Re: [talk-au] power=edge_server

[Michael James]

This dataset is not any sort of computing system, they have copied the ACMA 
mobile network tower information and called it research.

This is of course going to be a licensing issue.

https://www.acma.gov.au/radiocomms-licence-data

Michael


From: Nev 
Sent: Thursday, 3 November 2022 12:38 AM
To: Nev 
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: [talk-au] power=edge_server

As these tags are few in number and associated with research as mentioned on 
the github page I am happy to leave as is and move on.
The tag power=edge_server seems reasonable.


On 3 Nov 2022, at 12:24 am, Nev mailto:nevwo...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

Found this on github which relates to one of the changesets I suppose…
https://github.com/swinedge/eua-dataset

On 2 Nov 2022, at 10:43 pm, Nev mailto:nevwo...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:
Hi
Does anyone know what the tag power=edge_server refers to?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/%E8%AE%BE%E8%AE%A1%E5%9C%A8%E5%85%88/history#map=14/-37.8138/144.9640

I initially thought they might be something to do with building power supply or 
electric vehicle chargers or a type of computer server in business premises.
Internet searches generally refer to computer servers and if that is what is 
being mapped, are these appropriate to map on osm?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging "boundary" roads with addr:*

[Michael James]

There is some conceptual misunderstandings with how the spatial data is stored 
by Government and how it is different to the way we store it in OSM

Government data does not define a road as a line like we do rather it is the 
space between property allotments, that space is not always even and the road 
as used by cars often is much smaller then the total area.

Checking my area, when a suburb boundary follows a road it is in the centre of 
the gap between the properties that are either side of the road and that centre 
line is not always the paved road that you see on the ground.

Michael


From: Dian Ågesson 
Sent: Friday, 7 January 2022 9:29 PM
To: Andrew Hughes 
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Tagging "boundary" roads with addr:*


Hi Andrew,



There a few conceptual things I don't understand about how is_in would be 
implemented with regard to suburbs

I'm curious; if the border of a suburb is defined by a road; does the border 
change when the road is changed? If, for some reason, the boundary road was 
moved 10m north, does the suburbs grow/shrink accordingly? Is the suburb border 
an infinitely narrow line in the "centre" of the roadway, or does the road sit 
entirely within one suburb or another? What if a lanes are uneven?

If it is not bound to the roadway, and is instead "static" geometry, then you 
could have a situation where a road which is supposed to be the border is 
actually entirely misaligned with the legal border. Is_in doesn't cause these 
issues, but I think it may worsen individual situations by providing a 
misleading explanation about where a road actually is. I'd also be concerned 
about maintenance in growth areas where new suburbs are declared, etc.

Dian

On 2022-01-07 18:38, Andrew Hughes wrote:
Hi All,

Since I am only trying to define those that cannot be determined spatially, 
this sounds correct to me: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:is_in

Explanation: Yes, they do say that the use is discouraged, but that is purely 
on the basis of boundaries being used as spatial relationships. I'm looking at 
exactly when that is not possible. I wouldn't want to tag something that 
clearly has a spatial relationship (topologically correct) with a boundary. 
Then, there's not discussion aroune what to do when this happens, only that 
others still advocate its use for such a scenario.

For the record, an example of why this is needed

We'll have a list of roads "Evergreen Terrace, Springfield" and we'll have some 
information about the road like "Cars from Shelbyville are not allowed". If we 
can't locate these road(s) in OSM because  the topology of the road/suburb is 
inaccurate - we can't map it. Thus, either the topology needs fixing (which I 
believe is impossible and I'm not going to bother talking about that) or the 
roads on the boundary can have a tag which is absolute and can be used 
preferentially (if desired).

Thoughts?

Cheers,
AH

On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 09:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:


On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 at 20:03, Ewen Hill 
mailto:ewen.h...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Graeme and happy new year,
   How much can you datamine from a suburb:left , suburb:right ? I would 
suggest suburb polygons and street names only which would cover all 
eventualities and allow for the change in the suburb area without having to 
touch each road affected

I agree entirely & wouldn't use it myself, but was suggesting a possible option!

I'd leave it as Sandgate Road by itself, but with 436 Sandgate Road, Clayfield 
Qld 4011, & 475 Sandgate Road, Albion Qld 4010, tagged on the individual 
buildings themselves, as they currently are.

Thanks

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

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

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Use of Council data in OpenStreetMap

[Michael James]

As a local I can provide some more info

Toowoomba RC does not own all the data used in the online mapping system this 
is shown in the disclaimer when you open the maps.

Most of the data belongs to the State of Queensland (DERM) and as such the 
Council can’t provide the permission required.

Quoted ownership section :-

The map layers displayed in TRC's Online Mapping are compiled from a variety of 
sources. Many of the map layers in TRC's Online Mapping are based on digital 
cadastral data provided under licence to the Toowoomba Regional Council by the 
State of Queensland as represented by the Department of Environment and 
Resource Management. These digital cadastral data provided under licence are 
referred to as “licensed data”. The user of TRC's Online Mapping acknowledges 
and accepts that the State of Queensland is the owner of the intellectual 
property rights, including copyright in the licensed data. These conditions of 
use do not confer on the user of TRC's Online Mapping any rights of ownership 
in the licensed data. The user of TRC's Online Mapping acknowledges and accepts 
that Toowoomba Regional Council is the owner of the intellectual property 
rights, including copyright, in the information and data provided through TRC's 
Online Mapping, with the exception of licensed data. These conditions of use do 
not confer on the user of TRC's Online Mapping any rights of ownership in any 
data.

Michael


From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Sent: Thursday, 9 December 2021 11:47 AM
To: OSM-Au 
Subject: [talk-au] Fwd: Use of Council data in OpenStreetMap

After being up that way on holidays a few weeks ago, I found out that Toowoomba 
Region Council have online maps for addresses etc:
https://www.tr.qld.gov.au/payments-self-service-laws/web-apps/mapping/12731-online-mapping-2.

Contacted Council to see if we could get permission to use them & this is the 
result.

So, does
"Council doesn’t have an Open Data Policy at this time so we can’t issue an 
approval for you to use the data"
+
"You are welcome to use the data as a reference if you are manually drawing in 
information"
mean that we can use it, or we can't?

Or is it a 50/50 - we can't import the data, but we can use it manually?

Thanks

Graeme

-- Forwarded message -
From: Adam Purves mailto:adam.pur...@tr.qld.gov.au>>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2021 at 09:38
Subject: RE: Use of Council data in OpenStreetMap
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>>
Cc: Chris Fogarty 
mailto:chris.foga...@tr.qld.gov.au>>, Sandra 
Sherriff mailto:sandra.sherr...@tr.qld.gov.au>>

Hi Graeme,

Unfortunately, Council doesn’t have an Open Data Policy at this time so we 
can’t issue an approval for you to use the data (This is the mechanism by which 
Council would provide the requested approval).

You are welcome to use the data as a reference if you are manually drawing in 
information.

Kind regards,
Adam.

Adam Purves
Coordinator Geospatial Information Management (GIS)
Information Communication and Technology

Toowoomba Regional Council
PO Box 3021 Toowoomba QLD
P 07 4688 6681  E 6681  IM sip:adam.pur...@tr.qld.gov.au
adam.pur...@tr.qld.gov.au
www.tr.qld.gov.au

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, 8 December 2021 12:28 PM
To: Adam Purves mailto:adam.pur...@tr.qld.gov.au>>
Cc: Chris Fogarty 
mailto:chris.foga...@tr.qld.gov.au>>; Sandra 
Sherriff mailto:sandra.sherr...@tr.qld.gov.au>>
Subject: Re: Use of Council data in OpenStreetMap


[External Email] This email was sent from outside the organisation - be 
cautious, particularly with links and attachments.

Hi Adam

Thanks for your very quick response.

The CC licence, or lack of it, isn't a critical thing as long as we have your 
explicit permission to make use of your data.

As to how it would be used, personally, I would only be using it to make manual 
updates of such things as parks, addresses etc, but other people, who are more 
data savvy than I am!, may well look into importing data sets.

To see what sort of data has previously been made available to us from other 
sources, please have a look at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue.

If you would like to know more, I can pass your questions on to someone whom I 
know is more heavily involved in data imports.

Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 at 10:13, Adam Purves 
mailto:adam.pur...@tr.qld.gov.au>> wrote:
Hi Graeme,

Thank you for your email.

At this time Toowoomba Regional Council doesn’t have a Creative Commons licence 
available for our GIS data.

Can I please clarify how you intend to use Council data in OSM? Are you 
intending to load the Council data directly into OSM, or are you using Council 
data as a reference and are manually drawing/updating OSM?

Kind regards,
Adam.

Adam Purves
Coordinator Geospatial Information Management (GIS)
Information Communication and Technology

Toowoomba Regional Council
PO 

Re: [talk-au] Trouble with routing through an intersection

[Michael James]

-Original Message-
From: Simon Slater  
Sent: Friday, 3 September 2021 10:00 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Trouble with routing through an intersection

On Thursday, 2 September 2021 4:03:16 PM AEST Michael James wrote:
> It's possible your change just hasn't made it's way to the routing 
> engines yet.
> 
Tried again this morning in OSM and still the same.

> The only issue with the intersection is I would not have that single 
> segment between the highway and the 2 slip lanes, just connect the 
> slip lanes directly to the highway. This shouldn't stop a routing 
> engine finding a path.
Yes, I thought that short stretch seemed odd.  I'll delete that then and join 
each side of the traffic island directly to the Calder Hwy.

With this method, will I need to do anything to not disturb Route C274 which 
uses that segment?

If you grab the one-way sections that already have the tags and relations and 
extend them to the main highway it should be fine, it's when you add an extra 
bit and forget to add it to the relation that it might cause problems.

Michael

--
Regards
Simon Slater

Registered Linux User #463789 @ http://linuxcounter.net

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

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

Re: [talk-au] Trouble with routing through an intersection

[Michael James]

It's possible your change just hasn't made it's way to the routing engines yet.

The only issue with the intersection is I would not have that single segment 
between the highway and the 2 slip lanes, just connect the slip lanes directly 
to the highway.
This shouldn't stop a routing engine finding a path.

Michael


-Original Message-
From: Simon Slater  
Sent: Thursday, 2 September 2021 3:05 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] Trouble with routing through an intersection

G'day all,
This morning I created a route from Serpentine to Castlemaine 
and at one intersection the route would backtrack.  Located a way at the 
intersection with one-way set incorrectly ( I travel through this intersection 
often) and made this change https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110588330 
but now, a few hours later the routing is still wrong: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?
engine=fossgis_osrm_car=-36.59894%2C143.93811%3B-36.59984%2C143.93824
Can anyone see what is wrong at this intersection in the changeset?
--
Regards
Simon Slater

Registered Linux User #463789 @ http://linuxcounter.net

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

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

Re: [talk-au] Are Health Centres, hospitals

[Michael James]

That list is for Queensland Health operated facilities not just hospitals so 
yes your right in that particular site would not be a hospital per se.

Not sure where you find a list of accredited hospitals but it is a thing as I 
live in a street with 2 facilities that are accredited as hospitals but only 
one calls itself a hospital.

Not sure QAS offers any walk up facilities anymore, the local one here has a 
phone out the front to call for help.

Michael


From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Sent: Friday, 4 September 2020 12:51 PM
To: OSM-Au 
Subject: [talk-au] Are Health Centres, hospitals

Over the last few days, I've spotted a few places marked as hospitals that 
aren't.

Locally, there were two Aged Care homes, then as I looked around further, I 
spotted another Aged Care home, an Ambulance station in a small country town & 
an SES station!

The Ambo station I could almost relate to, as that's where you go for any 
medical emergency, but none of the others. Incidentally, there is hopefully 
some progress on them being rendered? 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3968

I did an Overpass search for Qld & found ~2100 "hospitals", which seems like a 
lot?  https://overpass-turbo.eu/# (Don't know if 
that works or not?), & checking at random, found more Ambo's, Doctor's 
surgeries & so on also marked.

I did notice, though, a few of these: 
https://www.health.qld.gov.au/services/northwest/nwest_burket_hc

Personally, I would call that a Medical Centre, not a Hospital?, while this 
https://www.health.qld.gov.au/cq/hospitals/blackwater/services with A & 
inpatients is a Hospital.

What do you all think?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Duplicate of the same airport

[Michael James]

It is a military base that allows civilian air traffic to use its runway.

As far as air traffic goes it's called Williamtown, only the civilian terminal 
area is called Newcastle airport. (28 hectares of land)

https://www.newcastleairport.com.au/corporate/about/board-governance

Hope that helps, though no map of that land parcel that they lease for the 
civilian side.

> -Original Message-
> From: cleary 
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 March 2020 6:29 PM
> To: OpenStreetMap 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Duplicate of the same airport
> 
> 
> 
> I think the air force base and civilian airport share the same runway but 
> they are
> two distinct entities with separate buildings etc. Same applies in some other
> cities including Canberra. I would defer to someone more knowledgeable but I
> think it remains appropriate to have two separate entities mapped in OSM.
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2020, at 7:06 PM, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > There are two relations in OSM that are referring to the same airport:
> >
> >  * https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6263052
> >  * https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4145466
> > 
> >
> >
> > The first one has a *aeroway:aerodrome* tag, the second one has a
> > *military:airfield* tag.
> >
> >
> > I’m not sure should I merge these two relations since there are some
> > sporadic differences for the same tag in both relations. Please, I
> > need an extra hand on this.
> >
> >
> > This is an isolated case in whole Australia.
> >
> >
> > Thank you in advance,
> >
> > Nemanja
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> >
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Gravel pits?

[Michael James]

As someone who drives a lot of country highways they are both temporary and 
permanent.



From: Sebastian S. 
Sent: Monday, 17 February 2020 11:11 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org; Graeme Fitzpatrick ; 
OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Gravel pits?

Is this a temporary thing?

Or is this similar to sand boxes they (used to) have next to rail lines? (For 
traction in winter)

On 17 February 2020 10:14:47 am AEDT, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
What do we map gravel pits as? (Areas off the side of a main road, used by Dept 
of Transport Main Roads to dump gravel etc for road building / repairs)

Quarry seems a bit excessive!

Depot doesn't really cut-it either as there's nothing there except for a pile 
of dirt.

& is this another Aussie-only?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] A22 route Sydney

[Michael James]

A search for rms route numbers leads here

https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/using-roads/alpha-numeric/index.html

Sydney local map is here
https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/using-roads/alpha-numeric/regions.html#Sydney

Map shows A36 and A22 end on each other and do not continue past each other.

Confusion will arise as a search for rms listed highway gives this document

https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/business-industry/partners-suppliers/lgr/documents/classified-roads-schedule.pdf

But if you read the start it mentions that the route numbers  DO NOT line up 
with named highways.

Michael



From: Aleksandar Matejevic (E-Search) via Talk-au 
Sent: Friday, 7 February 2020 11:42 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] A22 route Sydney


I was checking A22 route in Sydney and found out some possible irregularity.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-33.88462/151.19843

By looking at Wiki 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_road_routes_in_New_South_Wales City Road 
- Broadway junction should be logical start of A22 route.

On the other hand https://www.ozroads.com.au/ suggest that is should start from 
Lee street, Pitt Street junction with George Street but no sign indicates this.

And, at the end, OSM has route start/end point at Broadway.

What is confusing is that there are two sings that shows that A22 continues 
further than junction with A36 route but just up to next junction (Broadway - 
Abercrombie Street).

The one in Broadway street is confusing because it points to City South, but if 
you go in that direction you will end up in Central Sydney. I just want to 
check what is the correct start point of A22 route.

Also, what is questionable is road classification from City Road - Broadway 
junction up to George Street Lee Street junction, because it does not look as 
trunk.

I have attached illustration of described problem so it is easier to get the 
picture of the problem: https://prnt.sc/qyxy5o

Best regards,
Aleksandar Matejevic

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

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Michael James]

As I have said in other forums

Websites are not the law, unless it is the legislation website.

From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2019 2:59 AM
To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

Well, the website of the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 
website specifically lists “Local Traffic Only” as an official state level sign.

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/signs/instruction (see section “Local 
traffic restriction signs”)


From: Michael James mailto:mich...@techdrive.com.au>>
Sent: Monday, 11 November 2019 09:20
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

They existed prior to 1997 and were removed when the national rules were 
introduced that year.

It’s likely that local councils are unaware that they no longer have any legal 
purpose.

From: Sebastian S. mailto:mapp...@consebt.de>>
Sent: Sunday, 10 November 2019 9:50 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>; Andrew Harvey 
mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>>; Mateusz Konieczny 
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>>
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

So the sign is put up by the council. Is it not an official sign?

Could someone elaborate on the legal side mentioned here. E.g. is there 
catalogue of street signs in the road rules and this one is not among them?

Are people confusing lax enforcement of the sign with it having no legal 
meaning?
On 9 November 2019 11:37:49 am AEDT, Andrew Harvey 
mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 02:24, Mateusz Konieczny 
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote:
Why it would be irrelevant?

access tag family is for legal access (with some space for officially 
discouraged access),
access=destination is for "transit is illegal", not "local residents dislike 
transit traffic".

OSM is not a place to add a nonexisting ban on transit traffic

Yeah realised this later, see my other post in this thread at 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-November/013188.html, 
which I suggested motor_vehicle:advisory=destination to tag a suggested or 
advised but maybe not legally enforceable destination only restriction.

On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 01:55, Mateusz Konieczny 
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote:
Is it "local traffic only" as in "resident only" or "no transit"?

Is permission required to enter this area?

AFAIK there is no tagging scheme for distinguishing "only with permission of
homeowner" and "available to all residents of closed community".

It just means this road is indented to be used if you're traveling to somewhere 
along this road, but not if you're just driving through as a shortcut.

It's still public land, not private property.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Michael James]

They existed prior to 1997 and were removed when the national rules were 
introduced that year.

It’s likely that local councils are unaware that they no longer have any legal 
purpose.

From: Sebastian S. 
Sent: Sunday, 10 November 2019 9:50 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org; Andrew Harvey ; 
Mateusz Konieczny 
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

So the sign is put up by the council. Is it not an official sign?

Could someone elaborate on the legal side mentioned here. E.g. is there 
catalogue of street signs in the road rules and this one is not among them?

Are people confusing lax enforcement of the sign with it having no legal 
meaning?
On 9 November 2019 11:37:49 am AEDT, Andrew Harvey 
mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 02:24, Mateusz Konieczny 
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote:
Why it would be irrelevant?

access tag family is for legal access (with some space for officially 
discouraged access),
access=destination is for "transit is illegal", not "local residents dislike 
transit traffic".

OSM is not a place to add a nonexisting ban on transit traffic

Yeah realised this later, see my other post in this thread at 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-November/013188.html, 
which I suggested motor_vehicle:advisory=destination to tag a suggested or 
advised but maybe not legally enforceable destination only restriction.

On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 01:55, Mateusz Konieczny 
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote:
Is it "local traffic only" as in "resident only" or "no transit"?

Is permission required to enter this area?

AFAIK there is no tagging scheme for distinguishing "only with permission of
homeowner" and "available to all residents of closed community".

It just means this road is indented to be used if you're traveling to somewhere 
along this road, but not if you're just driving through as a shortcut.

It's still public land, not private property.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Proposed deletion of part of the Gwydir River

[Michael James]

There are lots of rivers in Australia that do not always have water in them

The correct tag is intermittent=yes

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:intermittent

Thanks Michael


> -Original Message-
> From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, 24 June 2019 8:58 PM
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Proposed deletion of part of the Gwydir River
> 
> On 24/06/19 18:19, cleary wrote:
> > In the past, I added some parts of the Gwydir River to the map using the NSW
> LPI Base Map because I could not see a clear waterway on satellite imagery.
> Since then, I have visited the area twice and cannot actually find a river 
> where it
> is shown on the map. Much of the "river" is in private property but public 
> roads
> cross waterways at various locations.
> >
> > The western end of the Gwydir River seems not to exist except on the NSW LPI
> Base Map and maps which have used it as a source (including OSM).
> >
> > As far as I can ascertain, the river used to dissipate into wetlands and, 
> > if there
> was enough water, the seepage from the wetlands re-formed into waterways.
> However intensive irrigation has resulted in such low water flow that the
> wetlands are largely dust and water seems never to flow beyond them (except
> perhaps in major flood events which are relatively rare).  Water from the 
> eastern
> Gwydir may flow west to the Barwon River via Carole Creek into Gil Gil Creek,
> via the Gingham Watercourse and via the Mehi River.  But the so-called Gwydir
> River, west of the wetlands, does not appear to exist except on the LPI Map.
> And part that of the waterway that does exist is signposted by the Moree 
> Plains
> Shire Council with a different name (Big Leather Watercourse) at the two 
> places
> where it crosses public roads.  GNB uses this name for another branch of the
> river nearer to Moree but locals, including the local council, seem to have a
> different view.
> >
> > When visiting the area, I found water to be difficult to discuss with 
> > locals as
> there are some strong points of view. Maintaining a river on the map may be a
> political imperative for government but is not consistent with OSM's 
> philosophy
> of mapping what is actually on the ground at particular locations.
> >
> > After reflection, I think the Gwydir River does not really exist west of the
> wetlands and I think it should be deleted from OSM, even though it is shown on
> the LPI Base Map. I propose to delete this section of the river and follow the
> local council signposted name for the more westerly waterway that does
> actually exist at Morialta and Watercourse Roads.
> >
> > I would appreciate any views on this issue.
> 
> If deleted someone will put it back.
> 
> How about using the 'life cycle' tags?
> 
> disused? abandoned? raised? Disused might be a good fit.. thought with climate
> change? abandoned:waterway=river??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] new OpenStreetCam competition

[Michael James]

Hi Martin

 

I've only just started trying with the app, is there any word on when the
bug with ODB2 & BT getting fixed

 

Namely this open bug :-

https://github.com/openstreetcam/android/issues/125

 

My testing shows that you really need the ODB adapter when doing urban
streets as the GPS averaging is too slow to deal with the acceleration
changes.

 

Thanks Michael

 

 

From: Martijn van Exel  
Sent: Tuesday, 19 March 2019 1:08 AM
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: [talk-au] new OpenStreetCam competition

 

Howdy.

We had a good time with the first OpenStreetCam competition, the winners
received their prizes, and we decided to hold another one. The main prize
this time is an OSC Waylens Horizon camera. This is a fairly nifty device
that lets you automatically record and upload to OSC. The competition is
open now until April 15th. As before, just collect more OSC points than
other mappers to win. Read details on the Telenav ImproveOSM blog:
http://blog.improveosm.org/en/2019/03/announcing-the-second-openstreetcam-au
stralia-and-new-zealand-competition/ .

 

Related: 

* A previous blog post
  about the impact of competition number 1 

* the OpenStreetCam JOSM plugin
  was just updated with some new features as well.

 

Let me know if you have any questions, and Happy mapping!
-- 
 Martijn van Exel
 m...@rtijn.org  



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Taking OSM to the Garmin

[Michael James]

On 12/07/13 12:42, Brett Russell wrote:
 Hi All
 
 Trouble I been Windows based means even simple things like reading the type 
 file is made hard until you wake up that Windows default Notepad is useless 
 as it does not understand line feeds.

You want to get yourself Notepad++ then, it will do everything that MS
Notepad wont.

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

Re: [talk-au] Newcastle Inner Bypass - Motorway or not ?

[Michael James]

On 01/06/13 14:32, Ian Sergeant wrote:
 On 1 June 2013 09:29, Michael James m.ja...@internode.on.net wrote:
 

 There is a legal difference between a divided highway and a freeway in
 Australia, so if it is not actually called a freeway/motorway via
 signage then it really isn't one.

 
 Firstly, I'm a little sceptical of there actually being a legal
 difference.   Can you point to a source that would make this clear?

The Australian road rules (on which each states rules are based) :-

RR 97 Road access signs
RR 177 Stopping on a freeway

There are also rules that reference these rules such as the exceptions
for a garbage truck stopping does not include an exception to RR 177

Any sign that has the following is considered a freeway :-

freeway
motorway
tollway
expressway


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

Re: [talk-au] Newcastle Inner Bypass - Motorway or not ?

[Michael James]

On 29/05/13 22:51, Ian Sergeant wrote:

 I'd like to indicate freeway class sections as motorways, however, I can
 see the argument to just objectively use the RMS classifications.  Will
 save edit wars down the track to just have one easy rule.

There is a legal difference between a divided highway and a freeway in
Australia, so if it is not actually called a freeway/motorway via
signage then it really isn't one.

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

Re: [talk-au] Newcastle Inner Bypass - Motorway or not ?

[Michael James]

On 29/05/13 10:40, Ben Johnson wrote:
 Any thoughts on whether the completed sections of the Newcastle Inner City 
 Bypass (now being referred to by the RMS as A37 - Newcastle Outer Ring 
 Road) should be classified as type Motorway …?

If they're calling it A37 then they're not calling it a motorway.


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

Re: [talk-au] Export a route?

[Michael James]

On 22/02/13 18:53, David Clark wrote:
 Is there a way I can export a route as osm or gpx or kml from
 Openstreetmap.
 
 ie Mawson trail:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=153983
 
 I just want the lines that are part of this relation and nothing else.

You can do this in josm very easily

1 Starting with no data you go to Download from OSM

2 Select an area that only contains a part of the trail and nothing
else, Click Download

3 Now select the section that has downloaded and the right side of the
screen under properties will show Member Of and the relation name

4 Click on the relation name and then the edit button that appears
underneath it

5 Down the bottom left of the windows that pops up is a button (second
one from the bottom to be precise) that when you mouse-over it it will
say Download all incomplete members click it and wait for the download
to complete

6 You now have the trail and nothing else in your dataset and can export
it in any format that josm supports

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

Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns

[Michael James]

On 11/12/12 13:26, John Henderson wrote:
 On 11/12/12 09:17, Chris Barham wrote:
 
 I really do think Gympie, Maryborough, Warwick and Charters Towers
 are cities, and should have remained tagged as such.  Are there
 others, in other states, within this changeset that should have
 stayed as is?
 
 I remember the fact that Warwick officially became a city sometime in
 the early to mid 70s.  I was there at the time.
 
 John

Checking the state archives and it looks like it happened in :-

Warwick - April   1936
Charters Towers - April   1909
Gympie  - January 1905
Maryborough - January 1905


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

Re: [talk-au] Aligning steets

[Michael James]

On 09/19/2012 04:35 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote:
 They are not mini-roundabouts if you can not drive over them.
 
 Look here:
 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmini_roundabout
 
 Also read the Australian Tagging Guidelines here:
 
 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines
 
 mini_roundabout is not determined by size.
 
 Australia does not have mini roundabouts, road rules require you to
 drive around the center island unless it is impractical to do so, ie
 truck, bus.

According to the tagging guidelines for mini roundabout this is one :-

http://goo.gl/maps/8WAZ6

Are you saying it isn't?

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

Re: [talk-au] maxspeed - best practice?

[Michael James]

On 08/14/2012 03:30 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
 In regards to residential areas - I remember last year there was some
 talk about the bot that added 50 with the (incorrect)
 maxspeed:source key = default residential speed limit in Australia 
 and I think there was consensus in the local community that this was a
 mistake.
 
 With remapping some of my local areas, I'm now curious what's best
 practice in Australia is for tagging maxspeed on residential streets.
 Specifically...
 
 a) is it even necessary or desirable to explicitly define maxspeed for
 every residential way - or should we just presume any
 highway=residential is maxspeed=50, unless otherwise stated?

What are we singling out highway=residential?

This is where I want to enter the debate as the whole thinking before
was just wrong as far as what the legislation actually says and what the
map uses as tags for roads.

1. The law :-
25 Speed limit elsewhere
(1) If a speed limit sign does not apply to a length of road and the
length of road is not in a speed limited area, school zone or shared
zone, the speed limit applying to a driver for the length of road is the
default speed limit.
(2) The default speed limit applying to a driver for a length of
road is—
(a) for a road in a built-up area—50km/h; or
(b) for a road that is not in a built-up area—100km/h.

Dictionary entry :-
built-up area, in relation to a length of road, means an area in
which either of the following is present for a distance of at
least 500m or, if the length of road is shorter than 500m, for
the whole road—
(a) buildings, not over 100m apart, on land next to the road;
(b) street lights not over 100m apart.

Note that there is no mention of the word residential in the law

2. Guidelines for highway=residential and highway=unclassified
The guidelines http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway
give the direction that if houses are on the side of a minor road then
it should be tagged residential however on the edges of towns and cities
you can have such streets as per OSM's definition but they will fail to
fulfill the definition as given in Australian law for an Urban Road and
thus not have a default of 50kph

So when should it be tagged ?

In my opinion you should only tag ways that are either signed posted and
you tag it with the figure given and appropriate source ref

Alternatively if you have observed that a street satisfies the
definition given in the road rules for the default to apply then tag it
as such and give the source as built_up_area

tag if signed
maxspeedsource=sign

tag if not signed and satisfies the definition
maxspeedsource=built_up_area

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

Re: [talk-au] Brisbane bus stop density

[Michael James]

On 07/30/2012 10:59 AM, Stephen Hope wrote:
 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.

Pulling the data into josm and it looks like we have a massive import by
user morb_au

http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/morb_au
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/755180

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

[talk-au] User hardsoft's remapping attempts

[Michael James]

I would have introduced myself normally but 

It would seem that use http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/hardsoft is on
a campaign to remap everything, this would be ok except that most of
his/her remapping attempts will require repair as the new ways rarely
connect to other ways.

Some examples (this is certainly not a complete list)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/156728997
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/156728991
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/156728986
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/40556031
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/156752098
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/154407242

Now this is going to create just as much work reconnecting ways as what
there would be if the ways were just deleted in the great purge.

So my message to hardsoft and anyone else contemplating mass remapping
efforts is, slow down and check your work otherwise some else is going
to have to come along and fix it all *again*

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