Re: [talk-au] Test trace how many points on a road
There is (was?) a simplify way command available in JOSM, but you need to add one of the plugins first. Stephen On 18/02/2008, Paul Zagoridis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Greg Ah I did it on Potlatch -- sorry about that. Regards Paul Greg Harper wrote, On 17/2/08 3:32 PM: Where about is the option to simplify the number of points in JOSM? I can't for the life of me find it. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Number of lanes?
A number of people seem to misread the lanes tag as total lanes on the road, not lanes in each direction. A case could be made that it should be total lanes, as that would allow for asymmetric roads to be modelled. I suspect that a lot of the lanes=1 tags really mean that it is a narrow, unmarked road, not one lane each way. Stephen On 11/03/2008, Elizabeth Dodd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are definitely one lane bridges around. I hadn't actually considered the possibility until now. I looked because someone had marked a road known to me to have one lane each way as lanes=2. I'll leave it for about a week to give the other party time to reply. -- You never hesitate to tackle the most difficult problems. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sydney cycle routes
In the Brisbane Metro area, Pine Rivers shire (soon to be part of Moreton Bay) has maps available of bike routes. I looked at one to see how many there would be to map in the region. From what I can tell, they've marked every wide footpath on the map, as well as shared walkways through parks etc, and actual bike lanes. I'm wondering what tagging we should use for these footpaths. They're not actually bike lanes, but there are signs beside the footpath that show both a bike and a pedestrian, and the paths are wider than most. It is legal for a bike to use any footpath in QLD, so it's not like you can't ride anywhere else, but these are recommended routes. They tend to go between things like a Tafe and a train station, shopping centres, etc. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] boxes around cities
Yeah - look to see if they have a notes tag. Are these the Yahoo coverage boxes you are talking about? I noticed the one for Adelaide appeared a few months ago and confused me until I realised that's what it was for. -- ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] GPS recommendation
I hadn't heard of that one before. Do you have any idea how long it operates as a GPS on battery? The GPS I have now is a multifunction device - it goes for hours without the GPS on, but turn the GPS on and it dies quickly. It is going to be used in the car with power, the one I'm looking to buy is for use on a bike and foot - there's a lot of paths connecting up this area I want to go and map. It says up to 380 hours on the website, but I'm thinking that's with all the extras turned off. Most of my foot/bike mapping trips are only a couple of hours long, but it would be good if it can do a day or so for the odd longer hiking trip. Stephen 2008/9/12 Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED]: One of these: http://www.kogan.com.au/shop/kogan-gps-watch-bluetooth/ I have no affiliation with this company, just satisfied customer with this product. Log settings can be changed between 1 and 30 seconds. This gives 36 to 1604 hours of log. Built in battery is rechargable via usb. Comes with vehicle and 240V chargers, wrist strap, handlebar holder, lanyard. Mine sits in the centre console of the vehicle (dosn't need to be in sight from outside the vehicle) plugged into the power outlet and gives excellent results. I just need to remember to turn it on at the start of the day and off at the end of the day. I also have the truckPC and carPC running gpsdrive using osm via mapnik and google maps. -- Regards Ross info at 4x4falcon dot com ___ 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] Edits in and around Mt Barker, SA
2008/10/21 Kim Hawtin [EMAIL PROTECTED]: - Are the rail and road under passes right? I have set them as tunnels, because it makes more sense than the freeway being a bridge, how ever what do other folks use? Without actually looking at what you've done - I've done both. If the underpass really does feel like a tunnel, then I've used that, even if it is actually at the surrounding ground level, and the highway's on an embankment. There are some cases where a bridge for the highway is a better description, though. Also - if you have roads crossing at only a small angle, a bridge shows up better on most renderers than a tunnel does. We're not supposed to map for the renderer, but if it could go either way anyway, you might want to keep this in mind. - I've put in a few round'a'bouts ... they are messy critters. is it the right thing to draw them out with little link roads or should they be put up as where the roads intersect with the joining node and tag that node as a round about? especially larger ones, like the end of Gawler street near the bus interchange? We discussed this on this list a while back - and decided that we don't actually have many (any?) of the paint only roundabouts in Australia that are quite common in the UK and are tagged as mini_roundabouts. So we would use that tag for any roundabout where the central island fits inside the road intersection. This would cover most suburban roundabouts. Just connect the roads at a central node, tag the node mini_roundabout. Don't forget to add the direction=clockwise tag. Any bigger roundabout you actually draw a circle (at least four points), mark it as junction=roundabout, and make sure the way goes clockwise, because it will be oneway. Then connect the roads to the roundabout. The following link has pictures. And you're right, they are painful and messy. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:junction%3Droundabout - My edits seem to be taking around two weeks to hit the OSM normal map ... isn't this normally happening weekly? They get new data for the renderer weekly, but then they actually have to process the data to form maps, which takes a while. This also explains why sometimes you see a mix of old and new data where one tile has been rendered, but the one beside hasn't been updated yet. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapnik rendering of AU cities
I'm not positive, but I think that the very low zoom views don't actually get a lot (any?) of their data from the live OSM data. Rather they do, but they are only updated on very occasionally. There is just too much data to be continually recreating tiles that large from the main database. The coastlines, for example, used to come from shapefiles from another source, because we hadn't done our coasts. They now come mostly from our database, but I think they are still extracted out every so often and turned into shapefiles, not recreated on the fly for low zoom levels. Maybe the cities shown at low zoom levels come from something similar - a list of major cities in each country or something? Sydney and Canberra would be the biggest and the Capitol, so I could see that. Or maybe they haven't updated these zoom levels since Melbourne was added as a node? In any case, ask on the talk list, where somebody who deals with the low zoom levels is likely to see it. Stephen 2008/12/4 Roy Rankin [EMAIL PROTECTED]: With the discussion of places, I noticed that on the slippy map with the mapnik renderer, only the names of Sydney and Canberra appear on the 500km and 200km scales. I have looked at the tags for the Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne nodes; and I do not understand why Melbourne is not shown as I do not see any substantial differences in the tags. Wiki says that population can be used for rendering at different zooms, but Melbourne has 10 times the population of Canberra. Ideally, I would like to see names of all the major (state capital) cities in the whole of Australia view. As an aside, in the USA most of the major cities are not state capitals. Does anyone understand why Melbourne is not shown on the whole of Australia view? Regards, Roy Rankin ___ 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] What gives with roundabouts?
There is no problem adding a turning circle to courts as long as they have one. Before the turning circle tag was rendered, I saw the occasional mini-roundabout used as a turning circle, because it made the map look right. Stephen 2008/12/11 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: +1 I completely agree with all of Darrin's points. I was unaware of the decision on the mailing list when I started mapping a about 1.5 years ago. I read the descriptions on the wiki and went with a proper roundabout for suburban roundabouts, since they don't fit the definition of the mini-roundabout. I don't even recall seeing one in Melbourne, you always have to deviate around even small ones. As a Potlatch user, it sucks a bit to add them, but Merkaartor I think JOSM have a tool to make it easy. I'm a big fan of mapping what's on the ground and don't tag for the renderers/routers. But I like the idea of global consistency, it makes it easier on all users of the raw data. That's what I hope Map Features will provide (consistency), but the voting has it's issues as well. There's talk on the Talk mailing list of having a Core Features page. So for eg. I'd be in favour of using the wiki definitions of place=* tags. I plan on submitting a proposal for the roundabout tag, where you can add it to a node like a mini_roundabout, for use in simple suburban type roundabouts. Something like junction:inner_width=3mcould specify the island size, making it possible for pretty rendering. Weird intersecting ways or large roundabouts would have to continue as is. Anyone have any suggestions before I create the proposal? PS. Was it me adding turning_circle to courts? The wiki page description seems to match my use of it (I waited many months for it to be proposed/accepted/added to renderers). Cheers, BlueMM --- On Thu, 11/12/08, Darrin Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Darrin Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [talk-au] What gives with roundabouts? To: Talk-au@openstreetmap.org Received: Thursday, 11 December, 2008, 3:10 PM On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:55:13 +1100 Ian Sergeant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've looked back through the logs, found the one discussion, noted that it was basically a 4-3 split of contributors and since every discussion on it has been we discussed it and decided this. Hardly a consensus in my mind. Since you made the effort to go back through the logs, and re-read the discussion that took place then, I'm surprised you would reach the conclusion that peoples position was solely related to effort. I suspect that's because you were in the discussion and supported the views of the first poster, hence you didn't look at how he expressed it. (see below) I disagree that there hasn't been consensus on its use. There always have been differences of opioion, but as you say, most people have been happy to accept that it is the way it is. That is consensus. Ok I'll pay that in the technical definition of the word you are correct. However given that all new people approach a project like this with some trepidation (For example it's taken me 10 months and someone altering work I've done to make me raise this issue which I've thought was wrong almost as soon as I found out about it) it's not surprising the 'consensus' has been maintained. OSM is littered with cases of things done badly to start with (which is not a problem in one sense because something needs to be started somewhere) and then carried on forever after (this is where it's a problem) in what appears to be consensus because no-ones been motivated to change it (The hideous is_in tag comes to mind). I feel the approach you are taking is wrong. There are reasonable arguments to use a mini-roundabout tag in Australia where it is currently being used. If you want to convince people to not use it, and to map using junction, take the time to understand and address those arguments, and convince people that the best way is the way you are suggesting. Don't dismiss its proponents as lazy, or worse still as disruptive. Many of its these people have been valuable contributors to getting the map done. Ok, I could have approached it a better way I'll admit that. But this issue boils down to the fact there are no actual reasons given for why mini_roundabout should be used! The discussion just seems to assume that every roundabout is a mini until it has reason to be bigger, it's not even discussed whether this is valid. The discussion resolves around what benefits the roundabout tag offers OVER the mini_roundabout tag, ignoring the fact they actually imply 2 quite different things in the first place. Historically the roundabout tag predates the mini-roundabout tag by at least 10 months in the wiki pages. So in effect the original mini_roundabout tag was devise to handle a very special case of roundabout that doesn't fit well with the normal definition in size, shape,
Re: [talk-au] Major road cleanup
I'm a little confused. Everywhere I've seen a park on the side of the road like that, it has used the same nodes, but not the same way. Splitting the way should not effect the park at all, except if you add nodes, in which case you'll need to add them to the park way as well. Or am I thinking of something different? Stephen 2008/12/20 Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com: Talking of bridges, I'm trying to add a bridge, over a strom water drain to a road in Canberra. However it is just about impossible since on each side of this road is a park and the parks are using parts of the road as part of their own perimeter. If I split the road in order to add a bridge, I'll mess up both parks. I could unglue the parks, move them out of the way, build the bridge, move the parks back in and maybe get JOSM validator to glue them back in. However I don't really want my name left on a construction like this. I could make the unglued parks a little smaller and then move them back and have them each have their own perimeter. Alternatively I could just delete both parks and them build them back afterwards to my liking, and risk being flamed by the original mappers. Or, I could turn the bridge 90 degrees and put it on the drain at level -1. I don't reall like this as it doesn't seem to reflect reality. Silimarly I don't really want to make the drain go through a tunnel. Or I could just leave it alone. Any suggestions?? ___ 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] Adelaide out of copyright street directory
2009/1/18 Liz ed...@billiau.net: Important matter on copyright duration I realised only very recently that we haven't been reading the rules correctly and published material - the street directory, the paper map, expires after 25 years at midnight on the next New Years Eve Published editions The rule for duration of copyright in a published edition 25 years from the end of the year of first publication; the AUSFTA did not change this rule. source http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/infosheets_pdf/G023.pdf so at the end of 2008 we can use published material from any time up to and including all of 1983. this of course doesn't mean its correct - it may still have changed or never been right at all No definitely not, you're reading it wrong. If you look at foot note 5 in that same document you'll see it says 'A published edition means the typographical arrangement and layout of a published work.' It definitely does not apply to the contents - just the layout. If, for example, I reprinted one of Shakespeare's plays then I would have a published edition copyright on that version. It would last 25 years, and somebody else couldn't just copy my work exactly and republish in that time. They could type up and print their own version, however. Usually the copyright on the contents is longer than the layout, so it doesn't come into effect. But the published edition copyright is usually owned by the publisher, not the author. Say I write a book, and it is published. I own the copyright on the book, but sell rights to the publisher to publish it - say first Australian rights - first rights to publish the book in Australia. I then sell the book to a US publisher to print there. They can't make an exact copy of the work from the Australian publisher without having some agreement with them, which is one reason why the same book published in different countries almost always looks different. There are other reasons as well, but I'm too far off topic already. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Rivers
To get imagery in Josm, you need to use the WMS menu at the top to add an imagery layer. You may need to set it up first with some plug-ins. It is certainly possible, though. Stephen 2009/5/20 Delta Foxtrot delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: I tried JSOM briefly the other day but the entire background was black and made it harder to use than potlach. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Causeways
2009/5/25 Liz ed...@billiau.net: Something else I can't work out how to tag is a jetty, the thing that juts out into water and boats tie up to. But after 8 years of drought here, perhaps I needn't worry too much. Just be grateful you're not trying to teach English to some-one who speaks Melanesian pidgin. There's no distinction there between a bridge, a pier, a jetty, etc. If it's man-made and it's elevated, it's a bris. Trying to explain why English uses different words for what to them is the same thing was difficult. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hi all ...
I've ever used Potlatch-I was nervous about having an editor that was always live - no 'edit-check-save' cycle. I understand that has recently changed, but the point is it's not that hard to use some of the other options. Stephen 2009/6/17 Dan O'Hara oha...@homemail.com.au: As a total newbie to this I was advised to use Potlatch as it was seen to be the easiest. I understand that JOSM and mercaator(sp?) are more sophisticated eg do proper roundabouts, but I wanted to graduate first! ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hi all ...
Sorry- that should be _Never_ used potlatch 2009/6/18 Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com: I've ever used Potlatch-I was nervous about having an editor that was always live - no 'edit-check-save' cycle. I understand that has recently changed, but the point is it's not that hard to use some of the other options. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Data Error - Junctions ?
2009/6/18 Rick Peterson ausr...@iinet.net.au: Background: I was having a look at my local area with Keepright and spotted a couple of dead ended one ways. On close inspection in Potlatch, I see that the junctions have not been formed correctly. The layout of the streets, street names etc all appear to be correct. Well, I fixed those couple of dead ended one ways, but then checking other data around the immediate area, I see that just about all of the regular two way junctions have not been formed correctly. I started to fix them in one block of suburban streets, but the number of problems is significant, so I stopped my work to contact the mailing list to make sure I'm on the right track. (pardon the pun) There are huge numbers of these around Australia. I think a lot of them are caused by people who originally traced the ways from imagery, and didn't make sure that the ways connected up properly (or at all, in some cases). It's gotten to the point where every time I edit an area to add names, etc the first thing I do is run an error check (I use JOSM) and fix as many as possible from the data I have. Otherwise when I get to the point of checking my own edits, they're swamped in other problems. I wonder why these don't show up in Keepright with the almost-junctions check? Maybe it's almost is closer than you might expect, or perhaps it's just buggy. Or there's so many errors it runs out before finishing the check? Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] school zones
How accurate are you wanting to go? To be truly accurate, you're going to need to take weekends and school holidays into account as well. Actually, on a serious note, I'd love to have a routing algorithm that avoids schools during child dropoff and pickup hours when possible. I don't mind the slowing down bit, it's the waiting 10 minutes while the school empties out across the road, playing russian roulette with triple parked parents in 4WD's and dodging school buses that seem to have forgotten they have indicators that bugs me. Stephen 2009/6/23 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: People asked to have the current speed limit displayed in my speedo app, so this is where I'm going with this. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Junctions (to name or not to name)
This is most definitely a problem with Gosmore. The fact is, most roundabouts do not have names, and artificially giving them one to make a renderer (or routing program) happy is tagging for the renderer. Even if a roundabout did have a name, I'd be happier if the routing software just said turn onto roundabout, take second exit on Smith Highway than if it said turn onto Great Circle, turn onto Smith Highway. Names on roundabouts are so uncommon that I'd be looking for a road called Great Circle. Or are you saying that if the entry and exit roads and roundabout all have the same name it ignores the roundabout entirely, and this behaviour is what is broken? That's not too hard a fix to do in a program. Anything marked as a junction or roundabout should be getting special treatment anyway. It shouldn't matter if the roundabout has no name, the name of the street you're on, or the name of a different crossing street, as long as it is marked as a roundabout. It's still a bug if it causes a problem. Stephen 2009/6/28 Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com: This is not a problem with gosmore, the problem occurs where you have a street going through a roundabout without ANY name on the roundabout with the street named on both sides of the roundabout. It does not recognise the street continues through the roundabout and then out the other side. If there's no name on the streets or roundabout then it work's correctly. Likewise if the streets are named and the roundabout is named then there's not a problem. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I just saw Nambour....
While we're talking about the Sunshine coast area, is anybody going to the Muster this year? It wouldn't hurt to map the campgrounds and festival while they're there - most of the year it's just a few empty fields. Stephen 2009/7/24 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: --- On Thu, 23/7/09, Jeff Price jeff.pr...@rocketmail.com wrote: The afternoon of Sat 15 Aug or Sun 16 Aug is my best bet. The only major thing I can think of that would clash is the Ekka, which is still going on the 15th. ___ 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] slightly diff tag watch
'Seventh-day Adventist' is the official name, but commonly abbreviated to Adventist or SDA. Technically, an adventist is someone who believes in the (soon) second coming of Christ (the Advent), so most Christian faiths can be called adventists. However, it's usually applied to a number of churches who came from the adventist movement of the 1800's, of which the SDAs are by far the largest. (Sorry, my comparative religions classes are showing) Stephen 2009/7/26 Liz ed...@billiau.net: I see that Ultimo has declared independence Microsoft has been formally declared a cult and we have four ways of marking Adventist / Seventh Day Adventist churches (anyone know the official name? I looked today and decided on adventist) and lastly, nodes can have gender ___ 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] maxheight/height
No, you're wrong here. Maxheight is an element of the way that goes under the bridge. It is caused by the bridge, but it is not part of the bridge. It is the road under the bridge that has the limitation, not the bridge. Divided roads often have different max heights on each side, but it is one level bridge over the top. Max-height can be caused by overhanging trees, low wires, odd road signs that stick out over the road, even buildings or roadside rocks that bulge out over the road. Whatever the cause, it is the road itself that is affected, and should be tagged. On a motorway, the max height section can be several km long - the distance between exits, and it is all covered by the same limitation, legally. On other roads it may be only a few meters, and could be covered by a node tag. Stephen 2009/7/28 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: For 1), what should be tagged? Definitely the bridge. For two reasons: firstly, clearance under a bridge is an attribute of the bridge. Secondly, it is not possible to refer to the section of the way that is under the bridge, because the bridge is a way with zero width. The only alternative is to tag the entire length of any way that goes under the bridge or some arbitrary length of any way that goes under the bridge. I think these alternatives are undesirable at best - misleading and messy at worst. For example, it's kind of like tagging any house that's next to a park as next_to_a_park=yes, rather than tagging the big grassy area as leisure=park (yes, this is an exaggeration, but the analogy is tagging the thing that is affected by something rather than tagging the something itself). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycleway/footway/path
Umm, not the case at all. Highway= comes from the old english use, where highway means way/path/track you use to get somewhere. These days we assume roads and cars, but that's not the way it was originally designed. Stephen 2009/8/10 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: To play devils advocate here for a second, should highway=* be used at all, I mean a highway is something cars go on, or something cars used to go on but they turned it into a pedestrian only area, eg Martin Place in Sydney. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Basic search, first attempt
Hopetoun, Vic and WA, both towns. I got into trouble with this once, because I'd only ever heard of the Vic one, and one of our clients was talking about the WA one, so I arranged for a meeting in the wrong state. Not quite as bad as the French firm that tried sending a package to me in Austria, I guess. If you want a complete list, see if you can find a postcode list, sorted by name. There are a lot of duplicates, though a lot of them are not even suburbs, just locations. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Basic search, first attempt
Yeah, that's correct. Sorry, I didn't mean to use it as a reference in that way, but a quick run through of the list in name order will give you an idea of how many duplicates there are, and how big the problem is likely to be. It's interesting to have a quick look in postcode order as well - it's amazing how many variations on names there are. Stephen 2009/8/13 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: Auspost has a CSV file on their website, but this it doesn't have lat/lon details and in any case we can't make use this information into OSM due to their strict website copyright. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bruce Highway... A1 only or A1+M1 ?
I just double checked on the way home from work. There are no A1 markings anywhere near the end of the Bruce Highway. The gateway arterial is marked as M1 - I'm not sure how far, but I think from memory at least as far as where it runs into the SE Freeway on the other side of the river, at which point I can't remember which ref goes on down the coast. Then the bit of the Gympie Arterial Road between the Gateway connection and the north end of the Pine Rivers Bridge is marked M1. (~ 1km) At this point name changes to the Bruce Highway, and it is also marked M1 - at least as far north as the Anzac road exit. Where they decide it's not a motorway any more I'm not sure, but I think it's north of Caboolture somewhere - somewhere up there they start having tiny side roads directly connect to the highway, which is not Motorway behaviour. I'll be running up that way in a couple of weeks, I'll try and see where the ref's change. The Gympie Arterial Road south of the Gateway Arterial connection changes ref to the M3, and is marked that way until about 500m short of the Beams Rd intersection, where there are Motorway ends signs and it become the A3, which continues south along Gympie Rd. Stephen 2009/8/19 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: Can anyone from Brisbane confirm this. As far as I can tell the Bruce Highway which starts just after the Gateway Motorway ends north of Brisbane and is only tagged A1, however both wikipedia and ozroads think the Bruce Highway is signed as M1 as far north as Cooroy. All the signs on the dual carriage way going south of Cooroy and north of the Nambour connection road have had a cut out riverted over the old shields and now only have A1, but I don't go to Brisbane much/at all so I can't remember what they are south of Nambour. ___ 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] Would anyone buy one of these?
I bought mine from Graham Smith in the UK (last year some time). He still uses sonicresolutions domain to host pictures and email etc, but you're not buying from the company as such. And that assumes he's even the person still selling them, which I'm not sure. It was Andy talking about them on the main talk list. Stephen 2009/8/21 cam_...@fastmail.fm: Another thing to note, it seems we can't order anything from http://www.sonicresolutions.com/ anyway, as sonic resolutions is no longer trading. -- ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tentative data source - Sunshine Coast Council
2009/8/26 Jeff Price jeff.pr...@rocketmail.com: The council are also interested in correcting errors in their own data given that today they are largely corrected via public complaints and subsequent site surveys. If someone has some wizzy ideas on how to determine the difference between the datasets then you'd have some happy council campers. A while ago (late last year, early this year?) a group in Germany did something like this, where they checked all the data on a completed area (I'm thinking Munich, but I may be wrong) against some standard database. Then they doublechecked all the differences to make sure they were real, and gave the resulting list back to the council. It was talked about on the talk list. I think they were checking roads existence and naming, rather than the actual shape, but I could be wrong. If we can find that, I'm sure those involved would be happy to give us some pointers on how they did it. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian bushwalking tracks
2009/9/22 swanilli swani...@gmail.com: I agree with Evan's view that We should emphasis tagging properties and not uses. Some of my local streets have a painted cycleway sign but it makes little sense to tag the street as highway=cycleway, rather than say, highway=residential. A cycleway sign painted on the road means that the road is a suggested route for bicycles, not that it is a cycleway. I would use a route relation to cover the whole route, not tag the road in any way. A local cycle route near me mixes back roads marked with the painted bicycle signs with actual cycleways through parks and green space, but it's all one route. Cycleway roads are not usually modified in any way to handle bicycle traffic - somebody has just figured out the best route from a traffic and gradient point of view, and then marked them. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Gatton, QLD
2009/9/23 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: No, source=survey isn't ambiguous at all it's spelt out clearly on the map features page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Annotation Actually, that is ambiguous - or rather incomplete. It says gpx track or other physical survey There is no distinction between gps (accuracy +/- 5-10m) and a theodolite (or whatever they use these days) survey - accuracy +/- 2-3cm). The argument goes that we should leave the survey tag for real surveys, and use gps for gps based ones. This comes up in the talk list from time to time - I haven't seen it lately, though. Personally I think it's too late to salvage the survey tag now, if we want to make the distinction we'd need to create two other tags and start using them instead. Or assume all survey tags are low quality, but you wouldn't be sure. This is the argument for using source=gps - at least we're splitting it off from survey so that we know which type of survey it is, and we're not losing the data if we decide we should differentiate later. As a side note, I get the impression that the complaints about tagging GPS tracks as survey often come from professionals in the geospace fields. The idea of calling something as approximate as a gps track a survey just freaks them right out. And they worry that people who acquire the data might misunderstand the tag - it has a technical meaning that we are not using. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] natural=land v natural=coastline
2009/10/6 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: If you look at this from the point of view of territorial waters the coastline is from either the high or low tide marks, they spell it out in legalese and I can't remember off the top of my head, but the coast line cuts across any river/delta/bay mouths, except where the bay is partially inhabited by another country and then it's usually by seperate agreement. Then they start arguing over how wide the bay has to be before it stops becoming territorial waters. Libya has tried to claim the entire indentation on it's coast (about 500 miles across) as a bay, and therefore territorial waters. Pretty much everybody else disagreed, and occasionally shots were fired over it. But I don't think we need to worry about this territory line, for our coastline purpose. We're more worried about were the sea starts and ends, not where a country does. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Boundary ways/relations
I have a question about the suburb boundary ways that have been imported for Australia a while back. The boundary ways often follow a road, or the coast, or a stream or river. Some of the ways are other things, as well as a boundary (a stream, for example) but some of the boundary ways are basically duplicating a way that is also there separately. In these situations, what is preferred, to leave the boundary way there, or to move the boundary relation(s) to the other way, and remove the boundary way for that section? If we do this, which tags from the import should be moved to the other way? I know this was discussed in a while back. But I lost track of what the final decision was. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Sports Clubs
I'm looking for some guidance on tagging for Sports Clubs. I'm not sure if these are an Australian wide thing, or just a QLD invention. I'm talking about the buildings that are run by (or for), are named after, and support a sports club or organisation, but actually don't have any thing to do with sport at that point. They're really a restaurant, bar, and gambling location. Theoretically, they are members only, but I've never seen anybody turned away, somebody will sign them in. What tags are people using for these? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
The reason I thought they may be a QLD thing is the state Government here licences them a bit differently from your average pub (or used to, I haven't checked lately). Thus the (official) members only rules, connection to a sport club, etc. This connection can be quite vague - the one nearest my mothers place is called the Caboolture Sports Club - but is not anywhere near a sports ground, and I actually have no idea whatsoever what sport it is actually attached to. But it worth it to them, as they get concessions in the licencing of pokies etc that is otherwise harder to get. One reason I was wondering about if they have a different tag, is because they have a different vibe to your average restaurant / pub. The clientele tends to be older, and a bit more staid. I know people who regularly go to these that would never step into a normal club, and very rarely eat at a normal restaurant. So far I've just marked them as restaurant, for lack of anything better. Stephen 2009/12/14 James Livingston doc...@mac.com: They're definitely not a QLD thing, but I think they are a very Australian thing. As well as sports clubs, you have the Surf Life Saving Clubs, RSLs and so on. Although a lot only have one bar and restaurant, there are a lot that are much bigger - if I recall correctly, the Bankstown RSL has something like 6 or 8 restaurants in it. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Common or not??
2009/12/21 Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net: I think using a bus route type could get muddled with public transport and we will have german tourists trying to catch the library truck to get around. Yeah, they're not really really related to bus-stops. All the mobile libraries I've seen tend to do 2-3 stops a day - several hours each. They'd only get to each location once or twice a week, sometime only fortnightly. If you're just waiting at the stop for the library, you may have a long wait. I suspect some sort of time tagging would be appropriate (eg Tuesdays, 10:00-12:30) Actually, the closest thing I can think of is the mobile blood-bank collection vans. They operate in a similar fashion - any tags for marking them to use as an example? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Routable maps
Not all the img files you'll find lying around are routable. Some are, some aren't. As Matt said, some of the ones on the OSM Australia are, but not all. There are other sources as well - see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Map_On_Garmin/Download for a partial list. (Check the routable column) If you have .img files to load, you may be able to ignore the whole software route, and just use your etrex like a USB drive. I have an Etrex, though not a Legend CX, and I keep a number of img files on it it with different names (for different purposes). If I want to use a different one, I can just attach to the nearest computer, rename the files so the one I want is called gmapsupp.img (in the Garmin folder), and I'm done. On my Etrex, you go into the Menu, go to setup, then interface, and there is an option there to use the machine in USB mode. Stephen 2009/12/22 Richard Colless fire...@ar.com.au: But your discussion about roundabouts tells me that OSM maps can be routable, so I must be doing something wrong when I load them. I am downloading the individual .IMG files from the OSM Australia website (http://www.osmaustralia.org/index.php), and I have used a utility called MapsetToolkit to make the OSM maps appear in the Garmin MapSource program. This lets me simply select the tiles that I want, and transfer them to the Etrex via MapSource. It also lets me add Contours Australia maps, so that my OSM maps have contour lines. Works well, but the maps aren't routable. I thought of trying the IMG2GPS program that is recommended on the OSM Australia website, but it doesn't seem to be available any more. All the links go to an expired domain name. Does anyone have any suggestions? Richard C. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] SES Sheds
That's not just Sydney. Brisbane will clear you off the motorways, and if you break down in the City centre area they'll take you off the street there too. Stephen 2009/12/26 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: Oh and most/all motorways in Sydney have their own vehecals to tow people off motorways to the nearest exit too. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Distinguish between National, State etc parks
2010/1/5 Craig Feuerherdt craigfeuerhe...@gmail.com: John is right about the distinction between the landuse natural tags. landuse is about what is on the ground (trees, farming etc). I am assuming national/state/other parks/areas should be attributed with the natural tag, but natural=what? This has been discussed several times on the main list. The problem is that landuse is used for two (sometimes contradictory) purposes - what is one the ground (cover) and what it is used for (use). Some landuse tags are one, some the other, some are both. There is a bit of a push to try and sort this out, but nothing has come of it yet that I know about. For large parks, I would think that you would want to map the boundaries as an admin boundary, and the landuse of the various parts of the park as a separate issue. It's not uncommon to have a single large batch of trees, some of which are in a park and some not, or in a separate park (eg one national and one state). And to have various parts of a park to have different landuse - recreation areas, natural preserves, etc. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Default access restrictions
2010/1/7 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: ===Footway== Now, bicycles aren't allowed on *footpaths* - ie, the path that runs along the side of the road. But they're generally allowed on most other paths, like into or through parks, around sports grounds etc. So I propose foot=designated bicycle=yes. I would prefer foot=designated + bicycle=no. If an Australian tags highway=footway, I think it would be reasonably expected that bikes aren't allowed by default. Why? Just because you happen to live in a state where that happens to be the case, doesn't mean I do. If I tagged a footpath, I would expect bikes ARE allowed by default, because they are here. Setting defaults for this is going to be instinctively wrong for a lot of mappers, most of whom won't ever see this page. So far, I've been told that Vic and NSW don't allow riding on unsigned footpaths by adults, ACT and QLD do. Anybody know the rules for the other states? By the way, what's the current difference between bicycle=designated and bicycle=yes? I thought I knew, but skimming through all the posts in the various lists for the last few days has left me confused again. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Default access restrictions
2010/1/7 David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au: On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 10:49 +1000, Stephen Hope wrote: From a quick skim of the wiki, it seems that 'bicycle=yes' means that bicycles are allowed on the way, where 'bicycle=designated' means the bike has right of way. Bikes have right of way on designated cycle paths, but while theyre allowed on (most) roads, they dont have right of way. This was my basic understanding as well, which is why I get confused when I see people talking about marking paths with stuff like bicycle=designated and foot=designated. They can't both have right of way. Apart from specified bicycle lanes on streets, I can't think of any paths I'd mark as designated around here, then. Even on paths marked and signed as part of regional bicycle routes, bikes must give way to pedestrians. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Download a route
I think he's talking more about things like tourist trails, ie preset routes, and usually not the shortest way. Or bus routes, or similar things. There's a tourist route near me I keep meaning to go see if I can find the other end of, sometime. Stephen 2010/1/9 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: 2010/1/9 John Henderson snow...@gmx.com: I guess a way to allow unsophisticated users to load routes into their GPSs will sooner or later prove desirable, leading someone to host such a service. I thought most GPSs that were capable of routing did their own? ___ 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] Boat ramp
2010/1/21 David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au: Also, from the wiki for 'service': Generally for access to a building, motorway service station, beach, campsite, industrial estate, business park, etc.. This doesnt sound wrong to me, if a service road can lead to a beach or campsite, why not to a boatramp? A service road can lead to a boat ramp. But the boat ramp itself is not a point, it's a line. It's usually pretty clear where the ramp starts - where it ends is usually harder to find unless you go wading. Don't worry if it doesn't currently render. Record it in the database, and then we can hassle the renderers to support it later. SLH ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Question about lanes
This is another one of those cases where the instructions used to be in unclear. For a while the Wiki said the count was number of lanes in each direction. Some did that, some did total lane count. It has since been changed to the current (and I'm told former) total count, but there is quite likely to still be bad data around. I'm guessing you've found some. Stephen 2010/1/22 Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au: I'm currently doing some edits in Armidale (NSW) following my trip there for Christmas. Many of the streets and surrounding roads are labelled lanes=1. Some of these are clearly wrong, as they have a painted line in the middle (lanes=2) - I will be changing these, but I wanted to check what to use if the road (residential or unclassified) doesn't have centre line markings. Should we use lanes=1 only if it's narrow, or in all residential roads without lane markings? (or leave the tag off completely?) What do other people do? Mark P. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
2010/1/25 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
The 'Local Traffic Only' sign is an advisory sign only and is not
regulatory.
I don't think this is important, but this could be specified using
motor_vehicle:regulatory=no (or inferred from
motor_vehicle:source=Local Traffic Only sign)
Actually, this is the important bit. By saying it is not regulatory
means that it can not be enforced. I am legally allowed to drive past
a Local traffic sign and totally ignore it. By the definitions in
the Wiki, this means it should be tagged access=yes {The public has an
official, legally-enshrined right of access}. We could also skip the
tag entirely, as this is assumed the default.
A Local Traffic sign is a recommendation, not a law. As such, it is
sort of the opposite of access=designated, which is designed to show
places we would prefer certain vehicles to go, this is designed to
show places we would prefer them not to. We don't actually have a tag
for this at the moment, maybe we need one.
I propose a bulk update because a) I can't think of any other reason
why access=destination would be applied to ways in Queensland
I can think of quite a few ways which should be marked
access=destination in QLD. Almost any large factory or industrial
complex has some sort of access road, some of which are quite long and
mapped. Access to these is (theoretically) restricted to people
visiting the factory, though enforcement varies. Roads through
Enoggera barracks and similar places are similarly restricted. We
don't want routing software trying to take anybody through these, even
if you're on foot.
Maybe we need to do a data extract and look at how many such tags
exist - ie how big a problem it is. There may be few enough that we
can do some sort of check before we do any automated changing.
Stephen
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Duplicate node finder
Please be careful removing duplicate nodes. If a couple of ways cross, and have nodes in the same place, please make sure they should connect before just stitching them together. I've seen at least one example where a road on a bridge crossing another road underneath have been connected together because they happen to have nodes in the same place. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Nearmap made Channel 7 news
Well, I understand the resolution over Rottnest Island is better than anywhere else, so that ought to give an idea of what they can do. But I got the impression on the forums somewhere that they got that by flying lower, thus requiring more passes, though I may be wrong - I can't find it again now. I noticed when they did the line about you be the judge they showed a Rottnest island beach shot. Stephen On 18 March 2010 13:38, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.ipernica.com/IRM/content/Movies/Nearmap_ch7.html A couple of things that caught my attention, firstly the claim that they artificially limit the resolution, I wonder what they really are capable of producing. The reporter also asked if any of the big online mapping companies were interested, while the answer was a bit coy I wonder long term how this will fair for OSM. ___ 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] Mini Roundabouts.
On 25 April 2010 18:18, John Henderson snow...@gmx.com wrote: Having just done a bit of research, I agree. The Aust Road Rules define a roundabout: A roundabout is an intersection: (a) with either: (i) one or more marked lanes, all of which are for the use of vehicles travelling in the same direction around a central traffic island; or (ii) room for 1 or more lines of traffic travelling in the same direction around a central traffic island; and (b) with or without a roundabout sign at each entrance. And (importantly): traffic island means a structure on a road to direct traffic, but does not include a road marking or painted island. John H Good. So now you've proved that a painted circle on the round is not a roundabout in Australia. We agree on that. The question is, what is it? I say it's a mini-roundabout - that's pretty much the definition of what one is. Just because the Australian road rules don't have a section on them, doesn't mean they don't exist. You're right that most of what are are being marked as mini-roundabouts in Australia are not. But there are a few that really are. A very few. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mini Roundabouts.
On 27 April 2010 10:53, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: Some whisper that they have seen a painted roundabout on the road, but whether this is a roundabout is not for us to know - according to the Road Rulez it ain't a roundabout. and They are very rare, and perhaps we should draw them out as roundabouts anyway. If they aren't roundabouts, then don't draw them out as roundabouts. You can't have it both ways. You're right about them being rare in Australia. I can think of three - and two of those are on private property (shopping centres) and I'm not sure if the third is private or not - it's an industrial area, and I'm pretty sure it's a painted roundabout because if it had an island the trucks would have to drive over it anyway. I have seen a few more, but I can't remember exactly where. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] New gateway motorway bridge duplication
A couple of things about the bridge. First, even though it was officially opened today, it doesn't have traffic on it until Monday week (24th). Then they do changes to the approaches, and a bit later shut the old bridge down for six months for refurbishment. We'll have to keep changing things here until December. Second, on Thursday they had a pre-opening ceremony, with assorted politicians and reporters being pretty much the only people there, to welcome google to the bridge. A google streetview car was the first to cross the bridge (not counting workers, I guess). So once the footage is processed, and streetview gets it's next update, it's going to look a bit weird if the maps aren't corrected as well. See http://www.girlclumsy.com/2010/05/on-bridge.html#more On 16 May 2010 11:55, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: It's been months now since a new section of the gateway motorway opened and it still hasn't appeared on their maps, and today, or tomorrow at the latest, the gateway motorway bridge opens to traffic. So I'm wondering if we should start a pool on how long before the bridge and other road works ends up on google maps. ___ 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] Tagging stormwater drain areas?
Andrew, Is this what you are talking about? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/basin%3Dinfiltration http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-February/034383.html Stephen On 17 May 2010 14:15, Andrew Gregory and...@scss.com.au wrote: I'd like to thank everyone who replied. While there were some suggestions, it seems nobody else is worrying about these, so I guess with no established convention I'll go with waterway=drain;area=yes. waterway=drain because I've seen many of these sites with signs marked drainage area. area=yes is required because the wiki page for drain: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Ddrain only lists way elements for it. John mentioned surface=grass. I've never seen one of these with grass. More like surface=ground/dirt/sand/gravel/compacted. -- Andrew Gregory mailto:and...@scss.com.au http://www.scss.com.au/family/andrew/ ___ 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] Buildings
No. But when I do buildings, it's almost always as part of a larger compound of some sort. So a I might tag a whole area as a school or tafe, retail centre or church, then tag the buldings inside them as just building. If I was doing stand-alone buildings I would be more likely to tag them separately. Stephen On 13 June 2010 17:56, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: I know this was a pet topic of Steve, the wiki page for buildings suggests building:use=* for the use but has anyone tagging buildings with anything other than building=yes? ___ 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] Residential landuse
I'm doing some work on the outskirts of Brisbane, where the properties start to get bigger, doing some clean up. And I got to wondering about residential landuse. At one end of the scale, you have inner city housing (350-1000 sq m lots), and there's no question they are residential. At the other, there's huge farms with a house - they're not. But what's the dividing line? How big an acreage do you get to before you decide that landuse=residential doesn't really apply any more? What's the consensus? I know of a whole area of houses with 5 acre lots, and they don't do any farming - you just have a big house with a lot of lawn. Is this residential? Further out, I know of an area where the lots are more like 20-30 acres - they're not all lawn, but they're not used for farming or anything either. A couple of them have a pony for the kids, but that doesn't make it a farm. These are used only as residences, but I to me I think we're getting way past the limit of size for marking them as residential landuse. Or am I wrong? Any guidelines or suggestions? Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Queensland parks, forests and conservation areas
On 29 June 2010 21:49, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote: 3) State Forests get landuse=forest. Any leisure activities (e.g camping) get marked as their own thing, like tourism=camp_site, which isn't in this dataset 4) Forest Reserves and Timber Reserve (which are often adjacent to or in State Forests) get landuse=forest as well, I can't see any useful additional tags. Are you actually going to put the fact that it is a State forest anywhere? Sure, landuse=forest is not a problem, but some sort of tag stating that it is a state forest (as opposed to private land) sounds appropriate. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Showgrounds
On 30 July 2010 22:27, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Meh. I look at the definition of landuse=recreation_ground and I think it could include almost anything. Maybe you're right. There are so few showgrounds it won't matter much either way. Steve Actually there are a lot of showgrounds. Pretty much every rural town has a designated show area, and if you talk about something being held at the showgrounds, the locals all know where you mean. But most of the year, it's used for other things. Any permanent halls are often used for clubs to meet in, any weekly markets may well be held in the show grounds, etc. During the show, everything else stops. But about 50 weeks of the year, it's used for other things. Example, a local showgrounds near me has the show for about 1.5 weeks each year. But the rest of the year, it holds a market each week, several of the halls are used pretty much every night for various clubs (eg one hall has four different dance groups, indoor bowls, and a music group every week), there's a church each week in one of the other halls, several equestrian events each year in the ring, concerts sometimes, running athletic events in the grounds. It's still called the showgrounds, though. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] MS imagery
On 25 November 2010 13:20, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 25 November 2010 03:00, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: There is no news here until they actually allow it, so far they are claiming they can't. Interesting choice of words. I think you'll find there are two separate theys in this sentence; the first one is Microsoft, the other they is the OSM tool builders. Read like that it makes more sense. Planning to enable access is not the same as enabling access. So, at the moment, we can't use it. Once the official announcement (with any conditions, attribution required, limitations in area or other things I can't think of at the moment) is made, we'll know more. It being Thanksgiving week, I'd say next week at the earliest, and if they have to run things through lawyers or layers of management for sign-off first it could take months. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] MS imagery
On 26 November 2010 08:57, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Excellent. The thought does occur that if one used source=bing, and started tracing now, and for some reason the legal agreement didn't eventuate, it would be easy to simply wipe all that data. But that would be making life complicated, I suppose. It's quite possible that they might end up saying - yes it can be done, but not in certain areas, or some similar restriction. They get imagery from a range of suppliers, and would have to check that they are not breaking any contracts by allowing this. If they got to the point where they had agreement for a large portion of the world, they may decide to proceed in those areas without waiting for the remainder to be sorted out. I've had a look at some areas in Queensland - not as detailed as the nearmap imagery, but pretty good, and covers at least some areas I'm interested in that nearmap doesn't. I did a quick check on the roads layer, and they have some of the same non-existent roads marked that Google maps and my GPS do, so they must all be sourcing it from the same database. I suspect the roads may have been gazetted, but never built. And not likely to either, the terrain is terrible for a road, and there's no need for it. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Massive flooding
I heard that they were planning to do flights up north a few days ago, but couldn't get flight permissions, what with the state of emergency. And in the southeast (actually, pretty much everywhere, today), you'd get lovely grey clouds right now. In fact, if you look at Brisbane, it hasn't been updated for months, for that very reason. Stephen On 11 January 2011 20:44, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: Not that its terribly useful for the OSM project at the moment, but hopefully the nearmap guys might do some imagery as great as they did after the NSW floods in December. Anyone from NearMap got any reponses to when you might be flying affected QLD areas again? David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Massive flooding
Ben, some interesting shots there. I take it the MultiView part won't be up until later? It seems to be showing older imagery at the moment. A little bit of unfortunate image slicing here in just the wrong place. :) http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-27.475182,153.020904z=20t=knmd=20110113 And I see the dry dock didn't stay dry. I wonder if that old ship is still waterproof enough to float off it's supports? http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-27.481832,153.026254z=20t=knmd=20110113 Stephen On 15 January 2011 11:03, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote: Just FYI, the nearmap.com images of the Brisbane CBD are now up - 2cm resolution and taken on the 13th (from plane to web in 36 hours). Next up will be Ipswich at some point this weekend. http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-27.470182,153.027835z=16t=k b ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] BYO restaurants
On 27 January 2011 08:58, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Although it's a non-issue here as pointed out below, we really should get a policy on this. IMHO tags should reflect whatever makes the most sense to the most people, whether that's British, American or otherwise. I'd agree, except there's a bit missing. As long as it is not intuitively wrong for a large minority. Not something that applies in this case, but there are examples where large numbers of people can get totally the wrong idea by looking at a tag alone. It would be nice in those cases if we could find a more neutral term, even if it is not the one that the majority would think of first. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Victorian Coastline
On 27 January 2011 21:17, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Note to self: add feature to hide and render unselectable all admin=boundary. I used to always do this (using Josm filters) when working in country areas around Qld, the shire boundaries and roads were always interfering with each other. Then I started finding problems where sometimes they were connected, sometime they weren't, sometimes the boundary and road way was the same thing (so if you hide them the road vanishes as well). So now I just filter them unselectable, so I can see them dulled out, and if they seem to be connected I'll temporarily unfilter them just long enough to check what they're doing before dimming them again if they're not a problem. It makes my life much easier, most of the time. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Railway Station Naming Dispute
I'd keep both names - name= and alt_name= ( or old_name=). This is better for lookup purposes, as either version would then find this station. And it's not wrong, as it seems the other version was correct at one time. Whether that would be acceptable to the other editor is another problem. Stephen On 3 February 2011 20:22, Luke Woolley lswool...@gmail.com wrote: Doesn't happen too often on OSM, unlike Wikipedia, but i've found myself in an edit war with another user and I would like some opinions. There are two railway stations in outer eastern Melbourne, Ferntree Gully and Upper Ferntree Gully. These stations have in the past been named Fern Tree Gully and Upper Fern Tree Gully. I've been changing the names for a while now to the one word version because it's the current public spelling of the station. It's used in newspapers, the Metlink (official melbourne public transport) website, virtually any signage or publication uses the one word version. I feel that this version is warranted on OSM in terms of it being what the station is publicly know as at this point in time, and to help with searching (and any future implementation of OSM data for journey planning) Another user has been changing the station names to the two word version. Their explanation is that because the stations were officially named in the two word fashion a while back. In recent times, the name changed back to the one word version in all known publications and signage, but was not officially changed back. (http://www.vicsig.net/infrastructure/location/Ferntree-Gully and http://www.vicsig.net/infrastructure/location/Upper-Ferntree-Gully) So any opinions as to how I should go about this? ___ 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] Relicensing per changeset?
On 5 February 2011 15:30, Andrew Gregory andrew.greg...@gmail.com wrote: Surely that can't be correct? That is the way it was explained on one of the mailing lists a while back. I haven't seen any notice that it is going to change, though with the mushroom treatment we're getting, I could have easily missed it. The theory is that if you are improving on a previous way, it is still based on that way, and is therefore tainted, and they'd rather lose data than have stuff they're not sure of. For example, I've surveyed an awful lot of the Perth northern suburbs, but I started off by tracing Nearmap imagery. My understanding is that Nearmap haven't agreed to the new licensing but They have no problem with the license, it's the CT's they have issue with (which allows the license to change later). I don't know if they've finalised them yet, though. nevertheless I've since personally surveyed the streets, corrected alignments, added names and changed source=nearmap to source=survey. I would understand if data and records of the original source=nearmap disappeared with the license change, but the subsequent source=survey edits would be able to be kept? Dropping data simply because at one time it was in an incompatible-license state but is now no longer sounds incredibly destructive to me. Well, yes. This is one reason I've stopped putting data in, if I don't know the original source of the ways I'm working on. If you want to be sure your changes can be kept, and you know the original way is bad, you could delete it entirely and draw your own. Is what's going to happen documented anywhere? I've had a poke around the wiki, but can't see anything relevant to how the data is being handled. There's various stuff on the OSMF section somewhere, but it's not easy to find. Mostly I've stumbled across it from various links people have dropped in different mailing lists. And most of that seems to be out of date, anyway (meeting minutes, etc). If there's a simple, laid out roadmap anywhere, I haven't seen it. The closest I saw had a six week plan, starting about this time last year - it lasted about a week. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping things that no longer exist
Ben, True. But it also says that it is supposed to be showing a still physically visible item. Cuttings, grading, a physical scar on the landscape. If it was on an area that's been completely built over so that you would have no way of knowing something was ever there, then I'd change the tag. That's not an abandoned railway, that's land that used to have a railway on it once, which is not the same thing. Now, I might leave the way itself, and put a note on it. We may eventually come up with the historical mapping people have been talking about for years But I wouldn't tag it as railway=abandoned if you can see no sign of it on the ground. Note that, in this case, looking at the Nepean Highway in Google Streetview, there are some visible track lines where the line crossed it, which makes me suspect they just buried the track there. If it was that visible everywhere, I'd have no problem with marking it as railway=abandoned But I can't see it anywhere else, and it goes right through buildings. Stephen On 16 October 2011 05:45, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote: Hi. The definition of railway=abandoned does include places where the track and infrastructure have been removed. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Railway#Explanation_of_railway.3Dabandoned I guess over time, what was once a railway may become something else though. - Ben. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] What to tag a fire-fighting water tank?
True, but that doesn't mean we need to use it. When they actually bother to give the SI unit a name, I'll think about using it. In the meantime, the named metric unit of volume is the litre (L), and you can use it with all the prefixes, including KL (or cubic metre), ML etc. The prefixes don't really work with the derived units, you need a named one. Stephen On 30 October 2011 16:19, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Might be commonly used in Australia but the SI unit is actually cubic metres. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [OpenStreetMap] intersections
On 29 November 2011 23:53, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Having a place tag is good, having a population tag is good. Faking either of those for the renderer or otherwise seems bad. We're talking about hinting, not faking. Marking something as a city when it's not, that's bad. Having a specific tag (that the renderer can ignore if it wishes) that says this thing is more important than you might otherwise think is not faking, it's adding information. Sparseness is actually one of the edge cases that's less important, in my view. But even there, I bet you can't create an algorithm that will behave as well as good human mapper, though we can probably do one that's good enough. But the more important use for hinting is the case where you have a bunch of similarly sized items fairly close to each other, and in every computer readable metric they have similar results. So the renderers pick one at random and place it, hiding the others. The problem is they almost always pick the wrong one. If there is one internationally famous place surrounded by a bunch of similar places that no one has ever heard of, with only room for one on the map, it's almost never the expected one that shows up. But it doesn't even have to be that important - near me is a set of suburbs that are all about the same size and population, but the one that everybody would expect to see on a semi-zoomed out map is not the largest, or the admin centre, or in the middle, or famous outside my city - it's just the oldest, the one that's been around while everything else was farms. All the other suburbs near it have grown more recently, and they are mostly larger population, have better shopping, etc. But when somebody talks about the area, it's always the oldest one whose name they use. Weather reports, traffic radio, everything. This is not the stuff a computer is going to be able to figure out without a hint. I can think of many other examples of similar issues just in my city. Zoom in far enough, and all 60+ suburbs should show, no question. But if you've zoomed out enough that we can only fit in about a half dozen names around the city area, pretty much everybody would give you the same list of which ones they should be. All the suburbs are equal, but some are more equal than others. And if we're going to make good, usable maps, we need to know that. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [OpenStreetMap] intersections
On 30 November 2011 21:51, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: And in the case of something like sparseness I think you can come up with at least equivalently correct results, by developing the algorithm hand in hand with input from a good human mapper. Oh, definitely. That's why I think we can make one good enough. It seems to me that what you are saying here is not that one of the suburbs is more important than the others, but that the group of them is commonly referred to by the name of the one. Pretty much. Not quite that, necessarily, but more if there is only going to be room for one name, that's the one everybody would expect. It's not more important, so much, as better known. But based on what you say about the weather reports and traffic radio, it doesn't seem to me that importance is what we're talking about. My question would be - is it common to refer to a location within a particular suburb as part of [the name of some other suburb]? If so, then I don't think it's importance. At least, it's not the importance of the suburb, but rather the importance of the name. That's pretty much it. I usually refer to my work place as being in the suburb next door to the one it really is in - many more people know where that is (even if just oh, somewhere on the north edge of the city) than have heard of my real location. Only if I have to give an address do I actually list the real suburb. For each small grouping of suburbs/localities, if you asked a bunch of people from within say 100km which of their names should be shown if there was only room for one, you'd generally get a pretty good consensus. How we get our renderers to know that is the problem. I'm not sure relations are the best solution - I'm not saying that A should always replace B C, just if I have to pick between them I'd pick A. If I can fit both A and C, then that's fine. I haven't come up with a good solution. There's no objective, visible on the ground, easily verifiable data I can think of that we can map to handle it. But the effect is real, and if we can utilise it, it will make our maps feel better. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Residential Roads
On 11 December 2011 11:54, mick bare...@tpg.com.au wrote: In northern Brisbane I have yet to see anything that shows you are moving into a 50kph default zone. In Queensland the 50kph limit applies to all built up areas unless the street is marked otherwise. They don't mark the individual areas, though they used to have some signs as you entered SE Qld, back when it only applied there. They may still have some on the NSW border, they used to. I was once present when somebody asked a cop what the definition of a built up area was - his answer was they know it when they see it, which wasn't helpful. Some are obvious, it was the border cases that he was being asked about. How big do the housing blocks have to be before an area is not built up any more? The closest he got to a definite answer was that if it had streetlights, then it would be considered built up. But there are edge cases even there. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I deleted a few locality boundaries...
On 19 December 2011 22:10, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: The original coastlines were from NASA PGS data and if they have been deleted and/or merged to the ABS data then the coastline is going to be deleted as well. Years ago, some of us spent quite a lot of time cleaning up the PGS boundaries. I think somebody did rip them out and replace them with ABS, which they said was better than the PGS, though I didn't think was better than the cleaned up PGS. and in some places was worse. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Redaction progress
Yeah, I'm working on it - up in the northern suburbs at the moment, it's the area I know best. It's interesting that many streets that were showing as OK in the tools prior to the change may still be there, but are missing many nodes, so they don't match reality any more. I find you have to actually check right along a road, don't just assume if it's still there it's OK. Unfortunately, it's a really busy time of the year for me, so I don't have as much time as it really needs. But I can see I'll be working on the noname fixing again when I get some free time. Stephen On 22 July 2012 16:36, waldo000...@gmail.com waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: 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] Brisbane bus stop density
Yeah, I'm pretty sure there would only be one bus stop there, or possibly one each side of the road, at best. I'll see if I can swing by that way next time I'm over that side of town, if somebody doesn't beat me to it. I suspect that a few of the other double pairs nearby should only be singles as well - minor suburban streets like that usually only have a one way bus path, if any, but I could be wrong. Particularly since some of the doubles appear to be on the same side of the road - that's very unusual. Stephen On 30 July 2012 00:34, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: I see a cluster of bus stops in an area that looks unusual. Would a Brisbane local have a look when they get a chance? Not an emergency, obviously. They've been there since 2009. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-27.403455lon=152.943559zoom=18layers=M ___ 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] Missing data
Diego, The discussion happened a while ago, but the redaction bot only ran a few weeks (maybe a month?) ago. It shouldn't run any more, as I understand it. Stephen On 21 August 2012 14:25, Diego Molla-Aliod diego.molla-al...@mq.edu.auwrote: The discussions about licence change happened quite a long time ago, does it mean that this redaction bot is running now? I might spend some time remapping this area during the weekend. Diego ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Misaligned streets OSM or Bing wrong? - use survey mark?
On 1 September 2012 11:35, Russell Edwards russell...@gmail.com wrote: I am still curious to know what the positional accuracy of survey markers is meant to be, if anyone can enlighten. First question you have to ask is how old the survey is? Australia as a whole moves north about 7-8 cm a year (from memory), so a 12-13 year old survey has moved about a metre from the start spot. It's a moving target. Survey markers stay pretty accurate in relation to everything around them, but not necessarily in relation to some outside measuring source like GPS. But an even bigger error can be caused by using different projections. I forget which one OSM uses, but using different projections can move a given point 20m quite easily, and a survey marker may well be on a different one. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Few questions about tagging ways in Australia
On 11 September 2012 01:28, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, for the sake of argument, how would provider A demonstrate that OSM's data was made by copying its compilation of facts, when providers B and C contain exactly the same facts? Because B and C would not contain the same facts. Every map source has unique errors, some of which are put there on purpose. Streets that don't exist, names spelt wrong, with the wrong road type, etc. It's not hard to show where data comes from, if you copy a lot of it. The third street I ever mapped, just down the road from my house at the time, has slightly different names on the road signs, the local street atlas, and google maps. I have no idea which of the three is officially correct, but OSM has what's on the signs. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Aligning steets
I've seen it flatly stated that Australia didn't have any real mini-roundabouts. That may have been true once, but the last few new roundabouts I've seen built near me have all been either true mini roundabouts (nothing but paint) or a couple where there is a raised centre concrete disc, but it's only raised about a cm, and is fully traversable. I'm not sure why they've started appearing. Stephen On 15 September 2012 22:26, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Brett, You've just said a *really controversial phrase (mini roundabouts). In Australia there is a *LOT* of history surrounding these things. I do have a definite opinion on them but I reckon it would be best (if not unbearably tedious) for you to read the many vitiolic posts on this subject on talk-au. Cheers Nick ___ 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] Aligning steets
On 20 September 2012 09:41, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: Yes it is a small roundabout as you can not legally drive over it unless it is impractical to do so. The vehicle in the street view is clearly about to drive around the center island. Whereas if it was a truck/bus/caravan it would be able to drive over it if necessary. Read through the mailing list archives all this discussion was thrashed out years ago and nothing has changed. What you just described is the exact definition of a mini-roundabout. Mini-roundabout doesn't mean you can legally drive over it in any vehicle, it means that you can physically drive over it if you need to. The australian guidelines are wrong, in this case. And yes, I know how they evolved to this state, I've kept up on the discussion over the years. But with the recent clarifications to the definition of mini-roundabout and roundabout in the main tagging guideline, and the fact that you can't tag a fully drawn out roundabout as traversable, there is now a need for using mini-roundabout in Australia. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Aligning steets
I'm not saying that a mini-roundabout isn't a roundabout, it is, and all the normal signs and laws apply. What it also is, however, is traversable. If you have a vehicle that cannot go around it, because it is too large, then you're allowed to go over it. I'd be just a happy to use a normal roundabout way, and mark it as traversable with traversable=yes. Traversable could have values like yes/no/semi (for those ones that have a traversable skirt but a raised centre plinth). However, when I suggested that on the talk list a while ago, it was met with great indifference. so we seem to be left with the only way to mark a traversable roundabout being to mark it as a mini-roundabout, which can only be a node. Stephen On 20 September 2012 22:12, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote: Stephen wrote there is now a need for using mini-roundabout in Australia. I always like to simplify things (maybe too much sometimes). How about If the approaches to the intersection/junction have roundabout signs then it is a roundabout, roundabout laws apply and we should tag it junction=roundabout and draw it as such with four or more nodes. If the intersection/junction does not have a roundabout sign, then it is not a roundabout, roundabout laws do not apply and, despite any paint or slight raisings we should tag it as a single node intersection. This does leave, once again, the mini-roundabout tag out in the cold (with the rundlehound) Right - that was way too simple - I'm probably wrong. Nick ___ 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] Routing islands
Well, there's a couple of reasons why you might want to save it anyway with roads close together but not joining, so JOSM can't force you not to save it. They might not actually join. There's a couple of examples near me where roads end less than a meter away from another road, but don't join up. Service roads, minor suburban streets and main streets where they used to join, but the main road has so much traffic now they've cut the connection, and a case where two new subdivisions had a road that was supposed to join, but the first guy stopped about a half meter short of the line, and the second one wouldn't pay the extra, so there's a tiny gap between the roads, and a curb. Also, you might have been working on some other portion of the road, and not near where the error is. Just last week I fixed some stuff at one end of a road, and when I went to save it, it warned of errors at the other end, but I can't do anything about them until I go down there and see what the problem is. I still want to save the work I've done so far, though. Stephen On 13 October 2012 15:25, dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Gee, thats pretty revealing ! I see a number of error there that I suspect I may have made, in particular relating to ways that are close but don't join another way. I think this highlights a lack of a best practice document on how to add ways to the map. I can remember getting warnings from JOSM on the subject, but the warnings say something to the effect that don't let that stop you from submitting the addition. Considering the great tools available and the incredible effort by so many people, its a pity we don't have that best practice, I suspect there is concern it may scare people away ! Hmm David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Lots of amenities ?
David, It's up to the rendering engine how it wants to display the POI's. It doesn't matter how far apart they are, if you zoom out enough they'll overlap anyway. The thing to remember is we provide the data, the people who render the maps decide what to do with it. If they're making a static map, they'll have to pick what they think is most important, or maybe invent some sort of combination symbol for multiple POI's if they want. But the data may also be used by someone who's making interactive POI layers, where they turn different one's on and off. Or somebody who's making a map about some specialist topic, who ignores almost all POI's. The default renderer on the the OSM site will only show one if there's multiple. But that doesn't mean everyone else who gets the data will as well. Stephen On 17 October 2012 21:10, dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Thanks Ben, but maybe I'm a bit slow today ? If there are multiple nodes all on (about) the same spot, then the rendering engines show only one. I guess its the 'top' one. If they are just a bit further apart, then you might see part of the lower ones. Not a good look either way. Perhaps its just something we cannot do perfectly. David - Original Message - From: Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com To: dban...@internode.on.net Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:20:09 +1100 Subject: Re: [talk-au] Lots of amenities ? Hi. Yes just put multiple nodes. E.g. petrol station that has a toilet. - Ben. On Oct 17, 2012 3:14 PM, dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Hi folks, I have been fixing some of the errors that http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?schema=50error=38081608 tells us about. I note that at some stage someone has logged that the General Store near me sells both fuel and fast food (and, for that matter, other stuff, its a post office for example). To tell OSM about both the fuel and fast food, they have put separate two POI in, I have just named it. It seems that does not render very well, only one shows up. I really have not played with the amenity= stuff but I'd assume this is not a surprising issue ? Must be a lot of cases where one site provides a number of different amenities ? Anyone have a better way to deal with it ? Search for Axedale, Victoria. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmaporg/listinfo/talk-auhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ 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] 4WD only tags
David, When we first proposed (and started using) the 4wd_only tag, there was a lot of pushback from people who complained that it was not a verifiable tag. Track type had the same response. We were able to show them that there are signs all over Australia that say 4WD only at the start of a road. I think you'll get a lot of reaction trying to add levels of 4WD required where there are no signs to point at. Feel free to advocate it, though, and to tag that way. If enough people tag things in a certain way, that's the surest way of setting a standard. Stephen On 4 November 2012 13:41, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Li, I beg to differ. While I agree that grading of a 4x4 track is subjective, so is much of the other data in the OSM database. Must be that way. The real issue is how important the data is. As I have mentioned, I am concerned that maps are being rendered that ignore this data. Routing engines are potentially sending people down roads that they, and their vehicles are ill suited to. Bad things will definitely happen. The routing people are saying but these tags don't even show on the OSM maps, why should we worry ?. And as to subjective, while there will always be borderline cases, I don't think it would be too hard to divide tracks up into - * 4x4 recommended - you will might be OK in a conventional car or (better still) an SUV but you have been warned. * 4x4 required - you really need a stock 4x4, a real one with (eg) low ratio. * 4x4 extreme - this is for the death or glory boys, they need experience and modified vehicles. This is a recent addition ! I am pretty sure that if you and I spent a couple of weeks having some driving fun, we'd agree on the vast majority of the tracks we graded. David - Original Message - From: Li Xia lisxia1...@gmail.com To: David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net Cc: OSM Australian Talk List talk-au@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 13:08:22 +1100 Subject: 4WD only tags Hi David, just my 2 cents on 4WD_only tags. By adding a 4x4 recommended tag will add to the complexity because it's kind of subjective as to which roads/tracks are traversable in a 2WD vehicle, therefor adding another option for this key will further complicate the issue. Li. ___ 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
