[talk-au] Discussion K: Evaluation of ACT paths audit 2012 and the OSM ACT dataset
# Discussion K: Evaluation of ACT paths audit 2012 and the OSM ACT dataset ## The Issue It is clear from the OSM dataset for in the ACT, that it is the product of using the editor presets for paths. The OSM Australian Tagging Guidelines (ATG) is consistent with the real use and the legal definition of "community paths" in the ACT (and verifiable) but this is completely ignored by the mappers. No single incidence of this tagging exists in the ACT. Using ACT data from 2012, 98% of ACT paths should be "community paths". The disconnect between the OSM ATG (correct) and the OSM path data (false) for the ACT is disturbing. ## QUESTION What should we do about this? ## what you need to know - Community paths ( permitted for both bikes and pedestrians) make up 98% off all paths that exist in the ACT. - Editor presets overwhelmingly dominate in OSM dataset for the ACT: almost all the paths in the ACT are tagged with the Foot Path preset or the Cycle Path preset and some with the Cycle & Foot Path preset. The OSM ATG recommended tagging is NOT USED in the ACT. Prove it yourself below. :-) ## Most paths in the ACT are community paths "Community paths" (official term) are the most common path type in the ACT and correspond in the OSM ATG to the tagging: - highway=path - foot=designated - bicycle=designated - segregated=no Quoting the ACT document (link below) "Guidelines for community path repairs and maintenance": "Footpaths and cycle paths (referred to as community paths) are provided to assist the community with walking and cycling activities. As at 30 June 2012, there was 2,533 kilometres of community paths in the ACT (2,190 kilometres of footpaths and 343 kilometres of off-road cycle paths). Community paths can be used by pedestrians, cyclists and motorised mobility devices (electric wheelchairs and mobility scooters/buggies that cannot travel over 10 kilometres per hour)." source: https://www.tccs.act.gov.au/roads-paths/cycling/policy-for-footpath-maintenance Back in 2012, there were 2533km of paths. As far as I know there where no bike ONLY and pedestrian ONLY paths at that time. Some bike ONLY paths have been built since: the Civic city loop (approx 4km in 2013), Woden bike path (2km), and Belconnen Bikeway (4.7km to be completed in 2020). None of these paths existed in 2012 so the calculation below is conservative. In the new suburbs, many community paths have been built since. They are not "footpaths"! (1) Total paths in community paths 2533km (2) Total "bike ONLY" paths know: approx 25km (3) Double item 2 for possible "pedestrian ONLY" path duplication (unlikely): total now approx 50km (4) There is approx 50km of bike ONLY and pedestrian ONLY paths (5) Calculate bike ONLY and pedestrian ONLY paths as a percentage of the total 1.97% (50/2533) (6) The difference gives you the percentage of community paths (both bike and pedestrian) = 98% **Community paths (both bike and pedestrian) make up 98% off all paths in the ACT.** ## Frequency distribution of path presets in the OSM ACT dataset This can be best done visually from a live data set using the overpass-turbo tool. This "analysis" is a visuall comparison the standard ID editor presets with the ATG tagging recommended for the ACT. I will provide a link for each scenario. **Almost all the paths in the ACT are tagged with the Foot Path preset or the Cycle Path preset and some with the Cycle & Foot Path preset.** ### Foot Path preset (symbol "walking man“) frequency of tagging in OSM dataset: VERY COMMON overpass-turbo link: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MU7 tags: - highway=footway ### Cycle Path preset (symbol blue bike) frequency of tagging in OSM dataset: COMMON overpass-turbo link: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MU8 tags: - highway=cycleway ### Cycle & Foot Path preset (symbol blue bike) ID editor preset frequency of tagging in OSM dataset: NONE overpass-turbo link: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MUb tags: - cycleway=highway - foot=designated - bicycle=designated Alternate preset (not sure which editor though) frequency of tagging in OSM dataset: SOME overpass-turbo link: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MUe tags: - highway= cycleway - foot=designated - bicycle=designated ### ATG recommended tagging for the ACT Community Path frequency of tagging in OSM dataset: RARE (but leave off the segregated=no and you get more) overpass-turbo link: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MUc tags: - highway=path - bicycle=designated - foot=designated - segregated=no ## QUESTION What should we do about this? I welcome your comments Keywords: Australia, ACT, ATG, ID editor, presets, paths, root cause analysis___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Discussion J: regionalisation of editor presets
Discussion J: regionalisation of editor presets I am now putting the question at the top and bottom of the text. ## QUESTION How can the presets for the editor (ID and JOSM) be changed to the ATG default for the ACT when editing paths in this territory? # The Issue (background) What is the cause of the overwhelming inconsistencies between the path tags in OSM and the ATG? This was the question from Discussion I (6/10/2019). There may be multiple causes. The error seems to be systematic. ## Human factors and preset design One possible systematic cause is that mappers are trusting the preset to get it right. If it looks like a pedestrian path, then the click on the “walking man” button in the ID editor. The presumption here is the preset is correct for the ACT. This turns out to be a mistake. If the path looks like it is for bikes then the mapper clicks the blue bike. Again, the mapper is trusting the preset to be correct for the ACT but it is not. The preset with the closed approximation to the ATG tags are the “bike and pedestrian” button (noted in Discussion D), which is the least favoured of the three in the ACT (try it for yourself in overpass turbo). ## ID editor preset values The ID editor has the following tag values for presets. None are correct according to the ATG for the ACT. Pushing any of these buttons will fill the OSM database with the wrong data for the ACT. Foot Path preset (symbol "walking man“) tags: - highway=footway Cycle Path preset (symbol blue bike) tags: - highway=cycleway Cycle & Foot Path preset (symbol blue bike) tags: - cycleway=highway - foot=designated - bicycle=designated ## accumulating tags assumption One mapper has suggested in this forum that the tags accumulated when you click multiple buttons, one after another. This assumption may be widely held but is also incorrect. The actual behaviour of the ID editor is quite different. Push the buttons in any sequence and the tags of the new preset overwrite the tags that the previous button had put on the "way". Tags are overwritten and not accumulated. (Lifecycle tags accumulate a history.) ## The default is king - proven again and again Studies have shown that people will stick with the default option 85% of the time. In the studies, an alternative option is offered but nobody ever clicks on it. This is human nature (psychology). People prefer to go with the default. For the ID editor, this is problematic. The three preset buttons discussed have default tags and the editor does not offer to the mapper to change them. I doubt most people would think to do so. The presets in the editor have become the defacto STANDARD, replacing anything that might be found in the ATG. The ATG is ignored in preference for a default chosen by the editor developer. The outcome is a systematic skew of the data in OSM to preset values (verify it yourself in overpass turbo). ## changing the preset to be ATG conform for each state/territory One option is to change these three presets to conform with the ATG and ACT standard values for “type A” and “type B” paths (see Discussion D). Both these types are a Cycle & Foot Path but may have a different appearance. Cycle Path and Foot Path would take on the ATG default for cycle ONLY path and pedestrian ONLY path respectively. The mapper may need to be reminded that the Cycle & Foot Path is the default for the ACT. Another option would be to set the Cycle Path and Foot Path with the ATG and ACT standard values for “type A” and “type B” paths (see Discussion D). The advantage of this is that we don’t require the mapper to change their behaviour. For the mapper, it is business as usual. Over time the OSM data will be corrected through the mappers' habit of toggling each other's work. The whole OSM data set for paths in the ACT will be overwritten and it will become largely correct. We would go from 95% incorrect to mostly correct. A big improvement. ## QUESTION How can the presets for the editor (ID and JOSM) be changed to the ATG default for the ACT when editing paths in this territory? I welcome your comments. Keywords: Australia, ACT, ATG, ID editor, presets, paths, root cause analysis___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Discussion I: Quality is the coherence of four things
# Discussion I: Quality is the coherence of four things Lots of good news but some bad. Another way to look at the quality of the OSM data is the coherence of four things: 1. What is found on the ground (real life) 2. The actual tagging found in OSM dataset 3. The Australian Tagging Guidelines and OSM Wiki standards 4. Laws and regulations in that state/territory The first is hardest to check and is business as usual with OSM. The last two can be reviewed (law review) at regular intervals (annually) and Australian Tagging Guidelines updated for that state/territory accordingly (easy to do). The second, the actual tagging, is the cause of the quality issues in the ACT. The other three appear to be pretty good, but the actual tagging of paths in the ACT is inconsistent. The lack of coherence with the other three is a quality issue. My latest estimate is 95% of the paths do not comply with the Australian Tagging Guidelines. The Australian Tagging Guidelines do seem to be consistent with ACT law. That’s a big positive. The issue here is the inconsistency of the mappers. That’s you and me as a group. Have you ever seen a bunch of five-year-olds play football? This is the problem we have. I am sure that it can be improved. ## QUESTION Why does this happen? I welcome your comments. Keywords: Australia, ACT, quality, law, ATG, consistency, root cause analysis___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
I apologise for the tone of the first post yesterday. I was a bit unwell. *** # The ATG proposed changes for paths in the ACT I have decided to write this as a proposal of changes to the ATG in the ACT (if any) and consideration of the consequences. For the paths found in the ACT, I will describe the CURRENT GUIDELINES and then describe the CHANGE PROPOSED (if any). Path types that do not exist in the ACT are not considered or discussed here. ## Most common types of ridden paths in the ACT ### CURRENT GUIDELINES Type A Common: “Australian Shared Path (bicycle and pedestrian sign)” - There were 343km as of 30 June 2012. The ATG says the tags should be: - highway=path - foot=designated - bicycle=designated - segregated=no Type B Under ACT law, pedestrian and cyclists are both allowed to use any “footpath”. A "footpath" is any unsigned path separated from the road. There were 2190km of these "footpaths" as of 30 June 2012. Conclusion: in the ACT, almost all “footpaths” are effectively shared. - highway=path - foot=designated - bicycle=designated - segregated=no ### CHANGE PROPOSED NONE ## Pedestrian ONLY path and cyclist ONLY path ### CURRENT GUIDELINES I don’t find the ATG particularly clear on these and I don’t like the space it leaves for interpretation (resulting in confusion and inconsistencies). I would, therefore, specify specifically what is required. In other words, I am not changing the ATG but adding something to it that is specific to the ACT. ### CHANGE PROPOSED I would propose to add the following text to the ATG. “In the ACT pedestrian ONLY paths and cyclist ONLY paths should be tagged as follows: pedestrian ONLY path -highway=path -foot=designated -bicycle=no cyclist ONLY path -highway=path -foot=no -bicycle= designated“ I PROPOSE NO OTHER CHANGES TO THE ATG ## Impacts of this proposal -Impact on the Australian Tagging Guidelines (LOW) -Impact on Mapnik map appearance (LOW) -Impact on relations in OSM (LOW) ### Impact on the Australian Tagging Guidelines (LOW) The proposal for “default path type” tagging in the ACT is consistent with the ATG as they stand. That must be a good thing. However, other keys that “specialist” mapper could add to highway=path to make the description of the path more nuanced are: -width=*m -surface=paved/unpaved/concrete/asphalt/ground/dirt -footway=sidewalk (common: typical for town centres in the ACT including Gungahlin, Woden, Civic, Weston Creek shops, and local suburban shopping centres) -incline=up/down/% -access=no/private -mountain bike specific path grading as defined by the OSM ### Impact on Mapnik map appearance (LOW) I mentioned this in the table of the original Discussion D post. For the most common path types in the ACT (type A and B), the ATG and in the ACT legal default path type -ID preset: “Path” shows as the preset symbol -Tagging: highway=path bicycle=designated foot=designated segregated=no -Tagging ID editor line appearance: grey/brown dotted -Mapnik line appearance: blue dotted After all the paths had been changed to ATG and in the ACT legal default path type suggested here, the Mapnik style map would show almost all paths in the ACT as blue dotted lines. So how do you distinguish between type A and type B paths? Do you need to distinguish between them? The answer to both questions is the use of relations in OSM. Mapnik is only one rendering and there are plenty of others. If the Mapnik style does not show what you need for your purpose then another standard rendering style may do a better job. I will put links to some that I have found in another post. ### Impact on relations in OSM (LOW) As the type A paths are few but offer often (but not always) a better riding experience (faster and safer), I would suggest that it does make sense to use them as priority pathways. Some are “signed bike paths”. I would save this information in OSM as routes of two types: -Official routes -Unofficial routes As mentioned in the “principles of tagging” post yesterday: “There is NO uniform standard for OLDER paths of any type ACT. They can be any width, made of any material, widely varying quality, no consistency in signage, don’t usually form complete networks, stop and start arbitrarily (particularly at boundaries), there no regular maintenance, and no regular audit of the infrastructure. The ACT Government builds it and abandons it.” It, therefore, makes sense to link the fragments of paths are good into identifiable routes. Navigation is a problem in Canberra and the signage poor. The ACT Government and cycling advocacy groups are trying to “fill the gaps” with better paths to make cycling corridors through the ACT between town centres. These I mentioned in Discussion G as Principal Community Routes (PCRs), numbered M100, M200 etc to M900. But also let the unofficial routes in OSM stand. I quote here
Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
# Principle of tagging 1. Tagging should be consistent with the laws of the jurisdiction 2. Tagging should not be code but be explicit 3. Tagging should be useful 4. Tagging should be intuitive 5. Tagging should be easy (regional presets) I will comment on the first two. ## Principle 1 ONE set of rules for tagging paths across all Australia is not possible ie each state needs its own section on the ATG. Australia is a federation. Each state makes its own road rules. State road rules override the “Australian Road Rules”. You cannot sign everything. Even when it is not signed, the laws still apply with penalties and potential prosecution and imprisonment (8 months in one recent example, 2019). Most states laws are not signed. The ACT the law is clear. All paths can be used by cyclists, pedestrians, but any wheeled vehicle that is not motorised, without exception. Combustion motored vehicles are not permitted on paths of all types. Electric motored skateboards, bikes, mobility devices, and soon scooters ARE permitted. The motors have power limits (not sure what, around 200W). Speed limits apply for footpaths of 25kmh for all e-devices. The liability situation is also clear. If a bike hits a pedestrian the cyclist is always at fault. This is not true on the road for motor vehicles versus cyclists. Road cycling is not all the popular in the ACT but generally permitted unless there is a sign that says otherwise EVEN on motorways in cycle lanes. ACT rules document is called “Road Transport (Road Rules) Regulation 2017” the bike rules are in section 15, page 260, if you would like to read them. https://www.accesscanberra.act.gov.au/app/answers/detail/a_id/1828/related/1/session/L2F2LzEvdGltZS8xNTcwMjI5NzcyL2dlbi8xNTcwMjI5NzcyL3NpZC9mVVY1ZEs5M0Q4aENtcmVyX0kxNDRlWWxfYzFPc1NDMkx1MHZmZEVPbUtVcUhCYmNFSUkwN21OTXU2OEZ4V3NlYnRHWm5hc0NrUU1MQWtvS2NEQTNLVCU3RUt3MU5jcm9SbE5SOXBsSWNBWXRoVVBsWmRKMkZ3VzA0ZyUyMSUyMQ%3D%3D ## Principle 2 Tagging should not be code and be explicit in what it means. If the path is 3m wide we should specify that explicitly and we should not code this as “footpath”. If the width is not rendered, then that is the problem for the renderer. Wide paths are STANDARD now in the ACT. Narrow paths are historical artefacts. Here is how the NEW roads and paths of all types are constructed in the ACT. Look for this document: Municipal Infrastructure Design Standards Part 05 Active Travel Facilities Design (PDF) at the bottom of the page. https://www.tccs.act.gov.au/Development_and_Project_Support/standards-codes-and-guidelines/municipal_infrastructure_design_standards There is NO uniform standard for OLDER paths of any type ACT. They can be any width, made of any material, widely varying quality, no consistency in signage, don’t usually form complete networks, stop and start arbitrarily (particularly at boundaries), there no regular maintenance, and no regular audit of the infrastructure. Practice shows, that the ACT Government builds it and abandons it. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ Am Samstag, 28. September 2019 00:02 schrieb Herbert.Remi : > # Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law > I hope you can help. > (If you open this plain text post to a markdown editor it will be fully > formated. I recommend Typora.) > Abbreviation: ATG - Australian Tagging Guidelines > > ## The Issue > The way you use a map changes the way you see it. I am very interested in > cycling. I am interested in capturing the information for cyclable paths so > that maps can be made for all types of biking, including MTBs. > > The situation for OSM in the ACT for cyclists is unfortunate. The paths you > are allowed to ride with a bike are completely inconsistently tag. The cause > is no logical inconsistency between the ATG, the editor presets, the standard > rendering practice, and finally the many ways creative mappers have tried to > solve the problem in the last decade. > > The last is tragic and frustrating as mappers continually undo other mappers > work and redo the tags their own preferred way. Over time, the path tagging > does not improve but across the ACT become increasingly randomise. Where the > congested areas it happens most often. The paths in Commonwealth Park on Lake > Burley Griffin has been retagged over and over again, many times each year. > Some paths alternate regularly between the footpath and bike path preset, > even though neither applies in the ACT according to the ATG. ☹ > > ### Table of ID Editor presents, path types and rendering for each environment > | ID preset | Correct in the ACT > | tagging | ID > editor line style | Mapnik line style | > | --- | > - | > | > |
Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
There are almost no paths in the ACT compliant with Australian Tagging Guidelines and ACT law. You can visualise these for yourself. The script should turn up thousands of hits but there are almost none. Try this overpass turbo script. https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MQp ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ Am Samstag, 28. September 2019 00:02 schrieb Herbert.Remi : > # Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law > I hope you can help. > (If you open this plain text post to a markdown editor it will be fully > formated. I recommend Typora.) > Abbreviation: ATG - Australian Tagging Guidelines > > ## The Issue > The way you use a map changes the way you see it. I am very interested in > cycling. I am interested in capturing the information for cyclable paths so > that maps can be made for all types of biking, including MTBs. > > The situation for OSM in the ACT for cyclists is unfortunate. The paths you > are allowed to ride with a bike are completely inconsistently tag. The cause > is no logical inconsistency between the ATG, the editor presets, the standard > rendering practice, and finally the many ways creative mappers have tried to > solve the problem in the last decade. > > The last is tragic and frustrating as mappers continually undo other mappers > work and redo the tags their own preferred way. Over time, the path tagging > does not improve but across the ACT become increasingly randomise. Where the > congested areas it happens most often. The paths in Commonwealth Park on Lake > Burley Griffin has been retagged over and over again, many times each year. > Some paths alternate regularly between the footpath and bike path preset, > even though neither applies in the ACT according to the ATG. ☹ > > ### Table of ID Editor presents, path types and rendering for each environment > | ID preset | Correct in the ACT > | tagging | ID > editor line style | Mapnik line style | > | --- | > - | > | > | - | > | ATG and ACT law (Path shows as the preset symbol) | Legal default path > type | highway=path bicycle=designated foot=designated segregated=no | > grey/brown dotted| blue dotted | > | cycle path | No > | highway=cycleway | blue > dotted | blue dotted | > | cycle and foot path | No but close > | highway=cycleway bicycle=designated foot=designated | blue > dotted | blue dotted | > | foot path | No > | highway=footway | grey > dotted | red dotted| > | cycle ONLY – no preset| Yes (rare) > | highway=path bicycle=designated foot=no | > grey/brown dotted| blue dotted | > | pedestrian ONLY – no preset | Yes (rare) > | highway=path bicycle=no foot=designated | > grey/brown dotted| red dotted| > > Finally, I suggest one simplified way of path tagging for the ACT at the > bottom of this text. > > QUESTION > **What is the best way to restore consistency across the OSM data set for the > ACT?** > > ## Most commonly used keys > These keys are for bike and footpaths: highway, foot, bicycle, footway, > segregated. The tags used in the ACT OSM maps in all combinations are found > below. The tags foot=no or bicycle =no is only correct when the path is > signed that way for segregated paths and very few have been built. The key > footway is used more commonly in the south of Canberra and seldom used in a > way which is consistent with the ATG or ACT law, further increasing the > inconsistency. > > Any of the following combinations of highway, foot, bicycle, footway, and > segregated can be found in the ACT. > * segregated=no/yes > * highway=path/footway/cycleway > * foot=designated/yes/blank/no > * bicycle= designated/yes/blank/no > * footway=sidewalk OR missing > > ## The ATG says > Under ACT law, both pedestrian and cyclists are both allowed to use the > “footpath”. Here is the relevant section of the ATG. > “If bicycles are permitted by law then use highway=path. > **Do not use highway=footway unless bicycles are expressly prohibited from > using that path.**” > Pedestrian ONLY paths are very rare in the ACT. > > What is ALSO very rare in the ACT is bike ONLY path, which the ATG calls the > “Australian Cycle Path (bicycle-only sign, pedestrians prohibited)”, and the > properly separated shared paths, which the ATG
[talk-au] Discussion I: Consultation ends and OSM Wiki starts
# Discussion I: Consultation ends and OSM Wiki starts Thanks for your support and assistance with the ACT OSM mapping project. The consultation phase ends now and I will take your comments and consolidate the information into OSM Wiki pages in the ACT section. I expect it will be an overview page and links to subpages for each topic. It is better on the smartphone screen in this way as there is not too much text per page. Once the ACT OSM Wiki page is updated, it will be open for your comments again. This could take about a month. I will put a short note in this forum when the ACT OSM page has been updated. Keywords: Australia, ACT, OSM Wiki___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Discussion H: public transport – the end game
# Discussion H: public transport – the end game Bus routes (relations) were changed in the ACT in 2019 with the introduction of Civic to Gungahlin light rail, effective 29 April 2019. The bus network in Canberra changed from a mesh network (bumble buses) to a “hub and spoke” system, the “Rapid” bus network. Now, fast buses connect town centres and you change for local connections. This was a radical change with many bus routes being abolished and news one established. The new “spoke” routes are name R1, R2, … to R10. The route R1 is not a bus route at all but the Civic to Gungahlin light rail. Summary of changes required to OSM relations: - Many routes deleted - New routes added - Nomenclature of all routes changed. Resources 1. A detailed, folded poster map that shows all the new routes. I am aware this is almost useless for the online community. Locals can get a copy for free. *Canberra Transport Guide: your guide to Canberra’s bus and light rail network*, Transport Canberra, 2019. 2. A DINA4 overview map of the Rapid bus network can be found on the ACT Government website for a map. https://www.transport.act.gov.au/getting-around/timetables/routes-by-number 3. The Transport Canberra website has a wealth of information about the bus network in general. https://www.transport.act.gov.au/ QUESTION An audit and possible correction of all bus routes are required, similar to the audit of all bike routes (discussion G). Some routes may have been changed already and others are forgotten. **How to do this?** I am hoping that somebody may have experience with this sort of problem in other cities. I welcome your comments. keywords: Australia, ACT, bus network, ACT Government, TCCS, light rail, relation, public transport___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Discussion G: nomenclature for routes in the ACT (relations)
# Discussion G: nomenclature for routes in the ACT (relations) *ACT bike routes (relations) need updating with the new nomenclature for the ACT. Australian Tagging Guidelines (ATG) needs to update too which I will draft at some stage.* Relations in the ACT are often out of date and troublesome to update. The “signed bike path” relation in OSM belong to these “official routes” that get little attention. The nomenclature for routes in the ACT has changed. OSM ACT requires an update so that the “signed routes” relations are named correctly. A few things need to be discussed: - Where to get the official “signed routes” - The ACT government is very poor at updating the signage - Not all useful routes are official - Are there copyright issue with sourcing routes from the Active Travel Infrastructure Practitioner Tool? ## Where to get the official “signed routes” The nomenclature for routes in the ACT is outlined in the document: The Planning for Active Travel in the ACT: Active Travel Infrastructure Interim Planning Guideline, Transport Canberra and City Services, January 2019. (abbr. PATA) https://www.tccs.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/1378545/Planning-for-Active-Travel-in-the-ACT.pdf The mapping of the routes themselves is documented in the Active Travel Routes Alignments (ATRA) available through the Active Travel Infrastructure Practitioner Tool: http://ACTiveinfrastructure.net.au Yes, this is a mapping tool. The routes can be seen on a new map “Your guide to cycling in Canberra” (release January 2019). The map is published by Transport Canberra (TCCS). The map is worth a look and can be purchased online. ## The new nomenclature in the ACT The Active Travel Routes (ATR) consists of five route types: (PATA, page 19) 1. Community Routes for walking and cycling make up the bulk of the routes with facilities...; 2. On-Road Cycling Routes provide facilities to cater to the transport, fitness and recreational needs of a subset of generally fitter and faster cyclists comfortable riding on the roadway; 3. Accessible Pedestrian Routes identify the essential walking and wheelchair access routes to cater specifically for the needs of people with visual or mobility impairments; 4. Recreational Routes are those routes that include trails and paths specially developed for recreational and tourist purposes, for example, the Canberra Centenary Trail (CCT) and Lake Circuits (e.g. LBG); and 5. Equestrian Routes identify the alignments of the trails and corridors for equestrian use including the Bicentennial National Trail (BNT). It is the Community Routes that are interesting for the cyclists and are ranked as we do with roads (motorway, trunk, primary, etc). But the names are different: principal, main, local and access. I think it only necessary to create relations for the first two types. Examples of the numbering nomenclature are provided. Community Routes (PATA, page 22) - Principal Community Routes (PCRs) Numbered M100, M200 etc to M900 - Main Community Routes (MCRs) Numbered M110, M120 etc. to M990 - Local Community Routes (LCRs) - Access Community Routes (ACRs) ## Updating the signage The ACT Government is very slow to provide adequate signage and just as bad at updating it. The lack of due diligence by the ACT Government means that the signage may be inconsistent for a decade. The “what’s there” OSM verification test fails in this case for signage. Whats there is often wrong and ignored. Many cycle groups in the ACT are lobbing the ACT Government to fix. A better approach would be to label the routes using the official nomenclature. This is what I propose here. ## Unofficial routes ACT OSM has quite a few unofficial routes. This makes sense. If the ACT Government does not build many new bike paths. There are often gaps in the network (missing links) and official routes end suddenly. To ride anywhere requires the use of unofficial routes. The OSM mappers have simply documented what is common practice. The unofficial routes may include back streets or footpaths, and paved paths across parks and along lanes between houses. The last two are common in Canberra suburbs. You will find unofficial routes in the ACT crossing straight across suburbs and connecting high schools with adjacent suburbs. All very practical. This should be encouraged as it is useful for day-to-day cycling and routing, and secondly, documents common practice. It should also prove useful for cycling advocacy in Canberra. ## Sourcing data from the Active Travel Infrastructure Practitioner Tool Copyright is an issue with OSM (or so I have been told) and is being investigated in this case. Feel welcome to give me tips on how to go about this. Inquiries are ongoing. I welcome your comments. keyword: Australia, ACT, routes, relations, ACT Government, active travel, Community Routes, CCT, BNT, ATR, TCCS___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
[talk-au] Discussion F: landuse=residential
# Discussion F: landuse=residential ## The Issue I am very interest in improving quality and consistency. In this case, the question is inconsistent or incomplete? I have discovered that many residential areas have still not been mapped. ### Specifics: landuse=residential There is a land usage type with the tag RESIDENTIAL. It shows as dark grey (Mapnik) or brown (HikeBikeMap) on the maps. For both Mapnik and HikeBikeMap, the blank areas are shown in light grey. There is a preset for it in the editors. It is shown as a distinct yellow in the ID editor. ### The problem is incomplete I have audited the land use in the ACT. Only about half of the residential areas in the ACT have currently been mapped, and the other half have not. Is this inconsistent or incomplete? Is the glass half-full or half-empty? Has this become the standard or is it the exception? I think we should define it as the standard and try to get the other suburbs up to scratch. It is easy to do. Some suburban areas where the have been already mapped. The areas are visible on the satellite photos. ### The problem of inconsistent It is possible to see on the map that "people live there" (landuse=residential) without drawing all the houses (building=house) on the map. There are some suburbs in Canberra where every house has been traced onto the map: see Wanniassa and Oxley in Canberra’s south: https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=-35.4066=149.0796#map=15/-35.4066/149.0796 This exceeds the scope of what can be done with the approximate 24 mappers that work in the ACT. Some developers do this already but the ACT Suburban Land Agency (https://suburbanland.act.gov.au/en/) is not one of them. They only sell the blocks, not build the houses. It makes sense to map buildings for every government building and office building. I don’t care if my house is on the map. ### Limiting the scope The ACT government has prescribed that the ACT Suburban Land Agency will build for the coming four financial years 6588, 12261, 1, 15000 mixed-use dwellings. Where do you stop zooming in? On ACTmapi Images 2019 you can see the mirror on a motor vehicle. Whether every garden shed should be map is otherwise very questionable. Street numbering can be done otherwise. (Street numbering in Canberra is woeful.) ### Definition of the scope I would say landuse=residential is generally all that is required as a minimum requirement. ### How should landuse=residential be mapped? I have not had the time to review OSM Wiki on this, unfortunately. What I have seen in the editor is that some mappers have mapped the whole suburb with one polygon, while others have mapped every city block. The latter sort of makes sense as land is released for auction, city blocks at a time. The suburbs are built in stages (four for Whitlam). Each stage is sold separately. Sill other mappers have used a hybrid approach, somewhere in between these two options. QUESTION How is the best way to approach this? I welcome your comments.___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Discussion E: how to find faults in maps
# Discussion E: how to find faults in maps ## The Issue The ACT has 3000km of roads, 2000km of footpaths, and 329 km of shared bike paths, 1000s of km of formed trails (2/3 the state is rideable), a few 100kms of mountain biking "single-track" and a few dozen active planners at best. How do you find errors in this network? It is looking for a needle in the haystack. Here are some options I have tried, and I would be grateful for further suggestions. Going there or comparing with the satellite photos in OSM are two options that I will not mention further here as that is the way they are a map in the first place. Unfortunately, it is not enough. The ACT maps require quality and consistency improvements. FIXME has not been all that helpful, with errors in the ACT in the dozens and not 100s or 1000s. FIXME is just the errors we know of not the ones we don’t. QUESTION What are the approaches you have used to find errors, particularly with tagging? What follows are options that I have helped, that you might like to comment on. ## 1. Detection algorithms Not surprising somebody has written code to do this – an OSM proofing tool. It is good for some things and completely misses others. It allows you to inspect OSM in different ways: geometry, tagging, places, highway, areas, coastline, routing, addresses, water, public transport stops and public transport routes. It fishes out all the FIXME tags too. The service is provided by Geofabrik. The website is in English as well. Take a look at it here. http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/ ## 2. A different perspective (alternate rendering) The testing of a map helps. Try using the OSM data and see if it is fit for purpose. We are familiar with the Mapnik rendering (default). It is a general-purpose map. A map for riding bikes, hiking or mountain biking would look different. We can easily forget every Mapnik cherry picks OSM for information. Errors that don’t show on the Mapnik render may show on a bike map. Similar information may be shown differently or keys/tags displayed that are not visible on the Mapnik. ## Interesting render options To make things challenging, there is more than one type of cyclist. I would like to distinguish between the type of riding mountain bikes do and that of other cyclists. Mountain bikes are built for unpaved and rough surfaces. Other bikes are only suitable for paved and relatively smooth surfaces. I will categorise these city bikes (just a label, please don't take offence). Mountain bikers and city bikers have different needs and their maps should reflect that. The following websites have English language pages too. Look for the British flag if you end up in the wrong spot. ### CyclOSM for city bikes CyclOSM is cyclist map and best suited for reviewing the OSM data for city bikes but show unpaved tracks and paths too. There are better maps for mountain biking though. This map can show inconsistent tagging of paths and relations. The tagging issues are raised in the post *Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law*. https://www.cyclosm.org/#map=14/-35.2853/149.1188/cyclosm This map is updated continually (live) from OSM and you can see editing changes just minutes after you save them. I have run this map and the ID editor in split-screen so that I could compare the two. ### openMTBmap for mountain bikes If you ride a mountain bike you will like openMTBmap. This map is rendered for the off-road rider and shows the condition of tracks, permissions and other useful features (check website for details). Unfortunately, there is no live view of these maps, but you can download them for free and view them with BaseCamp from Garmin. If you like the map you can even save it on your Garman device and take it with you. Turn-by-turn navigation on a mountain bike, no problem! Maps are updated weekly. Openmtbmap is rendered for Garmin outdoor devices and looks a bit weird in HD. https://openmtbmap.org/ I welcome your comments. keywords: Australia, ACT, FOSS; website, rendering, mountain biking, city biking, Garmin, error detection, FIXME, speciality maps___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
# Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law I hope you can help. (If you open this plain text post to a markdown editor it will be fully formated. I recommend Typora.) Abbreviation: ATG - Australian Tagging Guidelines ## The Issue The way you use a map changes the way you see it. I am very interested in cycling. I am interested in capturing the information for cyclable paths so that maps can be made for all types of biking, including MTBs. The situation for OSM in the ACT for cyclists is unfortunate. The paths you are allowed to ride with a bike are completely inconsistently tag. The cause is no logical inconsistency between the ATG, the editor presets, the standard rendering practice, and finally the many ways creative mappers have tried to solve the problem in the last decade. The last is tragic and frustrating as mappers continually undo other mappers work and redo the tags their own preferred way. Over time, the path tagging does not improve but across the ACT become increasingly randomise. Where the congested areas it happens most often. The paths in Commonwealth Park on Lake Burley Griffin has been retagged over and over again, many times each year. Some paths alternate regularly between the footpath and bike path preset, even though neither applies in the ACT according to the ATG. ☹ ### Table of ID Editor presents, path types and rendering for each environment | ID preset | Correct in the ACT | tagging | ID editor line style | Mapnik line style | | --- | - | | | - | | ATG and ACT law (Path shows as the preset symbol) | Legal default path type | highway=path bicycle=designated foot=designated segregated=no | grey/brown dotted| blue dotted | | cycle path | No | highway=cycleway | blue dotted | blue dotted | | cycle and foot path | No but close | highway=cycleway bicycle=designated foot=designated | blue dotted | blue dotted | | foot path | No | highway=footway | grey dotted | red dotted| | cycle ONLY – no preset| Yes (rare) | highway=path bicycle=designated foot=no | grey/brown dotted| blue dotted | | pedestrian ONLY – no preset | Yes (rare) | highway=path bicycle=no foot=designated | grey/brown dotted| red dotted| Finally, I suggest one simplified way of path tagging for the ACT at the bottom of this text. QUESTION **What is the best way to restore consistency across the OSM data set for the ACT?** ## Most commonly used keys These keys are for bike and footpaths: highway, foot, bicycle, footway, segregated. The tags used in the ACT OSM maps in all combinations are found below. The tags foot=no or bicycle =no is only correct when the path is signed that way for segregated paths and very few have been built. The key footway is used more commonly in the south of Canberra and seldom used in a way which is consistent with the ATG or ACT law, further increasing the inconsistency. Any of the following combinations of highway, foot, bicycle, footway, and segregated can be found in the ACT. * segregated=no/yes * highway=path/footway/cycleway * foot=designated/yes/blank/no * bicycle= designated/yes/blank/no * footway=sidewalk OR missing ## The ATG says Under ACT law, both pedestrian and cyclists are both allowed to use the “footpath”. Here is the relevant section of the ATG. “If bicycles are permitted by law then use highway=path. **Do not use highway=footway unless bicycles are expressly prohibited from using that path.**” Pedestrian ONLY paths are very rare in the ACT. What is ALSO very rare in the ACT is bike ONLY path, which the ATG calls the “Australian Cycle Path (bicycle-only sign, pedestrians prohibited)”, and the properly separated shared paths, which the ATG calls "Australian Separated Footpath (bicycle and pedestrian separated by a line)”. The total length of paths of these types in the ACT would be in the order of 10-20km. ## Most common types of ridable paths in the ACT ### Type A Common: “Australian Shared Path (bicycle and pedestrian sign)” - 329km in 2012. The ATG says the tags should be: * highway=path * foot=designated * bicycle=designated * segregated=no ### Type B Under ACT law, pedestrian and cyclists are both allowed to use any “footpath”. A "footpath" is any
[talk-au] Discussion C: mapping on the street
Discussion C: mapping on the street OSM is great. I showed it to an organisation as large A0 maps of Canberra. The largest size that I could print. The maps still covered the whole board table when I left. I demonstrated an android app to the CEO. They had never heard of OSM of course. "Its a bit like Google maps." I cannot tell you how often I have heard that. I hope it will get the conversation going. Thank you for everybody's efforts. :-) But to the point… mapping on the street It is new and exciting, with people in the cafes but OSM says the street building site. We have all experienced this. JOSM and ID editors are excellent, but you cannot take them with you. The ACTmapi Images 2019 are great, but they are almost a year out of date. GPX tracks help but the editing is post-processing. It would be ideal to correct the maps in real-time on the street. Canberra is changing so fast, it is hard to keep up with. It would be best to map on the street. When something needs correcting mark it with a comment (or photo) for correction immediately (FIXME). The app would run on the smartphone continuously showing the most current maps, can this be done? I welcome your comments.___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Discussion B: three shades of green
Discussion B: three shades of green There are three areas along the Molonglo River in the ACT, each about 1-4 square km in size. All cover mostly in grass with the occasional dam, fences and creeks. But they are quite different in land use. One is a farm, one area is currently being built into a new suburb of Canberra, and the third is a nature reserve. This is important but the access is different. The fist for the farmer, the second for the builders and the third for recreation. If you ride, run or walk about Canberra it is the last one that you are looking for and need to find on the map. How to tag these three areas? Currently, they are all green. Of particular interest, I think, are land use and permissions. Permission information is important for gates and paths and tracks within the area for the maps to be valuable for routing. Link to the map: https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=-35.2748=149.0474#map=15/-35.2748/149.0474 The details: Coppins Crossing Rd, ACT is being duplicated. On the west side, the new suburb of Whitlam is under construction. To the east is an area that will be developed into a suburb in a few years but currently is used for grazing stock (sheep and cattle). Both were used for agriculture until recently. On the other side of Whitlam is the Kama Nature Reserve. I am interested in tagging land usage and permissions. Further details for Whitlam Developer: ACT Land Development Agency Stages: 4 Dwellings: 600 in FY 2019, 600 in FY 2020, 500 in FY 2021, 400 in FY 2022 Keywords: construction, grassland, meadow, nature reserve, land use, permission, lifecycle, rural, multipolygon, ACT, Australia___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Discussion A: Is this forum fit for purpose?
# Discussion A: Is this forum fit for purpose? “PLEASE KEEP IT BRIEF. SPACE OF OF A PREMIUM. THANKS, JANE” ## The Issue The forum needs to be robust. It needs to tolerate a lot of traffic. It needs to work on the busy days, not just the quiet. It needs a functionality that allows you to manage congestion. It needs to tolerate diverse interest and writing styles. It needs to have room for growth. **I believe OSM is too important for anything else!** If you love OSM, and I am sure you do, then we need a more modern platform then this. This mailing list is so 90s. The good news is there is plenty of options and I am sure that here there is the technical expertise and ability to put it on a better footing. ## Features that would be of value: - You need to be able to tailor your view of the content without intervention of a group moderator or group consensus. - You need to filter the content for topics your interest in and topics you’re not - You need to filter the content with posts from people you like and block those that you don’t (whitelist and blacklist). - You need to be able to search by including and excluding keywords, preferably both in the same query - You need to be able to search by post tags, again both including and excluding - Preferable, it would be best to combine both tag and keyword searches (but many platforms have problems with this) - Every post should be tagged with country and state of jurisdiction. The country could be default and I only suggest it as at some time other this idea may spread. - Provide the option to tag (plain text) the posts with the topic under discussion e.g. highway, lifecycle, announcement, events, registration, mapping party, instructions, and message type (“The Facts”, “The Issue”, etc) - You should be able to move between chat groups and follow multiple chat groups. Slack does this well. - A post should be able to include “attachments” that are not visible until open: office files, photos, PDF, HTML links. This saves screen space. - Posts should have a header. It provides a (searchable) overview and the actual post could be blended in and out. - A smartphone app would be great. Why? Seek data shows most job applications are done on the app and take less than 15 minutes. It is remarkable how much you get done on the way to work on the bus. - The help provided by this forum should be made available as soon as it is posted: 365 days a year, 24 hours per day. - Ideally, it should support a "forms" function for registration to group events (or link to an external platform that supports such) - It would be great to have a calendar function for events. - We need more than a plain text. Rich text functionality is advisable. A HTML capable editor is an option (transparent). As I have previously mentioned, "markdown" is a popular modern option support by FOSS/GitHub Everybody is welcome in an OSM forum, no matter the interest. We need everybody we can find to help with this project. We should try to create an environment where is happy to do what they do best, and come and go as they please. I welcome your comments. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] What are the Facts?
What are the Facts? > ‘Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.’> — > Daniel Patrick Moynihan I have decided to publish the discussion brief in two parts: “The Facts” and then “The Issue”. This is me telling you I am going to do that. I will send you the first part tomorrow. "The Facts" is a summary of information from various relevant sources in OSM Wiki, laws and regulations that apply to the ACT and any other information of a factual nature which may help clarify “The Issue.” In principle, the facts should be straight forward. The first step is the pick through what we know and clarify, confirm and remove any errors that have crept into the brief. This information creates a level playing field of knowledge. Your comments are more than welcome. To quote OSM Wiki, “be bold.” If you think any of the information is in error, please try to provide the correct information and preferably with a link, or at least mention the source of this information. At every level in OSM, it always comes back to the principle of “verifiable”. It is easy to get things wrong when we are relying on memory. Please stick to critiquing the facts and not getting off-topic. I will process your feedback at the end of the calendar day and integrate the information into the brief or correct it as is required. The updated and corrected facts section will be published with the full brief including “The Issue” on the following day. The same is true for the quality definition. A word can have many meanings. This is why the OSM technical definition is so valuable. The purpose of the quality definition is to define in OSM terms, for example, what a shared bike path is, within the context of its information provided in “The Facts”. In other words, we cannot have a quality definition that is illegal under ACT law or unfit for purpose. Coming tomorrow 24/9/2019 The Facts for Discussion C: Two steps forward and one step back: confusion about tagging bike tracks in the ACT___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] What is a discussion brief?
What is a discussion brief? A discussion brief serves to describe comprehensively what we know before we go on to review an issue in OSM. The objective is to decide how to solve a nagging problem. I resist in saying the “best way” as I think often there may be no golden rule to be found. I think it enough that OSM is consistent and that we have a definition of quality. Quality is important because when we are trying “improve” OSM it is often “quality” issues, but if there is no consensus of what quality is, then there will be differing opinions on what to do. This is one of the reasons that discussion can become quite circular: the same word means to different people different things. Therefore, please go through the facts presented at the top of this brief and the quality definition and try to find fault with it. The information should be true and factual. The quality definition should be complete (nothing missing) and fit for the purpose described in the brief. The next step is the review of the OSM guidelines and Australia guidelines. Everybody in OSM knows something of these. Even beginners need to know some basics. This section is intended to provide a level playing field: it is a reminder and education all in one. I hope this helps get the participation of the widest possible audience, not just the knockers. Again, please go through the facts presented in this section and suggest corrections if any errors are found. The next section of the discussion brief will present a problem with inconsistency or quality found in OSM and specifically in the ACT, which is my area of interest. The purpose is to reconcile what is in OSM with the guidelines and other known facts (laws and regulations) to decide what is the best way to proceed. I think in most cases, the decision will be to revert to the guidelines. There is an issue here that the guidelines are often ambiguous or even conflicting. This can be resolved by changes to state, country or general guidelines. Considering all the work already done, I think guidelines are in many cases likely to be serviceable and that the problem is more likely to arise from poor or inconsistent implementation. A social solution is then best which involves bringing the current generation of mappers for the area up to speed, once again. This is a perpetual task. The final step is to fix the problem. Going into OSM and mapping is the least of my concerns. OSM mappers do that very well and it is the reason that OSM is so successful. Another task that may arise from time to time is updating OSM guidelines. This is a wiki job and not suited to everybody. Any football team has only one goalkeeper but many players on the field. Wiki is like that. You need some people doing it but many more mapping. We would hope, that the wiki guidelines are the first place that the mapper goes, but if not, then it will guide future controversy. At the very least, this process should feed some mapper experience back improving the guidelines. This process could be done for other states and countries, but I am not getting personally involved in that. I would like to thank, however, the many people who do map areas they have never been and never likely to go. This makes the OSM task a lot easier for the rest of us. I hope to release the first discussion brief soon. Discussion C: Two steps forward and one step back - confusion about tagging bike tracks in the ACT. I look forward to your contributions.___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Upcoming events
# Upcoming events State: ACT Thank you for making me welcome in this forum. Thank you also for your inquiry about my last post. There are several upcoming events. Please feel welcome to make constructive suggestions. *** ## Mapping Party ACT If you are interested learning more about the ACT. sharing what you know, and wish to make improvements to the ACT please register here. Further information will be forthcoming. Each “meeting” will focus on a particular theme. Here are some. - Mapping the Molonglo Nature Reserve - Mapping the Namadgi National Park - Improving ACT mas for mountain biking - Bike routes and better bike routes *** ## Upcoming discussion topics for the ACT I will be posting more discussion topics in the coming weeks. For each topic, the OSM Wiki current position and contradictions will be considered, and examples from ACT OSM maps reviewed. The intent is not only to improve the quality and consistency of the mapping in the ACT but also make suggestions for OSM Wiki pages including additions and changes to the ACT sections of the Australian Guidelines. It should be a lot of fun. :-) Here are the upcoming topics. - Discussion C: Two steps forward and one step back: confusion about tagging bike tracks in the ACT - Discussion D: All in a name: nomenclature for routes (relations) in the ACT - Discussion E: Non-destructive editing: lifecycles, updates, and retaining histories *** ## Notes on markup formatting: # first level header ## this gives you a second-level header - this indents the paragraph *** this puts a line between two paragraphs *** ## Motto "You cannot know what you dont know and nobody can know everything. We have something to learn from each other."___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Three rules for OSM planning in Canberra
Three rules for OSM planning in Canberra **Rule 1: In Australian Communist Territory everything is owned by the government, Rule 2: everything is controlled by the government and Rule 3: nothing happens without the government know about it.** If you want to know why read on. (note: **text** is markdown and this would be in bold if the forum was on GitHub.) I live in Canberra, the Australian Communist Territory, where we all work for the Federal Government and don’t do anything useful. At least that is what the Australian press and politicians would lead you to believe. Canberrans disagree, “if you worked for these politicians you wouldn’t vote for them.” It is a bit like you sending us your inlaws, they are not welcome. As for the press, well, what do they know about Canberra. There is a great deal of misinformation about the ACT and this is obvious when Canberrans talk with visitors, “It’s part of NSW, isn’t it? It is certainly in NSW?” Well, we are not ruled by Sydney but certainly, we are ruled by the Federal Government. If you find me a bit sceptical about outsiders ability to understand the ACT, then that’s because you have never spoken about Canberra with my family. So first I will clear up a few basic facts about Canberra, then I will tell you where all the money comes from, and finally, I will explain why nothing happens in Canberra with the ACT Government knowing about it. In the Australian Communist Territory, you better pay attention to the Five-Year Plan. **Some basic facts** Firstly, until this year most of the population worked for the government (ACT or Federal). Now just over 50% are employed outside the government. It is not true that all the Federal public servants work in Canberra, about 50% do but over 30% work in Sydney and Melbourne, and about 16% work in rural Australia. Canberra is the bush capital. I read somewhere that 30% of the Federal government employees work for defence: biggest budget, most employees, $50 billion for subs, the biggest everything. It is not true that the Australian Public Service is particularly big either. The Australian Public Service is only a third the size of the NSW public service. Most Canberrans were not born in Canberra, they either immigrated to the country or Canberra from Melbourne, Sydney or rural NSW (or Queanbeyan for that matter). **How does the ACT work?** We are not a state but a territory, which means that we don’t have the autonomy of the state. Canberra is like Rome with another autonomous territory with the city. Our Vatican City is called the Capital Planning Authority. The Capital Planning Authority still controls everything in the Parliamentary Triangle but also has regulatory oversight of any developments in the ACT within 200m from major thoroughfares around it. The ACT government is responsible for planning in the rest of the ACT, except military areas, of which there are many. For reasons of prudence the ACT planning is done in such a way that it does not conflict with the Capital Planning Authority. A difference is that the Capital Planning Authority is prescribed to build in a “premium quality” so that it looks special. **How is development in the ACT funded?** With the federation of Australia, the Commonwealth purchased three large farms and then a bit (Hall), but unfortunately, not Queanbeyan. All land then belonged to the Commonwealth Government and that is how it is until this day. If you “buy” a house in Canberra, you have a 99-year lease on the land on which it stands. After that, it would in principle go back to the ACT government. (Rule1: In Australian Communist Territory everything is owned by the government.) This is unlikely to happen to a house, but investors have been caught out purchasing a site for retail development and then have done nothing with it to discover they were threatened by the ACT government with lose of the lease unless they finished the job. The most important sources for ACT revenue are land tax, payroll tax, Federal Government (CHOGM) funding and most importantly LAND SALES. Yes, the ACT Government is the real estate developer in the ACT. (Rule 3: nothing happens without the government know about it.) All suburbs and Canberra are planned and developed by the ACT Government and I know only one exception – Ginninderry. (Rule 2: everything is controlled by the government). When the ACT Government is short of money it develops another suburb with a few thousand houses and sells them off in an auction, where each block can get up to almost $850,000 and the whole suburb is sold off in hours. (I think in Molonglo Valley the whole suburb was sold off in just 6 hours.) To top that all off, demand outstrips supply. Luckily with our benevolent dictatorships, this Mafia structure works well. **Building a city** If you were an engineer or urban planner, you would love Canberra. The Australian Communist Territory is a planned economy and the ACT
[talk-au] Topic B: inconsistencies, idiosynchrosies and vagueness
A special thank you for the links yesterday. I have read them. "Australian Tagging Guidelines" and "Good practice" are worth knowing and I am very grateful for our forefathers that put so much effort into writing these documents. It worth noting, however, when you compared the two that they are riddled with inconsistencies, idiosyncrasies and vagueness. It is worth remembering this when we experience another of those "I am right, you are wrong" conversations. Reading "Australian Tagging Guidelines," I thought of Geffory Rush from Pirates of the Carribean, "they are more guidelines than rules." Unapproved tracktypes for 4WD (inventing tags, don't exist but perhaps they should) and small towns called cities so they appear the map (mapping for the renderer), and the principle of "we map what is there" but then don't map what is private (often difficult to verify too). The descriptions are full of contradictions and vagueness. The "Lifecycle prefix" wikitext needs more work, particularly examples of use to get consistency in its application. As much of it is not rendered (Mapnik), mapping it could be considered as a low priority. Harry Wood's blog "community smoothness" addresses vagueness in language and how everybody has a different opinion of what a text means. That is not new of course and with certainty, everybody has an opinion about what the right way is. It is human nature, when it comes to our own beliefs, every evidence supporting it is embraced and every evidence against excluded. Finally, it is easy to forget that the Wiki is written in dozens of different languages and there will be inconsistencies between Wiki entries in different languages. I can verify that for two. English and German wiki pages descriptions are not surprisingly culture-specific (see also the chemist/pharmacy/drug store discussion for AU/UK/US comparison). Despite our best efforts inconsistencies, idiosyncrasies and vagueness will reign in the OSM anarchy.___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Discussion of state regulation and planing issues for OSM
Country: Australia, Language: English, Topic: Regulation This AU email forum is the best there is, but I wish there was something more. So, I will bring this topic up here where there may be community support for something extra. From the header above this user group is already specific but is it specific enough? This group discusses mostly detail, but the details revolve around a concept and that is what I am interested in here. The recent Wollongong discussion bought this to light. The fundamental assumption is that OSM represents the real world. What is covered? - Database design: The OpenStreetMap is a database and use is restricted by its design, key types and permitted values. There is however much scope in actual use that depends on interpretation. - OSM standards: Some of this ambiguity is resolved in the best practice outlined in the OSM Wiki and worth knowing, as it is an attempt at standardisation and actively enforced by some members of the community. - Regional standards: The AU email forum serves as a regional discussion forum to get some sort of consensus of how Australia issues are to be dealt with in Australia, i.e. adapting OSM to Australian requirements. - State laws and regulations: Australia is a federation and each state has its own laws and regulations. Local government is another level. This autonomy shows up in OSM particularly in terms of permissions: who can do what. In this context, we need to consider private/public property, military and secure zones, and finally nature reserves and national parks with restricted access but special rules. - Planning codes and zoning: This last one has got to do with how land is used over time which arises in OSM as life cycles and featured also in the Wollongong discussion as “regeneration”. It commonly arises with the rezoning of land, release of land for public use, leases on land for grazing and private use (parking). I have an interest in greenfield public land developments: rezoned or planned. Once it has funding (parliament) the project passes the hurdle that something changes in OSM, even though at this stage it may not be anything visible. There is community interest to see this on a map. There are many examples of this that include nature reserves and new suburbs. End of life issues are track regeneration but also track realignment which is common for mountain biking single track management. It is not uncommon to hide but keep old track realignments. This AU email forum does not seem the pace for the last two items, but the Wollongong discussion shows that awareness of these things is important for the OSM maps to make any sense. Particularly if the maps are for navigation (autorouting) or when render specialist maps (mountain biking or walking), then such information is critical. There may be a discussion for a track or area how to best define the permissions on paths and tracks. There is a lot of information on the web about this sort of thing on government and official websites. I have further written to state government departments requesting clarification and improvements. Local tensions are not uncommon with competing claims. This tension can be seen in the OSM community with certain keys toggling between individual preferences. Mappers are people and advocate their interests on OSM and sometimes join OSM specifically for this purpose. Are there any suggestions where matter 4 and 5 could be discussed and links provided so that the OSM community can communicate, negotiate and formulate a direction for these things?___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 147, Issue 8
You can do anything you want when it is not explicitly stated it is forbidden. I am picking up on a number of threads in this conservation topic. Mappers cannot know everything and cannot make decisions on land management issues particularly if the relevant authorities are yet to make the decision. This forum is not the right one to make a decision on land management issues. Maps follower the rules of the land like car drivers follow the rules of the road. If there is no rule against it, then the answer is we can do it. If we put nothing on a map then we dont have a map. Imprecision is built into maps, they are works in progress, evolving to represent the world, but just at a much less detail. OSM may not be perfect but it is very useful. :-) Land management means zoning, regulations, protected areas, rules for land use, fire protection, and space for both conservation and land development programs. Particular in areas close to built-up areas and recreational areas there can be conflicts between recreational and conservation values. The interests are extremely varied and it is hard to get it right. The local council and state governments do a pretty good job but when there are no fence, gates or signs then we do what seems reasonable. Those responsible for national parks and nature reserves generally do a pretty good job of providing information. The information is generally available on the website and the information is often available as maps and even data sets on open data portals. It seems the biggest problem is getting it into OSM without breaking things and the legal issues with copyright terms that may or may not comply with those of OSM. The rules for bikes vary from state to state but generally, they can be used on roads like cars, and paths like pedestrians. What the track or path is made out of is not of importance. I have never understood the aversion bikes. The rules for horses are more restricted but most states have areas where they promote equestrian activities. Particularly in the area of conservation, I think it would be better to contact the authorities to implement proper conservation measures. Often a fence and a sign around a sensitive area are all that is needed. Not much really. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ Am Donnerstag, 12. September 2019 18:04 schrieb : > Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to > talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands (Frederik Ramm) > 2. Re: Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands (Andrew Harvey) > 3. Re: Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands (Frederik Ramm) > 4. Re: Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands (Andrew Harvey) > 5. Re: Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands (Frederik Ramm) > > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 07:46:45 +0200 > From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org > To: Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com > Cc: OSM Australian Talk List talk-au@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands > Message-ID: 30f92520-e79f-3f67-e791-31f91f284...@remote.org > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Hi, > > On 12.09.19 06:27, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > > It's always better to have this mapped based on confirmations on the > > ground, and it appears in this case that the local mapper Zhent, has > > been mapping based on local knowledge. > > I have a feeling that Zhent's "foot=yes" might not mean "there is a sign > here allowing access" but more "I walked here and wasn't arrested" ;) > > Question is, can we assume that any path leading into Conservation Lands > that does not have a sign forbidding something, allows it? Probably > not - NPWS can hardly be expected to continuously patrol the area for > new "things that look like paths". Mind you, some of the paths that were > added here have "sac_scale" and "trail_visibility" tags that do not > sound like these are obvious trails actually prepared by NPWS for walkers. > > This might also tie in with the concept of "default rules" - for > example, if "everyone knows that horse riding is only permitted on > explicitly signed trails" in Conservation Lands then do we apply a > blanket horse=no to everything else, or not... > > Bye > Frederik > >
[talk-au] play ground locations and much more from open data source but how?
how to do this? I want to upload the play ground locations to OSM. There is plenty more data where this came from. Just need to work out how to do it? Can you help. SOURCE: Open data sharing from ACT Government GeoHub How to upload single points to OSM. Example: Play Grounds https://actmapi-actgov.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/play-grounds?geometry=-323.613%2C-52.268%2C-1.582%2C52.268 There are two options…. Option 1: Downloads KML Shapefile Contents of Shapefile are file of type CPG, DBF, PRF, SHP, SHX Options 2: APIs GeoService https://data.actmapi.act.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/data_extract/Community_Facilities_and_Assets/MapServer/7/query?outFields=*=1%3D1 GeoJSON https://opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/4bc2ae2b59eb40d99130f5b5b0505abf_7.geojson thanks___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
