about that) or the roads on the boundary can have a tag which is absolute and can be used preferentially (if desired). Thoughts? Cheers, AH On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 09:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > > On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 at 20:03, Ewen Hill wrote: > >> Hi Graeme and happy new year, >>How much can you datamine from a suburb:left , suburb:right ? I would >> suggest suburb polygons and street names only which would cover all >> eventualities and allow for the change in the suburb area without having to >> touch each road affected >> > > I agree entirely & wouldn't use it myself, but was suggesting a possible > option! > > I'd leave it as Sandgate Road by itself, but with 436 Sandgate Road, > Clayfield Qld 4011, & 475 Sandgate Road, Albion Qld 4010, tagged on the > individual buildings themselves, as they currently are. > > 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] Tagging "boundary" roads with addr:*
On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 at 20:03, Ewen Hill wrote: > Hi Graeme and happy new year, >How much can you datamine from a suburb:left , suburb:right ? I would > suggest suburb polygons and street names only which would cover all > eventualities and allow for the change in the suburb area without having to > touch each road affected > I agree entirely & wouldn't use it myself, but was suggesting a possible option! I'd leave it as Sandgate Road by itself, but with 436 Sandgate Road, Clayfield Qld 4011, & 475 Sandgate Road, Albion Qld 4010, tagged on the individual buildings themselves, as they currently are. Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging "boundary" roads with addr:*
Hi Graeme and happy new year, How much can you datamine from a suburb:left , suburb:right ? I would suggest suburb polygons and street names only which would cover all eventualities and allow for the change in the suburb area without having to touch each road affected Ewen On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 at 15:13, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Would left / right help at all? > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forward_%26_backward,_left_%26_right#Left_and_right > > Contemplating something like: > addr:name=Sandgate Road + addr:suburb:left=Clayfield + > addr:suburb:right=Albion > > Thanks > > Graeme > > > On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 at 13:52, Andrew Davidson wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 1:42 PM Andrew Hughes wrote: >> > In the interest of stirring up a hornets nest (jokes). I'd like to know >> what could be said for tagging ways (streets/roads) with add:suburb (or >> addr:county...) where the suburb (or other region/area) the road "belongs" >> to can NOT be spatially determined (i.e. typically runs along or forms the >> boundary of the suburb/area). >> > >> > I'll leave it at that (purposely open ended). >> >> The addr:* namespace is for recording physical addresses ie: along >> with a house number. What you are looking for is the is_in:* >> namespace. >> >> I will leave it up to the reader to figure out how useful this type of >> tagging is. >> >> ___ >> 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 > -- Warm Regards Ewen Hill ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging "boundary" roads with addr:*
Would left / right help at all? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forward_%26_backward,_left_%26_right#Left_and_right Contemplating something like: addr:name=Sandgate Road + addr:suburb:left=Clayfield + addr:suburb:right=Albion Thanks Graeme On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 at 13:52, Andrew Davidson wrote: > On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 1:42 PM Andrew Hughes wrote: > > In the interest of stirring up a hornets nest (jokes). I'd like to know > what could be said for tagging ways (streets/roads) with add:suburb (or > addr:county...) where the suburb (or other region/area) the road "belongs" > to can NOT be spatially determined (i.e. typically runs along or forms the > boundary of the suburb/area). > > > > I'll leave it at that (purposely open ended). > > The addr:* namespace is for recording physical addresses ie: along > with a house number. What you are looking for is the is_in:* > namespace. > > I will leave it up to the reader to figure out how useful this type of > tagging is. > > ___ > 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] Tagging "boundary" roads with addr:*
On Jan 3, 2022, at 7:47 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote: > On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 1:42 PM Andrew Hughes wrote: >> In the interest of stirring up a hornets nest (jokes). I'd like to know what >> could be said for tagging ways (streets/roads) with add:suburb (or >> addr:county...) where the suburb (or other region/area) the road "belongs" >> to can NOT be spatially determined (i.e. typically runs along or forms the >> boundary of the suburb/area). >> >> I'll leave it at that (purposely open ended). > > The addr:* namespace is for recording physical addresses ie: along > with a house number. What you are looking for is the is_in:* > namespace. > > I will leave it up to the reader to figure out how useful this type of > tagging is. Mmmm, yeah, I consider is_in so close to being deprecated, especially with Nominatim, that imo there is very little gained by this sort of tagging. Can you determine if Nominatim performance is satisfactory in the area you'd propose to map like this? This walks right up to the edge of (and maybe crosses?) adding not-very-useful data (as we have geocoding and reverse-geocoding strategies that work pretty well). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging "boundary" roads with addr:*
On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 1:42 PM Andrew Hughes wrote: > In the interest of stirring up a hornets nest (jokes). I'd like to know what > could be said for tagging ways (streets/roads) with add:suburb (or > addr:county...) where the suburb (or other region/area) the road "belongs" to > can NOT be spatially determined (i.e. typically runs along or forms the > boundary of the suburb/area). > > I'll leave it at that (purposely open ended). The addr:* namespace is for recording physical addresses ie: along with a house number. What you are looking for is the is_in:* namespace. I will leave it up to the reader to figure out how useful this type of tagging is. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging "boundary" roads with addr:*
Interesting. Normally I don't tag addresses on streets, as it is not useful. I have used it on ways for street number interpolation, but I make a way that goes across the addresses, rather than attach it to the street. - Ben. On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 at 13:42, Andrew Hughes wrote: > Hi All, > > In the interest of stirring up a hornets nest (jokes). I'd like to know > what could be said for tagging ways (streets/roads) with add:suburb (or > addr:county...) where the suburb (or other region/area) the road "belongs" > to can NOT be spatially determined (i.e. typically runs along or forms the > boundary of the suburb/area). > > I'll leave it at that (purposely open ended). > > Examples: > Suburb: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=306101556#map=17/-27.42763/153.04615 > LGA: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=368601578#map=19/-27.60641/152.90991 > > Thanks for reading. > A Hughes > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > -- Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/ This message was sent on my Atari 400 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Tagging "boundary" roads with addr:*
Hi All, In the interest of stirring up a hornets nest (jokes). I'd like to know what could be said for tagging ways (streets/roads) with add:suburb (or addr:county...) where the suburb (or other region/area) the road "belongs" to can NOT be spatially determined (i.e. typically runs along or forms the boundary of the suburb/area). I'll leave it at that (purposely open ended). Examples: Suburb: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=306101556#map=17/-27.42763/153.04615 LGA: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=368601578#map=19/-27.60641/152.90991 Thanks for reading. A Hughes ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
