Re: [talk-au] OSM - NSW NPWS liaison

[Ben Kelley]

In the context of the tracks, there is always the risk that if you delete
something that you don't think should be there, that someone else re-maps
it because they see it in the aerial photo. (As we discussed.)

I guess the best is that we could detail a preferred approach (e.g. in
Australian tagging guidelines). I think it's clear that there are a number
of views on this though.

Then at least if something happens that differs from the preferred
approach, it makes it clearer whether a revert is justified.

 - Ben.


On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 14:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> DWG have received a
> "*Request for a Liaison Officer*:
> To enhance the accuracy of OpenStreetMap data pertaining to the NSW
> National Parks and Wildlife Service"
>
> This has come up in regard to tracks that they say they have previously
> requested be deleted (I'm contacting them to confirm just which?)
>
> What would be the easiest way for them to contact us with questions like
> this - here / Forum / Discord?
>
> Question posed in all three places
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Routing problem near Albany, WA

[Ben Kelley]

I don't know what causes it, but you can see the same problem with OSMR:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car=-34.9226%2C117.7915%3B-34.9670%2C117.8239#map=17/-34.96524/117.82097

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

Re: [talk-au] What are the best practices for mass updating cycle paths?

[Ben Kelley]

Practically, using this data would be difficult I think.

Partly because there is a lot of stuff already mapped. The other problem 
is that I have found Councils' web sites are a bit optimistic about how 
much of their planned cycling infrastructure actually exists. It's hard 
to know what is "on the ground" from their data sets.


 - Ben.


On 7/2/2023 10:40 am, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Hi
Looking further City of Sydney Data Hub is licenced CC By 4.0 but OSM 
has been waiting on the waiver since 2020 "CC BY 4.0 - waiver sent 
01/12/2020, "considering your request" on 03/12/2020"


The licence for the cycle network data links to 2 logos, a CC by 4.0 
logo and a "Open Data" logo which I can only find 2 other occurrences 
of in the net and no definitions.


Tony


Hi
First check that its listed at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources
If not ykou probably need to get them to sign a release
Tony


Hi all,

I have been looking into cycle paths data in OSM and found that Sydney
doesn't seem to have this dataset:
https://data.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/datasets/cityofsydney::cycle-network/explore 



This data is focused on the city centre. Are there any 
recommendations on
how I should get about this, or if there are any best practices or 
guidance

when uploading datasets from official sources?





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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears"

[Ben Kelley]

Just one thought on this:

The "use low gears" it not itself the hazard. It is the steep hill that is
the hazard (where the mitigation strategy for HGVs is to use low gears.
Same for rollover/sharp bend.

 - Ben


On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 10:38, Andrew Hughes  wrote:

> Thank You Greame,
>
> The  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hazard#Traffic_hazards tag
> seems very appropriate but in my mind, needs a :hgv namespace.
>
> still not sure on the actual values but...tag/values I would appreciate
> feedback on:
>
> hazard:hgv=Use low gears
> hazard:hgv=Long Steep Descent
> hazard:hgv=Use low gears;Long Steep Descent
>
>
> Another example I would appreciate feedback  are QLD "Tilting Truck
> signs": https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/signs/warning
>
> hazard:hgv=Tilting
> hazard:hgv=High Risk Rollover
> hazard:hgv= ?
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Andrew
>
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 11:30, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 10:40, Andrew Hughes  wrote:
>>
>>> There are other signage like "No Engine Breaking", could anyone propose
>>> a convention inline with the above that could be extended for such
>>> additional signage?
>>>
>>
>> Answering in reverse!
>>
>> I thought I remembered something about "quiet zones" for traffic, so did
>> some searching & found:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:railway%3Dlevel_crossing#Quiet_zones,
>> but which has apparently never been used.
>>
>> Also found
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation#Quiet_lanes
>>
>> The same idea could possibly be used as designation=quiet_zone, possibly
>> with quiet_zone=hgv?
>>
>> Can anyone suggest the most appropriate way to take ways where the road
>>> is signed with "Use Low Gears"?
>>>
>>
>> & maybe the same concept as designation=low_gears?
>>
>> That one could even come in under
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hazard#Traffic_hazards as
>> hazard=low_gear_required?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] 'Named' EV chargers

[Ben Kelley]

My thoughts:

I wouldn't remove the names. It's a big call to say that this thing
definitely does not have a name, when someone else says it does, especially
if 50% have a name.

 - Ben.

On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 at 14:24, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
>
>
> Thoughts on 'named' EV chargers? Around 50% of chargers in Oz have some
> 'name'.
>
>
>
> Most look to be adding the either the location or name of the operator etc
> (ie Freds Shop, XYZ carpark, Tesla supercharger etc), I suspect so it gets
> rendered on the map.
>
>
>
> Are folks happy if I remove the names. I will ensure that no details are
> lost by making sure any operator or network details gets added to the
> correct tags.
>
>
>
> (I will also post to Oceania Forum and Discord)
>
>
>
> [Overpass query](https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1p4u)
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycle permissions by a user

[Ben Kelley]

This very much differs by state.

In NSW by default it is not allowed (unless signpost as a shared path). I
assume Victoria is the same.

   - Ben.

-- 
Ben Kelley
This message was sent from my Olivetti typewriter

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022, 09:21 Graeme Fitzpatrick,  wrote:

>
> So, it would appear that officially, footpaths can be used for cycling!
>
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Oz tagging of speed cameras

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

This page describes what to do if you are only mapping the camera (map it
on the highway)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dspeed_camera

This page describes what to do if you want to map both the device (e.g. on
the footpath), and also the point on the road where the camera enforces the
speed limit https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:enforcement

 - Ben.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 at 14:51, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Just had a message come through OSM (think it may have been sent to
> multiple people?) concerning mapping speed cameras.
>
> I've added a number of them from Notes, & have always added them as a
> Speed Camera node on the actual camera location usually visible on the
> footpath.
>
> The message was to tell me that "every single speed camera in South
> Australia is already on the map" & can be viewed on OT, that "they are
> placed on the roads that they target exactly like traffic lights are
> placed. This is a standard that is agreed upon in the Australian OSM
> community", & that they've "deleted all the duplicate ones that you have
> added".
>
> One of the cameras that I'd added was here
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?node=8654391473#map=20/-34.96839/138.55505
> & I'd mapped it where the camera box is visible on the footpath, but they
> have it on the actual road marking near the traffic lights. Which is right?
> I've just had a look at the guidelines & can't see any agreed standard for
> mapping them - do we have one?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Adopting "AU" Prefix on Network tags

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

This is a national route, rather than a state route, so we don't have that
problem.

 - Ben.

On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 at 14:15, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 at 13:37, Ben Kelley  wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm guessing more than one state has an A40.
>>
>
> & how would we work "Highway 1", with its myriad of alternative
> designations & names?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_1_(Australia)
>
>  Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>

-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
This message was sent on my Atari 400
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Adopting "AU" Prefix on Network tags

[Ben Kelley]

I think we'll need a state component in the network (for state roads).

I'm guessing more than one state has an A40.

ref=A40, network=AU won't be enough for that.

 - Ben.

On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 at 12:55, Dian Ågesson  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've cobbled together a draft model of how we could adopt the "AU" prefix
> within the network tags based on some of the issues raised in the previous
> thread.
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Diacritic/Proposed_Australian_Routes
>
> Would really appreciate your thoughts and opinions; tried to match the
> existing structure as closely as possible.
>
> Dian.
>
>

-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
This message was sent on my Atari 400
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Surf Clubs & Lifesavers (Prv: Head or point on non-coastal land)

[Ben Kelley]

Note that the "C" part is for club in SLSC. The social part can be the
community around the volunteer life saving bit. e.g.
https://uminaslsc.org.au/

I agree that there are 2 parts though. The life saving part, and the
"clubhouse" that also has a bar & restaurant etc.

I would tag them as 2 nodes.

I think you could have the same issue for rowing clubs. There are a bunch
of people that do rowing, and have a boat shed, but there's also a
restaurant upstairs that you might want to visit even if you don't care for
rowing.

 - Ben.

On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 at 13:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 at 17:31, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I have a similar difficulty with club=surf_life_saving,
>> emergency=lifesaver, lifesaver=base ... as that does not render. If put
>> on the building then the name of the club renders.. Having gone along the
>> coast of NSW and put them to nodes and entered a few more off the DCS Base
>> Map .. I am now going along and setting the details on the associated
>> building... sigh.
>
>
> Warin & I have discussed this topic recently on a changeset:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/123785819, & are sort of in two
> minds about it, so it's probably a good idea to put it out to get
> everybody's thoughts.
>
> I've recently finished tidying up & adding details right along the GC
> beaches, including all the Surf Clubs.
>
> As most of you would know, Surf Clubs & SLSCs are, more or less, two
> separate things - the Surf Club is the social side of things, which houses
> the bar, restaurant & Gaming Room, is usually open to the public, seven
> days/week, from morning till late at night, & is usually upstairs in the
> building.
>
> The actual SLSC / lifesavers are downstairs in that building, where the
> First Aid room is located, are usually only present Sa-Su 8-18 between Sept
> - April. They will frequently have a different contact number /
> website/page to the Surf Club.
>
> I have been tagging them like so:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/41751839, as a building named "xxx Surf
> Club", tagged as a club= surf_life_saving; together with a separate node
> for the SLSC: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5419450227, named "xxx
> SLSC", tagged as emergency=lifeguard + lifeguard=base +
> leisure=sports_centre (which I know is certainly not great, but is the only
> way I can find to render the name as lifeguard doesn't render :-(),
> together with their operating hours & contact details.
>
> So, what do we all think is the best option for having, & showing, 2 lots
> of info for the same premises?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
This message was sent on my Atari 400
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Is addr:housenumber=2/20 likely to be valid?

[Ben Kelley]

Agreed.

In Australia "32A" refers to the street number.

(In the US, it is common that 32A means apartment A at street number 32, 
but not in Australia)


 - Ben.


On 13/7/2022 11:55 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 11:43, Benjamin Ceravolo 
 wrote:


I feel comfortable using the unit number as in the examples above.
But I feel it gets more in the weed's when it comes to letters,
such as "32a example Street" where I would probably not use the
unit tag. What are your thoughts?


No, 32A would just go as the house number.

The other awkward one is when the POI's address is Level 5 of This 
Building. Should we include that as part of the address, usually under 
Unit Number, or just as level=*?


 Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Is addr:housenumber=2/20 likely to be valid?

[Ben Kelley]

In answer to your question though, yes "1/50 Example St" notation is quite
common. It is probably well understood, although not universally used.

"Unit 1, 50 Example St" is also used, as is "U 1 50 Example St".

These would all be tagged as:
addr:unit=1
addr:housenumber=50

 - Ben.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 03:51, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> I want to confirm report from
> https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/4196
>
> "In my area (and throughout built-up parts of Australian cities in general)
> it is not uncommon to encounter blocks of townhouses which share a
> primary address number but have distinct sub-address numbers.
>
> The complete address numbers of such houses are written in the format
> /, eg "1/50", "2/50", "3/50" for the first three houses
> sharing the primary address site "50 Example St"."
>
> Is it accurate? Is addr:housenumber=1/50 the standard and preferred
> solution in such cases?
>
>
>
-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
This message was sent on my Atari 400
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] definition of PSV (Public Service Vehicles) in Australia

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

I'm not sure if this helps, but a "bus lane" allows buses, taxis, 
bicycles and hire cars. A "bus only lane" allows only buses (not taxis 
and hire cars). (Neither allow rental cars.)


The psv wiki page suggests tagging individual types if necessary, but 
implies that a taxi is a PSV.


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

I think you should probably put taxi=no for a "bus only lane" but not 
for a "bus lane".


IANAL but I'd guess that ride share services are not taxis in this context.

 - Ben.

On 27/6/2022 11:10 am, stevea wrote:
On Jun 26, 2022, at 5:57 PM, David Vidovic via Talk-au 
 wrote:
In regards to PSV (Public Service Vehicles), I understand this 
encompasses buses/coaches.


For a "bus only" way such as a bus bay, I see common tagging 
[access=no] + [psv=yes] used.


Does anyone know if a Taxi is considered a "public service vehicle" 
and therefore able use the busy bay way? Or does [access=no] 
inherently prevent this and it would need a separate [taxi=yes] tag?


It might be controversial to say so, but "taxis" meant (until maybe a 
decade ago, with the uprising of the Uber's of the world, which are, 
in many places, "not /de jure/ taxis" but are rather "/de facto/ 
taxis") a legally-regulated car-for-hire (not "rental, YOU drive," 
rather "hail one" (or solicit a ride for a fare at a taxi stand)).


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

Re: [talk-au] Bicycle access tags in Victoria and other edits edits

[Ben Kelley]

Yes it is a longstanding issue: Is this shared path primarily a cycleway
where pedestrians are allowed (highway=cycleway, foot=designated) or
primarily a footpath ("mainly or exclusively for pedestrians") where
bicycles are allowed (highway=footway, bicycle=yes)?

In most circumstances the 2 are equivalent.

 - Ben Kelley.

On Wed, 18 May 2022 at 09:06, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> OSM never really had a good tag for truly shared foot/cycle paths, so it's
> been long standing practice to use highway=cycleway + foot=designated +
> bicycle=designated + segregated=no for shared paths. So by adding the
> foot=designated and segregated=no tags they change highway=cycleway from a
> bicycle only path to a true shared path.
>
> On Wed, 18 May 2022 at 07:29, Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au <
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> Using the tag the tag highway = cycleway indicates that the route is
>> designated for bicycles only.
>> In Victoria, this is hardly the case as most paths are generally signed
>> as shared paths. I’ve yet to come across a dedicated cycle path during my
>> riding.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Sebastian
>>
>> On 17 May 2022, at 6:15 pm, Andrew Davidson  wrote:
>>
>> On 16/5/22 23:38, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote:
>>
>> Can I please clarify "using highway=cycleway should only be used where
>> there are signs allowing"?
>>
>> That is how I've always used it in urban areas.
>>
>>
>> This would only apply in NSW/VIC. In other jurisdictions putting up signs
>> has become pointless because you can ride anywhere. In Canberra almost none
>> of the shared path system has explicit signage. I use cycleway to tag
>> "primary" routes and footway for "secondary" routes.
>>
>> So this would be a cycleway:
>>
>>
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Bike_path_in_Dickson%2C_Canberra%2C_Australia.jpg/576px-Bike_path_in_Dickson%2C_Canberra%2C_Australia.jpg
>>
>> and this is a footway:
>>
>>
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Footpath_in_Hackett%2C_Canberra%2C_Australia.jpg/576px-Footpath_in_Hackett%2C_Canberra%2C_Australia.jpg
>>
>>
>>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org

[Ben Kelley]

I am a mailing list admin.

 - Ben.

On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 12:39, Sam Wilson  wrote:

> We need to specify who will be category moderators, in the new-category
> proposal.
>
> Who would like to be? Come to think of it, who are the mailing list admins?
>
>
> On 3/5/22 07:49, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> > On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 9:31 AM Sam Wilson  wrote:
> >> And it sounds like there is a plan to at some point enable new posts via
> >> email, and when that time comes we will need a category (so it can have
> >> its own email address). Maybe we should go ahead and request an
> >> Australia category now?
> > Sounds like a good idea.
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
This message was sent on my Atari 400
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Licence mention for static mapon NiceLocal.com.au

[Ben Kelley]

It needs attribution for the static map as well I think.


 - Ben Kelley.

On 18/2/22 15:55, Stéphane Guillou via Talk-au wrote:

Hi all

I just sent a message to NiceLocal.com.au about the copyright 
requirements of OSM, because my understanding is that the static map 
on their shop profiles does not respect them.


For example: https://nicelocal.com.au/brisbane/shops/campus_news/

However, because clicking the map opens a slippy map that does mention 
the data source, I wanted to ask the list: does it follow OSM's 
requirements, or does it need to add an OSM mention next/over the 
static map as well?


Cheers


--
Ben Kelley
Sent from my Psion

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

Re: [talk-au] Strange e-mail address?

[Ben Kelley]

The unsusbscribe happens automatically after a few bounces.

On 31/1/22 11:44, Michael Collinson wrote:


Thanks Alex, Ben.  Looks specific to talk-au so talk-au admin (CC'd) 
needs to login and unsubscribe gmane. Not sure who that is.


Tom says:

Nothing to do with me - there's no global link to gmane or
any other archiving site.

As far as I know they just operate by subscribing to the list
like any other user so the list owner should be able to manage
the subscription.

Specifically I think gmane is long dead so they should likely
be unsubscribed, though if they're bouncing that will happen
automatically at some point.

On 31/1/22 11:21 am, Ben Kelley wrote:


The list processor sorts out bounces.

On 31/1/22 11:05, Alex Sims wrote:


Hi Michael,

Gname.org moved to gmane.io almost a year ago. So the subscription 
to x...@gname.org will never work again and should be deleted. A new 
link needs to be set to gmane.io so that the NNTP feed via 
news.gmane.io can work (if desired)


https://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/category/gmane/ summary of the move

Alex

*From: *Michael Collinson 
*Date: *Monday, 31 January 2022 at 10:18 am
*To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
*Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Strange e-mail address?

I just create lists so I have forwarded this to Tom Hughes in case 
he can help or elucidate.  /Mike


On 31/1/22 10:24 am, Alex Sims wrote:

HI Graeme,

When you send an email to the list, it then sends a copy to
subscribers which includes a mirror at gmane.org. For some
reason the copy at gname.org is bouncing back and you get the
bounce.

So the link between the mailing list and gmane needs fixing, a
job for the administrator of all the openstreetmap.org lists

I’ll have a poke and raise the issue with someone.

Alex

*From: *Graeme Fitzpatrick 
<mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>
*Date: *Monday, 31 January 2022 at 9:20 am
*To: *OSM-Au 
<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
*Subject: *[talk-au] Strange e-mail address?

Just replied to the "Consistent addr:state format" thread as a
reply all, but got an undelivered message bounce back to me.

Says that message was sent to

OSM-Au  & OSM-Au
, but
public.gmane.org <http://public.gmane.org> couldn't be found.

The response was:

DNS Error: 4023212 DNS type 'mx' lookup of public.gmane.org
<http://public.gmane.org> responded with code NXDOMAIN Domain
name not found: public.gmane.org <http://public.gmane.org>

Does this mean anything at all to anybody?

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

--
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
Sent from my Psion

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

--
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
Sent from my Psion___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Strange e-mail address?

[Ben Kelley]

The list processor sorts out bounces.

On 31/1/22 11:05, Alex Sims wrote:


Hi Michael,

Gname.org moved to gmane.io almost a year ago. So the subscription to 
x...@gname.org will never work again and should be deleted. A new link 
needs to be set to gmane.io so that the NNTP feed via news.gmane.io 
can work (if desired)


https://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/category/gmane/ summary of the move

Alex

*From: *Michael Collinson 
*Date: *Monday, 31 January 2022 at 10:18 am
*To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
*Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Strange e-mail address?

I just create lists so I have forwarded this to Tom Hughes in case he 
can help or elucidate.  /Mike


On 31/1/22 10:24 am, Alex Sims wrote:

HI Graeme,

When you send an email to the list, it then sends a copy to
subscribers which includes a mirror at gmane.org. For some reason
the copy at gname.org is bouncing back and you get the bounce.

So the link between the mailing list and gmane needs fixing, a job
for the administrator of all the openstreetmap.org lists

I’ll have a poke and raise the issue with someone.

Alex

*From: *Graeme Fitzpatrick 
<mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>
*Date: *Monday, 31 January 2022 at 9:20 am
*To: *OSM-Au 
<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
*Subject: *[talk-au] Strange e-mail address?

Just replied to the "Consistent addr:state format" thread as a
reply all, but got an undelivered message bounce back to me.

Says that message was sent to

OSM-Au  & OSM-Au
, but
public.gmane.org <http://public.gmane.org> couldn't be found.

The response was:

DNS Error: 4023212 DNS type 'mx' lookup of public.gmane.org
<http://public.gmane.org> responded with code NXDOMAIN Domain name
not found: public.gmane.org <http://public.gmane.org>

Does this mean anything at all to anybody?

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

--
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
Sent from my Psion___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Ben Kelley]

Interesting.

Normally I don't tag addresses on streets, as it is not useful. I have used
it on ways for street number interpolation, but I make a way that goes
across the addresses, rather than attach it to the street.

 - Ben.



On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 at 13:42, Andrew Hughes  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> In the interest of stirring up a hornets nest (jokes). I'd like to know
> what could be said for tagging ways (streets/roads) with add:suburb (or
> addr:county...) where the suburb (or other region/area) the road "belongs"
> to can NOT be spatially determined (i.e. typically runs along or forms the
> boundary of the suburb/area).
>
> I'll leave it at that (purposely open ended).
>
> Examples:
> Suburb:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=306101556#map=17/-27.42763/153.04615
> LGA:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=368601578#map=19/-27.60641/152.90991
>
> Thanks for reading.
> A Hughes
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
This message was sent on my Atari 400
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Lifeguards & "Swim Between the Flags"

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

In my experience, the actual location of flags on any given day can vary 
a lot (according to the conditions). I don't think there is any benefit 
in trying to mark on the map where the flags are.


I think it is useful to know that this beach may have a lifeguard, as 
opposed to knowing that this beach never has a lifeguard.


 - Ben Kelley.

On 20/10/21 09:54, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
A little while back, I put the emergency=lifeguard proposal through, 
together with lifeguard=yes to describe those times when there is a 
lifeguard/s on the beach, but they may not be in a fixed location.


Have just started actually using them while I've been fixing GC 
beaches & realised that it's not quite right.


Rather than just lifeguard=yes to show that there's a lifeguard here 
somewhere, we should have some way of saying that the lifeguards are 
where the flags are i.e. "Swim Between the Flags".


How?

Would lifeguard=yes @ flagged_area / red_and_yellow_flags work?

Any suggestions?

Or do we just not worry about it, & work on the idea that =yes is 
sufficient?


Thanks

Graeme


--
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
Sent from my Psion
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Source material.

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

We need to be very careful about intellectual property with a project like
OSM. We cannot use maps (and aerial photos etc) where the owner does not
give us permission.

I can understand that this is frustrating when you have spent time on it,
and you had good intentions, but the original copyright owner won't see it
that way.

There is more detail on the wiki at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Copyright

Some government agencies give explicit permission for OSM to use their
data. Without explicit permission, this data cannot be used in OSM.

 - Ben Kelley.

On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 08:31, Andrew & Ingrid Parker 
wrote:

> Good afternoon
>
> I emailed the group for the first time recently:
>
> *‘I am a basic OSM editor. I usually just correct obvious map errors I
> find while hiking/cycling. I have tried to be a little more ambitious every
> now and then, but I have found it can be quite difficult to keep other
> editors happy with what I do.’*
>
> I am writing to get some feedback from other members regarding an issue
> with another editor regarding  Changeset: 112406297 | OpenStreetMap
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/112406297#map=11/-36.7730/144.6082=G>
>
> I used MapShareVic as my source, but was told that this is not allowed. I
> am surprised by this as MapshareVic is the official Victorian Government
> land software.
>
> The background to this is that Fryers Ridge State Forest as depicted on
> the map was completely incorrect, and I was attempting to correct it. Using
> iD, I decided it was better to delete it and start again.
>
> I am trying to edit the map in good faith using iD. I have tried using
> JOSM in the past, but found it to be too daunting and have been unable to
> find any good tutorials on YouTube.
>
> As far as I can tell Warin61 has deleted all the editing I spent many
> hours on
>
> Maybe there is someone here who can help me get back to using JOSM?
>
> It would be good to see what others think about this.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Andrew Parker
> _______
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
This message was sent on my Atari 400
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Searching for tags?

[Ben Kelley]

Thanks all. Perfect!

I just found one that we could see from the water (i.e. it seems like
there's a boat ramp over there somewhere) but we couldn't find on land.

 - Ben.

On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 10:14, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Oops, it didn't show automatically, so click on the "Run" button!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 09:13, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>> Adam beat me to it, but here you go: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1bKw
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 09:01, Adam Horan  wrote:
>>
>>> For super powered searching you need https://overpass-turbo.eu/
>>>
>>> On the bottom right of the wiki page is a link to overpass which will
>>> embed a simple query for the tag key-value.
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dslipway
>>>
>>> The query can be modified to search a wider area, but unfortunately
>>> overpass queries are not super simple (and I say this as a programmer of
>>> several years)
>>> Searching across a very large area will be slow, or might be stopped if
>>> too slow.
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>> On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 09:47, Ben Kelley  wrote:
>>>
>>>> In our search for boat ramps around here we found that there are heaps
>>>> that Google doesn't know about. We found 3 yesterday that Google didn't
>>>> have. Of those OSM had 2 of 3 (and I found a 4th in OSM I didn't know
>>>> about).
>>>>
>>>> How can you search for a specific feature in OSM? If you search for
>>>> "slipway" you only find things with "slipway" in the name. You can't search
>>>> for "leisure=slipway" on the main map either.
>>>>
>>>> Is there some other way to search for particular features?
>>>>
>>>>  - Ben.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ben Kelley
>>>> ben.kel...@gmail.com
>>>> https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
>>>> This message was sent on my Atari 400
>>>> ___
>>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>
>>

-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
This message was sent on my Atari 400
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Searching for tags?

[Ben Kelley]

In our search for boat ramps around here we found that there are heaps that
Google doesn't know about. We found 3 yesterday that Google didn't have. Of
those OSM had 2 of 3 (and I found a 4th in OSM I didn't know about).

How can you search for a specific feature in OSM? If you search for
"slipway" you only find things with "slipway" in the name. You can't search
for "leisure=slipway" on the main map either.

Is there some other way to search for particular features?

 - Ben.

-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
This message was sent on my Atari 400
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging yellow buoys

[Ben Kelley]

Yes having fun:
https://map.openseamap.org/?zoom=14=-33.50064=151.33839=BFTFFTF0TT

We were discussing today how oyster leases should be marked for maritime
mapping. We think probably a cardinal hazard marker (i.e. a hazard lies to
the N/S/E/W of this marker) rather than the location of the hardware for
growing the oysters.

Of course the places where the oysters grow (sorry I don't know the
technical name for this) are the easiest to see from an aerial photo. This
is normally marked as aquaculture in OSM.

The poles marking the hazard are visible on an aerial photo, but you can't
tell from the photo which ones are hazard markers (and which direction) and
which ones are just poles in the water.

 - Ben.

PS 2019 Sea Doo GTR 230


On Wed, 29 Sept 2021 at 11:29, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Yes, they're actually a "Special Mark", which can be used to mark anything
> out of the ordinary.
>
> https://www.msq.qld.gov.au/Safety/Navigation-buoys-marks-and-beacons
>
> Have fun! (& what'd you get? :-))
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Sept 2021 at 13:37, Ben Kelley  wrote:
>
>> I have recently moved close to Brisbane Water (NSW Central Coast). Aerial
>> photos are quite good if you know what you're looking at.
>>
>> I think buoy_special_purpose is probably the closest.
>>
>>  - Ben.
>>
>> On Tue, 28 Sept 2021 at 13:29, Andrew Harvey 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I can't help much with tagging, but wanted to say good to see someone
>>> else interested in sea mapping, I mapped a small bit of the Georges River
>>> in Sydney via kayak many years ago.
>>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Sept 2021 at 10:39, Ben Kelley  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi.
>>>>
>>>> I'm slowly mapping more and more buoys in my area. The red and green
>>>> channel markers are obvious, but I wondered how to map yellow ones.
>>>>
>>>> I'm guessing that for Open Sea Map it is a "special purpose mark".
>>>>
>>>> Generally they are used to mark hazards. The channel runs close to
>>>> moorings here, so there are yellow buoys between the channel and the
>>>> moorings.
>>>>
>>>> Is anyone else into Open Sea Map? (We bought a boat last week :) )
>>>>
>>>>  - Ben.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ben Kelley
>>>> ben.kel...@gmail.com
>>>> https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
>>>> This message was sent on my Atari 400
>>>> ___________
>>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Ben Kelley
>> ben.kel...@gmail.com
>> https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
>> This message was sent on my Atari 400
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>

-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
This message was sent on my Atari 400
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging yellow buoys

[Ben Kelley]

I have recently moved close to Brisbane Water (NSW Central Coast). Aerial
photos are quite good if you know what you're looking at.

I think buoy_special_purpose is probably the closest.

 - Ben.

On Tue, 28 Sept 2021 at 13:29, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> I can't help much with tagging, but wanted to say good to see someone else
> interested in sea mapping, I mapped a small bit of the Georges River in
> Sydney via kayak many years ago.
>
> On Tue, 28 Sept 2021 at 10:39, Ben Kelley  wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> I'm slowly mapping more and more buoys in my area. The red and green
>> channel markers are obvious, but I wondered how to map yellow ones.
>>
>> I'm guessing that for Open Sea Map it is a "special purpose mark".
>>
>> Generally they are used to mark hazards. The channel runs close to
>> moorings here, so there are yellow buoys between the channel and the
>> moorings.
>>
>> Is anyone else into Open Sea Map? (We bought a boat last week :) )
>>
>>  - Ben.
>>
>> --
>> Ben Kelley
>> ben.kel...@gmail.com
>> https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
>> This message was sent on my Atari 400
>> _______
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>

-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
This message was sent on my Atari 400
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Tagging yellow buoys

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

I'm slowly mapping more and more buoys in my area. The red and green
channel markers are obvious, but I wondered how to map yellow ones.

I'm guessing that for Open Sea Map it is a "special purpose mark".

Generally they are used to mark hazards. The channel runs close to moorings
here, so there are yellow buoys between the channel and the moorings.

Is anyone else into Open Sea Map? (We bought a boat last week :) )

 - Ben.

-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
This message was sent on my Atari 400
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Re-tag rural residential roads to unclassified?

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

I would normally tag such roads (minor roads in rural areas) as 
unclassified rather than residential.


I suspect there is not a lot of difference between residential and 
unclassified though.


 - Ben.

On 2/10/20 14:43, Little Maps wrote:


Hi everyone, I was reviewing highway tags in south-central NSW 
(initially to add in missing paved and unpaved tags) and noted that 
road classification differ greatly between adjacent local gov areas. 
In central Federation Shire Council, north of Mulwala and Corowa, the 
bulk of rural roads are tagged as residential whereas in all 
surrounding LGAs they are tagged as unclassified, as shown in this 
Overpass query: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/YCa 



(the query shows 4 adjacent LGAs, with the Federation Shire in 
the lower centre).


This is a rural cropping /grazing region, not a densely settled 
irrigation area. Is it appropriate to re-tag the rural "residential" 
roads as "unclassified'' for consistency, after inspecting each on 
satellite images, leaving residential roads in and around small towns 
only? Thanks for your help, Ian




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

Re: [talk-au] Unattributed use of map

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

Yes previously I have just sent an email. e.g.

Hi. I noticed that [feature] on your web site uses Open Street Map as its
base map, but it does not include the correct copyright notice for Open
Street Map. As a contributor to Open Street Map, I wonder if your web site
could be updated to include the correct copyright notice. Thanks.

In this case the company was using an (open source) e-commerce solution
that included maps, but the underlying product used Leaflet, and disabled
the default copyright notice. I also raised a bug report with the
e-commerce platform. Eventually it got fixed.

 - Ben.


On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 at 09:59, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Just looking at the map for the next stage of the GC Light Rail
> construction & spotted that it's using OSM, with no attribution :-(
>
> https://gclr3.com.au/map
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-28.0837/153.4468
>
> How do we usually report things like this?
>
> Just an e-mail to their contact address & ask, please do it properly?
>
> Is there a standard, similar to asking for a waiver on use of data?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
This message was sent on my Atari 400
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] OSM Way & Govt Street (centerline) Correlation, how?

[Ben Kelley]

At some level you will need to deal with the fact that people edit ways,
generally based on orthorectified photos, but also based on GPS traces.

Even if the correlation started out good, it could change over time as
people edit the map.

I guess it depends how much correlation you need.

 - Ben.

On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 12:00, Andrew Hughes  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> First time poster and very new to OSM so please feel free to throw
> anything at me you think I should educate myself on.
>
> I'm currently the GIS Lead at the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (HNVR).
> We're very serious about adopting OSM for some of our needs. However, our
> OSM adoption is largely dependent on a minimum correlation between the OSM
> ways and the streets found in Government centerline/road datasets (States
> and/or LGAs).
>
> Q: Would anyone be able to provide me with some insight as to what we
> might expect when looking to achieve the correlation we need? Please be
> aware, our intent is to contribute and "close the gap" but we need to know
> if/how this can best be done in a cohesive way within the OSM community. *I'm
> also aware there may be licensing issues, please overlook these for now.*
>
> The NHVR are quite serious about what it hopes to achieve in the next 12
> -24 months through GIS and we are very enthusiastic to learn and contribute
> to OSM. I hope to be speaking with you a lot more in the near future.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Andrew Hughes
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
This message was sent on my Atari 400
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Postal addresses

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

I sometimes tag house names if they are known. I don't think the wiki
implies that you should not add house name if you add house number, but I
agree it's not generally useful in terms of delivering mail in Australia.

 - Ben.

On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 at 17:08, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
>  2 things on addresses.
>
>  Firstly house names.
>
> While these exist they are seldom required for postal addresses so the should 
> not be placed into addr:housename=* but rather into name=*.
>
> The wiki specifically implies if there is a addr:housenumber there should be 
> no addr:housename.
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr#Commonly_used_subkeys
>
>  Secondly remote addresses - Roadside Mail Box/Bag, Roadside Mail Service, 
> Private Bag etc.
>
> These are hard to find out how to map them on the wiki, I think they need to 
> go into the Australian Tagging guidelines.
>
> The answer is the same for PO boxes - use addr:full=*
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] highway=motorway_junction

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

It seems pretty clear (to me at least) on the highway=motorway_junction 
page that the junction node should not indicate the destination, but 
rather on the way branching off. The examples show this situation.


 - Ben.

On 24/2/20 13:09, Ian Steer wrote:


What do people think about this tag?  I don’t know what he is trying 
to achieve.





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

Re: [talk-au] TfNSW Cycleways use in OSM

[Ben Kelley]

Some councils put up signs (often blue and white) indicating a cycle route.

It generally shows the destination, maybe how far to the destination, 
and generally a picture of a bicycle. The sign might point to a road or 
a path.


This is the best link I could find (sorry - big PDF, but it gives you 
the idea): 
https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.cityofsydney/sydneycycleways/CoSBicycleNetworkSigningGuidelinesNov2010_Report.pdf



On 24/2/20 11:49, Andrew Davidson wrote:


I'm not a Sydney rider so I'll ask an apparently dumb question. What 
blue and white signs are we talking about here?



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

Re: [talk-au] TfNSW Cycleways use in OSM

[Ben Kelley]

Don't forget the blue and white signs!

Practically I'd map a lcn=yes tag (or relation) for blue & white signs.


 - Ben.

On 24/2/20 02:59, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote:

Is it possible that they are listing
roads with minor traffic, connecting
parts of real bicycle infrastructure?





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

Re: [talk-au] Magento + Leaflet = no attribution

[Ben Kelley]

I guess it makes it a bit hard when the underlying product disables the 
attribution. Not that this excuses them though.


FWIW this is the bug report I created for Smile Map: 
https://github.com/Smile-SA/magento2-module-map/issues/30



On 4/2/20 16:49, Phil Wyatt wrote:


Good on you – I have sent a few emails to them. I generally send them 
one every time they send me some marketing…saying I am boycotting the 
site until they fix it! 


I figure if they want to bug me with marketing then they can get an 
equal dose of emails re the attribution.


Lets hope it works

Cheers - Phil



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

[talk-au] Magento + Leaflet = no attribution

[Ben Kelley]

So, with nothing better to do, I was checking if Kathmandu had updated
their web site to include the correct attribution for OSM. (no)

It seems they use Magento (an e-commerce platform) with Smile's Map add-in
for Magento. (https://github.com/Smile-SA/magento2-module-map) This in term
uses Leaflet, but disables the attribution. (As far as I can tell.)

That is, if you use this on your Magento site, you get a nice map, but with
the attribution disabled. I'll submit a bug report on the Smile Map project.

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

Re: [talk-au] OT: DB has correct attribution

[Ben Kelley]

I think our top speed was about 235km/h.

  - Ben.


On Sun., 5 Jan. 2020, 22:15 Graeme Fitzpatrick, 
wrote:

> Very nice.
>
> What was it doing on the flat?
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] OT: DB has correct attribution

[Ben Kelley]

I'm currently on a train in Germany. Slowed down to 130km/h for some bends.
The train wifi has a page showing you the train's location and speed, which
uses OSM.

Nice.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/iXbF3C7mNQKioeGq9


   - Ben.

-- 
Ben Kelley
This message was sent from my Olivetti typewriter
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Adding polygons of the aerodromes

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

That seems like a good idea. How will you know the bounds of the airport?
Just from aerial photos?

 - Ben.

On Wed, 25 Dec 2019 at 22:28, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> We would like to manually add polygons around airports in whole Australia.
> We have added polygons for very few airports that were marked just with a
> single node.
>
>
>
> By using THIS  OverPass-Turbo link, you
> can see that there are nearly 1,200 airports that needs to be inspected.
>
> We could recognize that other map competitors have properly marked most of
> these airports as polygons.
>
>
>
> Anyway, we have doubt should we add polygons in the following situation(s):
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/73310214
>
>
>
> There are no control tower nor any other buildings. It has a proper name
> Kulin Airport @-32.6721992, 118.1689987.
>
> Should we add a polygon in such cases?
>
>
>
> Please note that *we won’t add any polygons* if the
> airport/airstrip/runway is on the water.
>
>
>
> We believe that there is no need to preserve both way and a node of the
> same feature. Especially because that node is somewhere at the center of
> the airport and it doesn’t represent entry of the airport area or entry of
> some building. Example should be Hamilton Airport @
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/407705915. We would merge existing
> node of the airport in to polygon of the same polygon and we would remove
> tags from the merged node.
>
>
>
> If we are adding new polygon, we would preserve existing airport node by
> keeping this node as a part of the new polygon.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance for the answers!
>
>
>
> Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,
>
> Nemanja
>
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Kathmandu + OSM

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

I noticed that Kathmandu's web site (the clothing retailer, rather than the
city in Nepal) uses OSM for their store locator, but it does not include
the correct copyright information. https://www.kathmandu.com.au/stores

I sent them some feedback on their web site to this effect, so I'll see how
it goes.

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

Re: [talk-au] tagging of "demolished" roads

[Ben Kelley]

This seems like a good case where the road is being actively dismantled.

I think the only reason to keep it at all is where you can see the 
ex-road in imagery, so you want people who are editing to know that this 
thing doesn't actually exist.


 - Ben.


On 27/11/19 09:32, Warin wrote:
I would go with either disused: or abandoned: .. very rare for remote 
roads to be actively dismantled.



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

Re: [talk-au] Whereis copyright?

[Ben Kelley]

At first I thought yes, but wheres.com (Sensis/Telstra) uses OSM, so I 
guess it depends on what data they used.


 - Ben.


On 20/11/19 15:11, Warin wrote:
I have found a contributor who is using 'whereis' as a source. I 
believe that is a copyright breach?


Anyone know .. I don't want to go asking them and their web site is 
not clear to me (must update this softwear!)?




___
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] Mapping 'private roads' conclusion

[Ben Kelley]

Looks good I think.


 - Ben.

On 9/10/19 11:55, Warin wrote:
Ok.. I think the following can be done on the Australian Tagging 
Guidelines;



Remove the words "not map the interior private roads in detail" from 
service roads
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Urban_Areas 




Add a new section "Private Roads" under 'Road Tagging' as the last entry.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Road_Tagging 



With words something like?

"Private roads can be mapped, this provides information for;
the person going past, that the road is private and their location on 
the map

emergency services who may find the road of benefit
the private individual who can use the road

Such private roads should have the tag 'access=private', if you are 
not certain then it is best to err on the cautious side and add the 
'access=private'."




Any objections, corrections, better words .. ??? 



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

Re: [talk-au] Discussion J: regionalisation of editor presets

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

A question of clarification:

Are you asking how to change the defaults when you yourself are editing?

Or are you wanting to raise a problem you see with the current defaults?
(This would seem to be a problem you perceive rather than a question.)


- Ben.


On Mon., 7 Oct. 2019, 10:05 Herbert.Remi via Talk-au, <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> 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 mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

Re: [talk-au] Discussion C: mapping on the street :: fixmes

[Ben Kelley]

Yeah agreed. If you added a FIXME, who would fix it?

If I see something like that, I generally make a note to myself to go back
and fix it later.

 - Ben.

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 09:57, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> There are lots of fixmes on the map. They don't get fixed.
> If you know of a correction .. do it. KISS.
>
>
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Discussion A: Is this forum fit for purpose?

[Ben Kelley]

You are missing one need: It needs to be something that people will use.

For that reason, there are many ways to handle this, with the talk-au list
being one of those.

Some people use some of the other (existing) options for discussing OSM. A
mailing list has its advantages and disadvantages, but there are other
options that implement some of the features you suggest in a better way.
The more modern platforms already exist.

- Ben.

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 09:02, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> # 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] Ways to map boundaries that won't go into OSM

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

A project I have been thinking about for a while is creating a map of
Anglican (church) parish boundaries in Australia.

In some sense these are like admin boundaries, but the source of the
boundary is not easily verifiable. While the resulting map would be based
on OSM, the data itself probably does not belong in OSM.

Any thoughts on a tool set for how to do this?

I'm after ideas for a way for people to edit this data, ways to store it,
ways to display it online, and ways to make a printed map (if necessary).

The source data in some areas can be written, like "The boundary runs north
from the end of Railway Parade until it crosses the creek." The person
editing this map would use OSM to draw the boundary (making it a derivative
work), possibly for display as a layer on top of OSM data.

If I needed to stand up a server to store edits, that's a possibility. Is
it possible to integrate existing editing UI tools with a different back
end, or would this require people to use JOSM?

In the past some people have done similar using Google's tool set, but then
the resulting maps are derivatives of Google's base map, which creates
problems if you want to reproduce that map outside of Google Maps.

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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging frontage roads

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

I would say yes. Include the name.

 - Ben Kelley.

On 13/6/19 12:36, David Wales wrote:

Dear Talk-AU,

Should frontage roads be tagged with names?

I have read the wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Frontage_road

Consider this changeset:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71199742

I am not sure if the two frontage roads should tagged with the name of
the main road ("Thirlmere Way"),
or if they should be left unnamed.

(The street address of the houses on the frontage roads is "Thirlmere Way".)

Regards,
David Wales




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

Re: [talk-au] Sydney mapathon

[Ben Kelley]

Practically it will probably need to be a weekday evening, as we are not 
open on the weekend.


Also it will need to be a time I can make it. :)


 - Ben Kelley

On 18/3/19 13:03, Dion Moult wrote:

Hey Ben! Thanks for the option!

I'm going to tentatively suggest meeting this Saturday, 23rd March, 
say after lunch, so 2:30pm? Just for a very informal mapping session 
to see how things go, doesn't have to be a large crowd or anything?


Ben, do you think it will be possible for us to use your office at 
that time? I do not have a laptop, so I'm not sure if computers can be 
used, or if that is against company policy?


My company in North Sydney, walking distance from the train station, 
offers wifi, but although I've started asking internally, there is a 
little red tape before they might say yes to anything like providing 
refreshments and allowing strangers in the office. Although I think 
they might support this.


Sent from ProtonMail mobile



--
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
Sent from my Psion

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

Re: [talk-au] Sydney mapathon

[Ben Kelley]

So, a thought: We have at least a couple of OSM mappers at my workplace.

I may be able to organise an evening with tables & wifi. (No promises on
refreshments.)

My office is in Sydney CBD in George St. (Close to Wynyard and Martin Place
stations.)

If people are interested I can investigate further.

 - Ben Kelley.


On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 at 16:58, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> I'm interested in a local OSM I meetup, I wanted to organise one last
> year, but finding a venue provide too hard, so count me in if anyone want's
> to organise one. Could just be an informal meet pub meetup. Personally I'm
> more interested in something around local OSM.
>
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 at 16:07, Seb Mapping  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> I would also be interested in a Meetup.
>> During the week after 19:00/19:30 or Saturday.
>>
>> What is a suitable location? Ideally it would be close to public
>> transport (and on the northern beaches :-D )
>> Regards Sebastian
>>
>> On 15 March 2019 12:31:21 pm AEDT, David Wales 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Dion,
>>>
>>> I would be happy to meet up for an afternoon of mapping.
>>> Saturdays are usually best for me.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> David Wales
>>>
>>> On 15/3/19 11:26 am, Dion Moult wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for all the responses!
>>>>
>>>> Interested people in joining:
>>>> - Dion Moult (myself)
>>>> - David Anderson (coworker at HDR)
>>>> - David Wales
>>>> - Sebastian
>>>>
>>>> Currently Ritva is helping contact EWB to see if they are interested in
>>>> running one in Sydney (as Engineers Without Borders is helping run one
>>>> in Brisbane)
>>>>
>>>> We are in need of an experienced mapper who can guide us in cases of
>>>> uncertainty :)
>>>>
>>>> I wonder, if prior to a larger event we are keen to simply just meet up
>>>> casually for a weekend afternoon somewhere in Sydney and do some mapping
>>>> together to see how we fare? If things work out well that might give us
>>>> a bit of confidence to grow the group and do it a bit more regularly :)
>>>>
>>>> Sent from ProtonMail mobile
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Original Message 
>>>> On 11 Mar. 2019, 5:08 pm, Sebastian < mapp...@consebt.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello Dion,
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> I am also interested in a mapathon as well as connecting with other
>>>> mappers on the Northern Beaches.
>>>>
>>>> With regards to experience I am not sure where I should place myself.
>>>> Have mapped a few things but I'm learning something new most days.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Sebastian
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>

-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] more SEO spam?

[Ben Kelley]

I agree.

 - Ben.

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 19:24, nwastra  wrote:

> We seem to be getting a lot of business edits in this form lately with
> only a name and description tag, often with address details or just spam in
> the description tag.
> As is usual with spam like business edits, they use a throw away email to
> make the edit and you never get a response from any query.
> https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=66761372
> I am in favour of deleting them as SEO spam.
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Blank map in remote country areas

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

So there are 2 issues (it seems): At what zoom does the road show, and 
at what zoom does the name show?


Take for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=11/-31.7211/150.4649

At this zoom no roads have names.

Zoom in to 12, and you see highway=unclassified roads that weren't 
visible at 11.


You don't start to see the names of any roads at all until zoom 13. At 
zoom 15 you see the names of all roads.


I think showing more detail a little bit sooner when there is less 
detail to show is going to be a difficult problem for a renderer to 
solve in a way that makes more sense than the current popular renderers.


I think going from some roads to all roads over 2 zooms (13->15) is not 
a bad compromise.



 - Ben.

On 22/1/19 13:50, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
A while back, there was mention on the list of OSM only showing vast 
amounts of blank whiteness when looking at remote country areas; & 
then there was further mention regarding Aussie country roads not 
showing up well enough in OSM.


A lady I speak to on another forum, lives in a small town in FNQ, & 
had complained on the forum about various on-line maps not showing any 
details.


After I asked her for some details, so we could possibly examine 
things, she has said: (for privacy, I have deleted the name of her 
actual town):


I live in an isolated remote town called xxx, although not as 
isolated as some. Two hours/150km west of Mareeba and three 
hours/210km west of Cairns.
So its: Cairns, Mareeba, Dimbulah, Petford, Almaden, Chillagoe. 
Petford & Almaden are way smaller than x.


I rarely use Google Maps, but use Google Earth a lot. Today is 
probably the first time I've looked at GM for this specific area.


I've now realised OpenStreetMaps is actually no worse than Google 
Maps, and in some things it's actually better.


Zooming into xx, OpenStreetMaps is accurate and up-to-date, with 
roads and tracks that are actually in use.


Google Maps shows streets that no longer exist. They may be/have 
been/are gazetted roads, but now don't even look like they ever 
existed even in track form (although they did way way back in the 
mining days, I think).


The problem when I originally commented was that if I looked at the 
area between Dimbulah (or Petford) and Chillagoe, there was nothing to 
tell me the name of the road. But looking at Google Maps today, 
there's nothing there either. Although when I zoom in a name comes up 
more quickly than it does on OpenStreetMaps.


If I'm looking at a hard copy paper map from RACQ or Sunmap or 
whoever, I can see at a glance where I am and what the names of 
everything are.


It's just that our distances are vast, and at the amount zoomed out 
that I want some detail, the populated areas have no detail either. So 
in a way I can't expect it.


However, outback roads are usually the *only* roads there are and it 
would be nice to have labelling when that much zoomed out. (Is this 
making sense to you?)


I have a reasonable knowledge of east coast highways and roads between 
them (mainly Qld and NSW) and reference to a map is just double 
checking or looking for shortcuts or detours. I'm a bit of a map 
freak. Have a stack of hard copy maps for the east coast, and spend 
time on Google Earth and Google Maps just checking out old and new 
roads, and looking up places I read about in the news. Unfortunately 
I'm not that good with terrain on topo maps, but never needed to use 
them enough. And I've recently learned that I need to double check 
altitudes on GE before I make assumptions about geography. Not always 
what it looks like.


Here is a starting point for my area. (Bearing in mind I'm on a Sony 
Vaio with a 13 inch screen (13.3" ??).)


Google Maps
Seems to have more 'stops' in its zoom ability.
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-17.3121687,144.755859,11.75z
Looking at it today

OpenStreetMap
Unfamiliar map. If I zoom in more than this I have absolutely nothing...
Not enough 'stops' in the zoom. All or nothing.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=11/-17.2500/144.7895

Also, at first glance it looks like the railway line is the main road. 
In fact you can't see there's a road there until I zoom right in. You 
can see the rest of Burke Development Road to Chillagoe, you can see 
the road from Petford to Irvinebank, but you can't see the Almaden 
Gingerella Road running generally to the west of the rail line, and on 
down to Mount Garnet or Mount Surprise. You wouldn't know it was 
there. (Local name is the Ootan Road.)


Google Maps is not much better to look at, but you can see the road, 
and the road is 'highlighted' (slightly)more than the rail line.


This railway line carries The Savannahlander which leaves Cairns for 
Forsayth on Wednesday and returns on Saturday except in the Wet 
Season. Nothing else travels on it, except the occasional QR Toyota 
with rail wheels.


So, to me, a lot of this would seem to tie in with country roads being 
mapped as =unclassified (& I noticed 

Re: [talk-au] Our work in last two weeks

[Ben Kelley]

Personally I think that's a handy warning.

   - Ben



On Tue., 22 Jan. 2019, 07:25 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:

> On 22/01/19 02:45, Nemanja Bračko wrote:
>
> I agree on that, but that's the way how this tool works.
>
>
> So you will have to accept that the tool is wrong and ignore its output.
>
> Altering the map to comply with a tool that is wrong is wrong.
>
>
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping opportunities along the Great North Walk

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

It should be possible to make a single relation for it.

  - Ben.

On 27/12/18 15:45, Dion Moult wrote:

G'day all!

I've started walking the Great North Walk and was miffed that I couldn't
immediately find a good online map showing the full route from Sydney to
Newcastle. Instead I found incredibly difficult to navigate websites, paywalled
online maps, and maps split up into many smaller pages.

I decided to walk it myself and create a map for it here:

https://thinkmoult.com/map-of-the-great-north-walk-sydney-to-newcastle.html

Out of curiosity, I was wondering what things I can help map while I'm on this
route? I am not currently aware of a single "route" / multi-line in the OSM
database that describes the Great North Walk.

I considered mapping the sign posts, but they are quite plenty and probably of
little benefit.

Any ideas?


--
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
Sent from my Apple Newton

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

Re: [talk-au] National Cycle Networks..

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

With regard to proliferation of dodgy routes, I am of the opinion that a
bike route should be verifiable.

I agree that the NCN doesn't really exist. Generally I don't remove the
tags, but I think I agree with you that in cases like this it could be
dangerous if you believed OSM.

 - Ben Kelley.



On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 at 12:00, Ian Sergeant  wrote:

> I've noticed over the past few years a National Cycle Network "creep"
> in Australia.
>

-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] How to map CBD boundaries?

[Ben Kelley]

I think the problem is that there is no official boundary for things like
"greater metropolitan area", and so I think this is to be expected.

We only have the suburb/town, and also the LGA.

e.g. The suburb of "Sydney" is quite small compared to what people consider
the city of Sydney to be. Is an address in the suburb next door in
"Sydney"? Officially no, although colloquially maybe yes.

 - Ben.

On 5 February 2018 at 14:15, Joel H. <95.5.ra...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I just downloaded an export of NSW boundary data from OSM. Now in this
> dataset a locality called "Tweed Heads" has been included, The problem is
> that is area only covers the CBD and not the city (including all suburbs)
> as a whole.
>
> How should I go about mapping this CBD boundary?
>
> Also if anyone who handled the imports can send across an OSM file
> containing only the city limits, or could add them, would be great!
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>



-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
http://www.users.on.net/~bhkelley/
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Routing through a park that doesn't have actual paths

[Ben Kelley]

I noticed in ridethecity.com (which uses OSM data) that where there is an
area that says bicycle=yes, it will route you around the edges of the area
(as if it was a circular way).

 - Ben.

On 1 February 2018 at 07:47, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> A 'well known' routing problem.
>
> Exists for areas of concrete too ... I think if you tag an area as
> pedestrian, or as steps .. routes will not go across them.
> For an area of steps the bottom, top and sides can have ways that are
> paths ... that gets around the routing issue.
> In the longer term routes should solve the problem .. they don't see it as
> an urgent issue as there are not many people using pedestrian routing.
>
>
> On 01-Feb-18 01:45 AM, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>
> It appears that this is a long standing enhancement request for
> GraphHopper:
> https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/82
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:17 AM Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote:
>
>> To clarify, both Google Maps and Strava routing can't do this either, I
>> was trying to work out if OSM could do this.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:10 AM Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In the past I've mapped exactly what I've surveyed on the ground in
>>> local parks, however I've recently been using the OSM routing feature
>>> rather than from other services and I've discovered it can't route directly
>>> across a park that is just grass.
>>>
>>> In the following example, I've mapped:
>>> - the short grass track (eastern side) that council are likely
>>> inadvertently making each time they bring vehicles through the gate to mow
>>> the park (the rest of the park boundary has timber bollards),
>>> - trails that lead from the Greater Glider Conservation Area out into
>>> the park, the small bit of the "Trail Circuit" in the park isn't actually a
>>> well defined path it just opens up but it isn't grass and the amount of
>>> trees keep it path like
>>> - other well formed paths that lead out to roads
>>>
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_
>>> foot=-27.54259%2C153.22173%3B-27.54227%2C153.21904#
>>> map=18/-27.54200/153.22056
>>>
>>> The OSM Wiki states:
>>>
>>> > Ways (highway=path or highway=footway) leading into a park from a
>>> road, should always be connected to the road for routing purposes. It's
>>> debatable whether they should connect to the park area with a shared node,
>>> or cross over the polygon without connecting. TODO discuss
>>> > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park)
>>>
>>> If a park is just a big grass area (with maybe a few obstacles like a
>>> playground) then it feels like the responsibility of the routing engine to
>>> just do this (maybe with an access tag to say it is okay to do so). It
>>> feels wrong for us mappers to map a "grass" path through the park from each
>>> entrance that we feel is a main thoroughfare.
>>>
>>> Am I missing something, have others "fixed" this problem elsewhere?
>>>
>>> Jono
>>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing 
> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>


-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
http://www.users.on.net/~bhkelley/
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] BYO drinks at restaurant

[Ben Kelley]

I think that's some kind of location code. I forget what it's called. If 
you search for that string in Google Maps it takes you to an address at 
the Gold Coast.



 - Ben.


On 2/11/17 10:27, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Thanks everyone for input - have gone with drinks:alcohol = BYO.

Now just a matter of seeing how it appears when the maps for my phone 
(OSMAND+) update next.


It's apparent though, when looking at restaurants, that very few 
details have been entered against them - frequently only "Restaurant" 
& Name, occasionally type of cuisine, with only a few others having 
any further details - phone, opening hours etc.


There's one strange bit of info that is showing up, at least on 
OSMAND, though.


If nothing else, the description of each place shows "Restaurant", the 
location Lat / Long & another apparent location field something like 
"5R3MXC5M+JM" - anybody have any idea what that could represent? I've 
looked at a couple of dozen listings for restaurants & other POIs, 
both here on the GC & also in Sydney, & every listing has a similar 
code against it.


Any ideas?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] BYO drinks at restaurant

[Ben Kelley]

To be honest, I don't think this is useful, but I guess that is up to 
the mapper.


 - Ben.

On 30/10/17 14:04, Nick Hocking wrote:
If byo=yes, then it would be useful to know if corkage is charged, and 
if so, how much.



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

Re: [talk-au] BYO drinks at restaurant

[Ben Kelley]

I can't see anything suitable on the amenity=restaurant page.

In some sense, I suspect this is a fairly Australian thing.

I wonder about a tag related to the service of alcohol at that 
restaurant. e.g. the description for Restaurant says "A restaurant is a 
place selling full meals served by waiters, generally formal with 
sit-down facilities and *often licensed (where allowed) to sell 
alcoholic drinks*."


I wonder about a tag that indicates if alcohol is available. Can you buy 
alcoholic drinks at this restaurant? Can you bring your own alcoholic 
drinks? These two are not mutually exclusive though.


These both seem like useful things to me. (Although that said, I have 
never used OSM to research where to go for dinner...)



 - Ben.


On 30/10/17 11:33, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

G'day all

Just adding a Pizza & Pasta restaurant that is BYO drinks.

Can't see any option
Thanks

Graeme


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

Re: [talk-au] Interchanges

[Ben Kelley]

I agree. highway=motorway_junction is to mark where you exit the motorway.

An aside: Exits from the Hume Motorway/M5 have exit numbers now as you
approach Sydney.

   - Ben.

On 16 Sep 2017 4:58 p.m., "Andrew Harvey"  wrote:

In Sydney there are a few named interchanges which have a mix of tags
(highway=motorway_junction, tourism=attraction, place=locality), they
are all the same thing so I'd like to determine the best tags to use.

Calga Interchange
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4860741425

Sir Roden Cutler VC Memorial Interchange
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2130503470

Light Horse Interchange
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2130503373

Pearces Corner
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4860741524
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/937430705

Top Ryde Junction
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4860741431

Meccano Set
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4860741423
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/390666005

The wiki page for highway=motorway_junction
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Ahighway%3Dmotorway_junction
is more about exit points along a motorway which may have a name or
number (ref), not so much for an interchange. So I don't think this is
the right tag to use. Plus JOSM warns it must be connected to the way,
which further confirms it's the wrong tag.

The proposed feature highway=junction
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/highway%3Djunction
looks like it's mapping out interchanges, so it seems like a better
tag, but it is less commonly used and still proposed. I'd prefer to
change them all to highway=junction, and better yet convert them to
areas.

I think it's fine to use tourism=attraction where it is such, like
Meccano Set, but it seems a bit of a stretch... Though this shouldn't
be the only tag.

What does everyone else think?

___
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] White Pages using OSM map - with accreditation

[Ben Kelley]

Wow that's interesting.

Sensis used to have their own mapping product.

 - Ben.

On 25 June 2017 at 18:58, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> Just noticed the online white pages is using OSM ! Maybe I'm behind the
> times.. :)
>
> https://www.whitepages.com.au/nsw-ambulance-10025780/ambulan
> ce-bookings-10025771B
>
>
> Would Sensis now consider releasing their data freely to OSM ... humm?
>
> Maybe the Sensis data is also copyright elsewhere too.
>
>
> I just added Alburn Ambo station too...
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>



-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
http://www.users.on.net/~bhkelley/
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Roadside rest areas tagged as camp sites

[Ben Kelley]

That sounds sensible.

In general I don't think a rest area should be tagged as a camp site.


 - Ben Kelley.


On 19/04/2017 08:54, Warin wrote:

Hi,


I have seen a few roadside 'rest areas' tagged in OSM as camp sites.

At least some of these are not suitable for pitching a tent .. so they 
are not camp sites.


At best they could be used by a caravan/RV ... but not a tent user (I 
am a tent user).


If the intention was to indicate there use by caravan/RV then they 
should be tagged as 'tourism=caravan_site'.



There now exists a tag 'highway=rest_area'. 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Drest_area



I think the tag 'highway=rest_area' should replace those 'rest areas' 
now tagged as 'camp sites', this would be closer to the truth.



Thoughts?



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

Re: [talk-au] When is a Road a Track

[Ben Kelley]

Generally if it's graded I would put highway=unclassified.

 - Ben.

On 10 February 2017 at 10:51, Warren  wrote:

> I have asked this question before but did not really get a clear answer.
>
> I am working off the Western Australian Main Roads data checking against
> the OSM road attributes.  Occasionally I come across lines that are classed
> in OSM as highway:unclassified or highway:residential that do not appear on
> the Main Roads data base.
>
> I would argue that these are named tracks rather than roads but I wanted
> to check others opinion.
>
> Do I leave them alone or change the classification to highway:track?
>
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Local Government Areas without Councils

[Ben Kelley]

Just my 2c:

To the average map user, it seems that these are pretty much the same 
thing. (Unincorporated areas and local government boundaries.)


While the technical definition is different, I'm not sure that matters 
so much. The 2 don't physically overlap or intersect. I don't see any 
problem with tagging them similarly with regard to admin boundaries.


 - Ben.



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

Re: [talk-au] place by remoteness

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

The remoteness doesn't need to change the definition of the place (e.g.
make a hamlet a town) but rather only change how it is rendered.

A very remote track might show, as might a remote hamlet.

I agree this might be difficult to implement in the renderer.

  - Ben.

-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
Sent from my Windows XP PC
On 5 May 2016 10:26, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Remoteness .. nice!
> It is based on population density .. the same argument I make for lowering
> the population barriers for city/town/village for Australia. So, yes, I do
> like it.
> How far to take the 'remoteness' effect on the population barriers to?
> If the area has very little population then 1 person could be defined as a
> city? NO, certain things are expected in a city .. certainly more than 1
> person!
> So there are limits as to how far to go in this direction.
>
> Would need to revert to
> city>100,000>town>10,000>village>200>hamlet>100
> for 'Major cities' and 'Inner regional' areas -
> as judged by the 'remoteness' thing as I can see no reason not to use the
> world wide population points here as the population densities are similar?
> These areas are in close proximity and would be similar around the world
> so the chosen population points should be suitable.
>
> The 'Outer Regional' areas ... about half the population density so
> city>50,000>town>5,000>village>100>hamlet>50
>  The 'Remote' areas ... about half the population density so
> city>25,000>town>2,500>village>50>hamlet>25
> The 'Very Remote' areas ... about half the population density so
> city>12,500>town>2,500>village>50>hamlet>25
>
> Err Winton would be come a village .. Longreach becomes a town... would
> that be acceptable?
> I think that works for my perception of those places.
>
> It will add to the complexity but be justifiable technically. Is it worth
> the added complexity?
>
> On 4/05/2016 6:28 PM, Alex Sims wrote:
>
> I’ve had an involvement in this discussion in the past and wonder if a way
> forward might be to include an adjusting factor for remoteness.
>
> If you have a look at the map at
> http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/remoteness+structure
>
> which shows the Australian Remoteness Index this suggests that we could
> define town, hamlet, etc according to population but then adjust the
> population limits downward for remote areas.
>
> The other point I’d make (as I did some time ago) is that the labels are
> “British English” labels and form a hierarchy where the names make sense in
> the UK but shouldn’t be taken as a slight against any area. They are merely
> a series of words that define the level of population centre.
>
> Looking at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place#Populated_settlements.2C_urban_and_rural
> this seems to support and adjustment based on remoteness in the Australian
> context.
>
> Alex
>
> On 4 May 2016, at 8:11 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/05/2016 12:50 AM, Christopher Barham wrote:
>
>
> On 03 May 2016, at 14:22, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 
>
> Why judge on the population?
>
> Larger populations get more services - Police, Medical, Education ... they go 
> hand in hand.
>
> Populations are usually stated - on the entry signs to towns, villages .. and 
> collected by the ABS. So verifiable and accessible.
>
> Yes they do change .. but not by vast amounts quickly.
>
> Usually the relationship between population centres remains fairly static .. 
> if one grows so do the surrounding ones.
>
> Much easier to quickly asses and correctly tag this way. So it satisfies the 
> KISS principle.
>
> 
>
> City is not just a function of population - It’s can also be a political
> appointment/status? - e.g. Charters Towers and Redcliffe are cities :
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Australia
>
>
>
> Yes there is an 'official designation system' ... subject to political
> pressure and separate rules for each state.
> I think the best guide we have is the population, certainly I think it is
> much better than the officially given 'status'.
>
> --
> I did leave out of the original post that the ABS data may include more
> 'cities' with populations over 10,000 than the present OSM data base
> contains ... yet to sort that out.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing 
> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] Inappropriate tagged areas

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

I thought natural=wood was for trees that had not been planted for the
purpose of forestry.

landuse=forest is where they were planted for forestry.

Use is not consistent. (If you harvest the natural trees, which one is it?)
See the Forest page on the wiki, but landcover=trees seems incorrect.

  - Ben.
On Dec 17, 2015 8:25 AM, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi ...
> I'm using LPI to tag National Park and State Forest boundaries and came
> across some large "Inappropriately tagged areas".
> Way 25968044tagged as Barrington Tops National Park, this area includes
> National Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests.
> Way 232137774 tagged as Myall State Forest, this area includes National
> Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests.
> Way169174227tagged as Blue Mountains National Park, this area includes
> National Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests.
>
> They don't have a source, I have made comments on the first 2 changesets-
> no response so far.
>
> They appear to be tracing forest areas from satellite imagery, as such I
> think they would be best tagged as "landcover=trees, source=imagery" with
> no name nor other identifying tags. They are all much much larger than
> their name would suggest.
>
> The last one already has an encompassingRelation: 3550886 that has tag
> 'natural=wood'. At least some of that area is State Forest that has pine
> trees .. As an Ozie I don't call them 'natural' ... it is hair splitting
> but I'd rather use 'landcover=trees'. :-)
>
> The first one carries a tag "layer=-5", I assume this is to suppress its
> rendering or at least allow any other tagged there to over write it. I am
> tempted to use the same tagging method on all three ways.
>
> Comments please?
>
> ___
> 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] Average speed limit cameras

[Ben Kelley]

NSW RMS web site says they are only for heavy vehicles in NSW.

   - Ben Kelley.
On 18 Sep 2015 15:14, "Andrew Harvey" <andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On 18/09/15 12:26, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> >> Currently in NSW point-to-point cameras are only used to check heavy
> >> vehicle speeds.
>
> But if all evidence on the ground indicates such point-to-point
> cameras are active and doesn't indicated their use only for
> heavy vehicles, shouldn't we map it as applicable for all vehicles?
> What source suggests otherwise?
>
> ___
> 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] A way with no tags

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

Yes it's possible. I suspect someone created the way and forgot to add the
tags before saving.

   - Ben.

-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
Sent from my Windows XP PC
On 2 Sep 2015 07:10, "John Henderson" <snow...@gmx.com> wrote:

> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/330876380
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, this road seems to have no tags whatsoever.
>
> I didn't think such a situation was possible.
>
> John
>
> ___
> 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] street addressing city or suburb?

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

In OSM (for Australia), suburb=town, which is admin_level=9 for admin
boundaries. We don't define the boundary of the wider metropolitan area.

To be honest I'm not sure of the value in adding this to addresses. The
location of the address (within admin boundaries) will determine this,
along with any street related to the address.

That is, it's probably better to let routing software infer the town,
rather than re-enter it for every address.

  - Ben Kelley.

-- 
Ben Kelley
Sent from my Nexus 7
On 14 Oct 2014 11:19, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote:


 As far as routing engines go, my guess is City=Town=Suburb, they would
 dump them all into one box and sort.

 But I confess I don't see them as interchangeable in other contexts.
 Difficult question Nicholas !

 David


 On Mon, 2014-10-13 at 23:54 +, Nicholas G Lawrence wrote:
  When I use the in-browser editor iD, and create a building outline to
 tag, it offers up addr:city as a tag, but not addr:suburb
 
  Of course, I can add a new tag addr:suburb easily enough, but it is a
 couple more steps.
 
  So the path of least resistance is to populate the tag addr:city and
 leave blank addr:suburb
 
  Personally, I am leaning towards addr:city = Coorparoo as it fits the
 convention of addressing letters as you point out.
 
  But I'd like to adhere to the established convention in Australia.
 
  Cheers,
  Nick
 
  -Original Message-
  From: David Bannon [mailto:dban...@internode.on.net]
  Sent: Tuesday, 14 October 2014 9:21 AM
  To: Nicholas G Lawrence
  Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
  Subject: Re: [talk-au] street addressing city or suburb?
 
 
  Nicholas, generally, when addressing an envelope for example, we'd say -
 
  somestreet,
  Coorparoo,
  Queensland, postcode
 
  We'd reserve the use of Brisbane to an address in the CBD itself. Or
 so I think...
 
  Apply the same principle here do you think ?
 
  David
 
  On Mon, 2014-10-13 at 23:09 +, Nicholas G Lawrence wrote:
   Hi all,
  
  
  
   What is the convention for tagging an address for a residential
   property in a suburb (Coorparoo) in a city (Brisbane)?
  
  
  
   addr:city = “Brisbane”
  
  
  
   Or
  
  
  
   addr:city = “Coorparoo”
  
  
  
   Or
  
  
  
   addr:suburb = “Coorparoo”
  
  
  
   Which is best for navigation and routing?
  
  
  
   Cheers
  
   Nick Lawrence
   Senior Spatial Science Officer (Geospatial Technologies) Engineering 
   Technology | Department of Transport and Main Roads
  
  
  
   Floor 19 | 313 Adelaide Street | Brisbane Qld 4000 GPO Box 1412 |
   Brisbane Qld 4001
   P:(07) 30667977
   E: nicholas.g.lawre...@tmr.qld.gov.au
   W: www.tmr.qld.gov.au
  
  
  
  
   **
   *
   WARNING: This email (including any attachments) may contain legally
   privileged, confidential or private information and may be protected
   by copyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it was
   intended to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way. No one
   is allowed to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose, distribute,
   print or copy this email without appropriate authority.
  
   If this email was not intended for you and was sent to you by mistake,
   please telephone or email me immediately, destroy any hardcopies of
   this email and delete it and any copies of it from your computer
   system. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, and
   any legal privilege and confidentiality attached to this email is not
   waived or destroyed by that mistake.
  
  
   It is your responsibility to ensure that this email does not contain
   and is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interference by
   third parties or replication problems (including incompatibility with
   your computer system).
  
   Opinions contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the
   opinions of the Department of Transport and Main Roads, or endorsed
   organisations utilising the same infrastructure.
   **
   *
  
  
  
   ___
   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

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

Re: [talk-au] New key proposal - paved=yes/no

[Ben Kelley]

My experience is that surface can have descriptive values that don't
immediately indicate if the road is paved or not.

Things like asphalt (presuming paved=yes) and gravel (presuming
paved=no) are common.

  - Ben Kelley
 On 22 Sep 2014 09:24, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:

  Tagging for the render?

 You can have surface=paved or surface =unpaved! More detailes options are
 also avalible.

 The argument on the routing not using the right method for determining its
 route should be adressed to the router! Not patched to 'fix' the routers
 problem. The router should descriminate on the surfaces its finds actptable
 rather than ones it thinks are unaceptable. e.g. for paved it should acept
 surface = paved, concrete, asphalt ... is that just too hard?!  I'm
 assuming cobblestones are unaceptable.. but if in France then they would be
 aceptable .. some of their 'main' roads are cobblestones ...

 My vote would be 'No'. As surface provides the information .. in some
 cases in more detail but the grouping into paved and unpaved is
 resasonable.



 On 21/09/2014 12:25 PM, Ben Kelley wrote:

 Hi.

 This sounds like a very good suggestion. Often you just want to know if
 the road is paved.

 It seems like that was the original intent of surface=, but that is not
 how it gets used now.

 How surface= implies paved= sounds good too.

- Ben.
 On 21 Sep 2014 11:03, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote:


 Interesting proposal on the OSM Tagging list. Oz would have a
 unpaved/paved ratio as higher that most countries, we should have an
 opinion on this.

 So far, reaction has been mixed, some (including myself) welcoming it
 and some seeing it as a duplicate of surface=

 Comments folks ?

 David

 On Sat, 2014-09-20 at 23:42 +0200, Tomasz Kaźmierczak wrote:
  Hello all,
 
  I've posted the below message on the forum, and have been directed
  from there to this mailing list, thus re-posting it.
 
  Idea
 
  I would like to suggest making the paved key for highways (and
  probably other types of elements) official. Taginfo for paved:
  http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/paved#values
 
  The above shows that the key is already being used, but the Wiki
  doesn't describe this key, instead redirecting Key:paved to the
  article about Key:surface.
 
  Rationale
 
  Currently, the surface key is being used as a way of saying that a
  given highway is paved or unpaved, but often the value for the surface
  key is not a generic paved or unpaved, but a specific surface type is
  given.This is of course very useful for describing the particular
  surface type a given highway has. However, in some cases, a simple
  information on just whether a highway is paved or not, would be very
  useful. One such case would be navigation software – if a user chooses
  to avoid unpaved roads, the software can check the value of the
  surface key, but in practice most (all?) of the navigation software
  only checks for a subset of all the possible values the surface key
  can have. This leads to incorrect (in terms of what the user expects)
  navigation when, for example, the surface is set to some value that
  describes an unpaved road, not recognized by the navigation software –
  if the software assumes that all highways are paved, unless explicitly
  stated otherwise (by recognized values of known keys), then, in
  consequence, it assumes that the road in question is paved.
 
  If the paved key was widely used, then the navigation software would
  have a simple and clear way of checking whether a given road is paved
  or not. The default value of the paved key for highways could be yes,
  so that it would be consistent with the assumption that highways in
  general are paved.
 
  I don't mean that we should stop using the paved and unpaved values
  for the surface key – I'm sure those generic values are useful in some
  cases. However, using the paved key would be also very useful. Also,
  the surface=paved could also implicate paved=yes and similarly
  surface=unpaved could implicate paved=no, so that duplication of the
  information could be avoided when the generic paved and unpaved values
  are set for the surface key.
 
  I believe that adding an article for the paved key to the Wiki would
  encourage people to use this tag, and navigation software makers to
  implement support for it in their applications.
 
  What do you think about that?
 
 
 
  Regards,
 
  Tomek
 
  ___
  Tagging mailing list
  tagg...@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



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



 ___
 Talk-au mailing 
 listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

Re: [talk-au] New key proposal - paved=yes/no

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

This sounds like a very good suggestion. Often you just want to know if the
road is paved.

It seems like that was the original intent of surface=, but that is not how
it gets used now.

How surface= implies paved= sounds good too.

   - Ben.
On 21 Sep 2014 11:03, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote:


 Interesting proposal on the OSM Tagging list. Oz would have a
 unpaved/paved ratio as higher that most countries, we should have an
 opinion on this.

 So far, reaction has been mixed, some (including myself) welcoming it
 and some seeing it as a duplicate of surface=

 Comments folks ?

 David

 On Sat, 2014-09-20 at 23:42 +0200, Tomasz Kaźmierczak wrote:
  Hello all,
 
  I've posted the below message on the forum, and have been directed
  from there to this mailing list, thus re-posting it.
 
  Idea
 
  I would like to suggest making the paved key for highways (and
  probably other types of elements) official. Taginfo for paved:
  http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/paved#values
 
  The above shows that the key is already being used, but the Wiki
  doesn't describe this key, instead redirecting Key:paved to the
  article about Key:surface.
 
  Rationale
 
  Currently, the surface key is being used as a way of saying that a
  given highway is paved or unpaved, but often the value for the surface
  key is not a generic paved or unpaved, but a specific surface type is
  given.This is of course very useful for describing the particular
  surface type a given highway has. However, in some cases, a simple
  information on just whether a highway is paved or not, would be very
  useful. One such case would be navigation software – if a user chooses
  to avoid unpaved roads, the software can check the value of the
  surface key, but in practice most (all?) of the navigation software
  only checks for a subset of all the possible values the surface key
  can have. This leads to incorrect (in terms of what the user expects)
  navigation when, for example, the surface is set to some value that
  describes an unpaved road, not recognized by the navigation software –
  if the software assumes that all highways are paved, unless explicitly
  stated otherwise (by recognized values of known keys), then, in
  consequence, it assumes that the road in question is paved.
 
  If the paved key was widely used, then the navigation software would
  have a simple and clear way of checking whether a given road is paved
  or not. The default value of the paved key for highways could be yes,
  so that it would be consistent with the assumption that highways in
  general are paved.
 
  I don't mean that we should stop using the paved and unpaved values
  for the surface key – I'm sure those generic values are useful in some
  cases. However, using the paved key would be also very useful. Also,
  the surface=paved could also implicate paved=yes and similarly
  surface=unpaved could implicate paved=no, so that duplication of the
  information could be avoided when the generic paved and unpaved values
  are set for the surface key.
 
  I believe that adding an article for the paved key to the Wiki would
  encourage people to use this tag, and navigation software makers to
  implement support for it in their applications.
 
  What do you think about that?
 
 
 
  Regards,
 
  Tomek
 
  ___
  Tagging mailing list
  tagg...@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



 ___
 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] Wither Sydney suburb boundaries?

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

I seem to remember there is a way to add the node to a relation so that it
marks where the name should go for the boundary.

   - Ben.

On Apr 30, 2014 12:11 AM, Michael Gratton m...@vee.net wrote:


 I noticed that as for many suburbs in SA, since I replaced the
place=suburb node previously used the name of the suburb is no longer
rendered. What's best practice here, do we really want to different
entities with the same name?

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

Re: [talk-au] Wither Sydney suburb boundaries?

[Ben Kelley]

Thanks Ian. :-)
On Apr 30, 2014 7:31 AM, Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com wrote:

 Admin_centre.

 On 30 Apr 2014, at 6:11 am, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi.

 I seem to remember there is a way to add the node to a relation so that it
 marks where the name should go for the boundary.

- Ben


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

Re: [talk-au] Wither Sydney suburb boundaries?

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

My memory of the last abs import was that it was reasonably accurate, but
not always totally accurate.

As such it is definitely worth importing from a data quality point of view.

A way to deal with updates would be good though. Is there an ID that from
abs for the boundaries that could be kept in OSM? Perhaps a tag like tiger
has to show if the boundary has been edited.

   - Ben.
On 21/04/2014 5:44 PM, Daniel O'Connor daniel.ocon...@gmail.com wrote:


  This is interesting. Looking at 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Australian_government_public_information_datasets,
 it seems ABS data should already be fine to use, and is indeed already in
 use for suburbs. However from the import plan page 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/ABS_Data, the import
 doesn't seem to have gotten too far, and also questions the accuracy of the
 data.
 
  Given that many suburbs in NSW are currently indicated by nodes, would
 an import of the ABS boundaries, however inaccurate, be better than nothing?

 Possibly,  but to go further than the concerns in the abs data page -
 these aren't suburbs,  just approximations for statistics at a fixed point
 in time. That means there are areas where the population count is low and
 distorts the reporting area.
 As you would expect that's more remote areas, but it does make the data
 different from the gazetted suburb lists.

 If you had a process mapped out to migrate/redraw these when local data or
 updated abs data is avail,  it'd be a lot more valuable than a one time
 import.
 Given its been raised before,  might be worth checking the imports and
 talk Au archives for more nuanced opinions too.

 ___
 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] Sydney light rail

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

I see the new Sydney light rail stations are in. (Good work!) A couple 
of questions:


1 - Should the stop names have Light Rail appended? (e.g. Hawthorne 
Light Rail vs Hawthorne) I think no. The rail=station at Summer Hill 
is called Summer Hill, rather than Summer Hill Railway Station.


2 - Does anyone know if the new stop locations were surveyed? e.g. At 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-33.87988/151.14680 I surveyed the 
new bridge across the canal and the new dog fence yesterday, and 
Hawthorne seems a bit further north than I remember. I guess I can 
contact the mapper and ask.


 - Ben Kelley.

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

Re: [talk-au] Address tagging guidelines for Australia

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

I think in Australia, as far as gazetted places go, suburb=town, but for
these, you can derive it if the suburb has an admin boundary.

City is not gazetted. E.g. Sydney is a suburb. An address in nearby Pyrmont
is not in Sydney (the suburb), so saying it is in a city called Sydney
might be confusing.


  - Ben Kelley.
 On 19 Jan 2014 14:01, Stéphane Guillou stephane.guil...@gmail.com
wrote:

  Thanks everyone for your input.

 I wonder what was the rationale behind using abbreviations for countries
 and states as I understood that the database must be as human-readable as
 possible.
 Still, I will be following the recommendations on the Key:addr page for
 addr:country=AU.

 However, I am still unsure about suburb vs city. Key:addr tells us to
 watch out for the Australian definition of suburbs, and Wikipedia says the
 following:

 In Australia and New Zealand, suburbs have become formalised as
 geographic subdivisions of a city and are used by postal services in *
 addressing*.

 As we are here tagging the address, I was wondering: are we tagging so the
 addresses appear as they should when we use them (e.g. when we write them
 on an envelope) - the original point of tagging an address I guess - (in
 which case I would just go with addr:city=The Gap), or should we understand
 the tags as literally as possible (in that case, I would go
 addr:city=Brisbane and addr:suburb=The Gap).

 What would be the best way to decide on a convention so we can add
 guidelines for OSM-AU?

 Cheers

 Stéphane (chtfn)

 On 19/01/14 11:04, Ross Scanlon wrote:

 I'd suggest you check this page

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr

 You'll see that the addr:country is supposed to be:

 The ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 two letter country code in upper case.

 We are talking addresses not is_in.

 Also addr:state can be either but it tends to be the abbreviation.

 Cheers
 Ross


 On 19/01/14 09:42, cleary wrote:


 I prefer
 state=Queensland
 state_code=QLD
 country=Australia
 country_code=AU
 which I understand is consistent with
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:is_in

 While there is scope for abbreviations in certain special identified
 categories, the norm remains that names written in full. It seems to me
 that the state, state_code, country and country_code tags make
 adequate provision for both.




 ___
 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


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

Re: [talk-au] Address tagging guidelines for Australia

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

There is an admin boundary level for local government areas. This is like a
British county.

Note that all these can be derived for an address simply by looking where
the address node is. Is it inside the boundary for the country Australia?
Then then the address is in Australia. No need to tag it as well. Same for
suburb/town, LGA and state.

The things you can't infer from an address's location are the street
number, and which street it is associated with.

The boundaries for state and country are well defined. Less so for town and
LGA, but tools like Nominatum will use these boundaries to describe
addresses where they are present.

  - Ben Kelley.
 On 20 Jan 2014 09:22, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:

  On 19/01/2014 8:48 PM, Ben Kelley wrote:

 Hi.

 I think in Australia, as far as gazetted places go, suburb=town, but for
 these, you can derive it if the suburb has an admin boundary.

 City is not gazetted. E.g. Sydney is a suburb. An address in nearby
 Pyrmont is not in Sydney (the suburb), so saying it is in a city called
 Sydney might be confusing.


   - Ben Kelley.

 Perhaps better to deal with it as a county/shire issue? As we are british
 based then this may be of some assistance?
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/English_Counties

 This should separate any two suburbs of the same name (I hope!).
 Unfortunately these are not in common use here (unlike britain) so may not
 be helpful for general navigation.

 As for the post office - I'd think they use the post code first rather
 than the city/suburb. I'd think the OS Map is for navigation, not for the
 post office? So it should make sense in a navigational way?

  On 19 Jan 2014 14:01, Stéphane Guillou stephane.guil...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  Thanks everyone for your input.

 I wonder what was the rationale behind using abbreviations for countries
 and states as I understood that the database must be as human-readable as
 possible.
 Still, I will be following the recommendations on the Key:addr page for
 addr:country=AU.

 However, I am still unsure about suburb vs city. Key:addr tells us to
 watch out for the Australian definition of suburbs, and Wikipedia says the
 following:

 In Australia and New Zealand, suburbs have become formalised as
 geographic subdivisions of a city and are used by postal services in *
 addressing*.

 As we are here tagging the address, I was wondering: are we tagging so
 the addresses appear as they should when we use them (e.g. when we write
 them on an envelope) - the original point of tagging an address I guess -
 (in which case I would just go with addr:city=The Gap), or should we
 understand the tags as literally as possible (in that case, I would go
 addr:city=Brisbane and addr:suburb=The Gap).

 What would be the best way to decide on a convention so we can add
 guidelines for OSM-AU?

 Cheers

 Stéphane (chtfn)




 ___
 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] Damage to Maps

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

I don't have access to a real computer at the moment, but the revert plugin
in JOSM is pretty easy to use.

Do you know the change set number? Perhaps someone else can assist.

Have you contacted the person?

Note that once someone starts manually fixing up a bad edit, it gets harder
to revert.

   - Ben Kelley
On 2 Jan 2014 13:56, Peter Watson peter.bmwk7...@gmail.com wrote:

 A new user has removed some large amount of shore line in the Hawkesbury
 River Brooklyn area. The Hawkesbury River and Ku-ring-gai Chase National
 Park relations are now broken. There is a lot of white now appearing. The
 whole change set probably needs to be reverted.

 Peter W34


 ___
 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: Re: data.sa.gov.au

[Ben Kelley]

Well done. Thanks for following it up.

  - Ben Kelley
On 25 Jul 2013 16:19, Alex Sims a...@softgrow.com wrote:

  I've now obtained permission and recorded it at
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#South_Australian_Government_data

 This is really very helpful as it allows:
 * at least a first pass for filling in nonames roads
 * geo-referencing  Bing photos against property boundaries at least near
 the CBD
 * accurate Local Government and Suburb boundaries as opposed to ABS
 approximations
 * more bike lanes, playgrounds, fire stations, ambulance stations etc. to
 be included

 I followed a similar path to what was used for data.gov.au, and would
 comment that the day to write seeking permission/clarification is today as
 it takes a while, but the outcome is worth it.

 Anyway I'm excited and quite pleased, just wish I had more time for
 mapping.

 Alex
  Original Message   Subject: Re: [talk-au] data.sa.gov.au  
 Date:
 Sat, 25 May 2013 21:35:55 +0930  From: Alex Sims 
 a...@softgrow.coma...@softgrow.com  To:
 talk-au@openstreetmap.org

 I'm just writing an email now to seek a similar agreement for
 sa.data.gov.au as for data.gov.au

 Alex

 On 25/05/2013 5:23 PM, Paul Norman wrote:

  The only issue with CC BY is that some data owners believe that
 attribution “reasonable to the medium” is more than the ODbL guarantees
 which allows “notices in a location … where users would be likely to look
 for it” such as a wiki page linked from /copyright or in the case of
 produced works, a “notice … reasonably calculated to make [anyone] aware
 that Content was obtained from the Database” (The “Database” in that quote
 would be what was provided under CC BY).

 ** **

 Some cities releasing data as CC BY insisted that only mention on any page
 where the map was viewed was reasonable, which is clearly unreasonable when
 there can be dozens of sources on one page, or even hundreds.

 ** **

 *From:* Ian Sergeant [mailto:inas66+...@gmail.com inas66+...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Saturday, May 25, 2013 12:09 AM
 *To:* Daniel O'Connor
 *Cc:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] data.sa.gov.au

 ** **

 Hi Daniel,

 The first step should be to find out if they are willing to have their
 data relicenced under our licence?

 CC-BY data is nice, and means that the data owner is likely only seeking
 attribution (which we do provide) but my understanding is that it is still
 insufficient for us to use without further permission from the data owner.
 Pointers to our attribution page have worked in the past in gaining such
 permission.

 Ian.

 On 24 May 2013 18:58, Daniel O'Connor daniel.ocon...@gmail.com wrote:***
 *

 The SA govt has joined many of the other state/local governments in
 publishing open data. 

 ** **

 The current implementation is powered by CKAN, and though I haven't seen
 it yet, appears to be leveraging openstreetmap / cloudmade in some fashion.
 

 ** **

 Anyway, the majority of the data sets are CC-A licensed, and in either CSV
 or Shapefile format:

 ** **

 Some initial things that might be worth importing/using as a
 reference/looking into:

 http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/major-and-minor-roads

 http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/library-locations

 http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/parks-and-reserves

 http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/sa-playgrounds

 http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/stormwater-nodes

 http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/surface-water-catchments

 http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/suburb-boundaries

 and of course:

 http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/centrelink-office-locations

 ** **

 Not sure how much overlap with data.gov.au data sets (assume some).

 ** **

 Anyone want to have a look around and

 1) Call out the things you think are missing

 2) Call out the things you'd want to have imported or manually transcribed
 into open street map




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


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

Re: [talk-au] Rivers that have dams on them

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

I would run the main waterway=river way through the lake polygon, like you
run it through a riverbank polygon.

  - Ben Kelley
 On 12/06/2013 2:32 PM, Brett Russell brussell...@live.com.au wrote:


 Hi**

 I am now starting work on rivers and streams but would like some guidance
 on dealing with rivers that have dams on them.  A good example is the
 Forth River in Tasmania.  I have started building up the river banks as
 it can be quite wide using the polygon tagged riverbank and had no issues
 as yet.  But what do I do with hydro lakes?  I have read that some OSM
 mappers do not like the river running through the lake and prefer it to
 stop and start it at the lake.  Must admit that I struggle to know when a
 river stops and lake starts when working from Bing.  Also, water may go a
 little distance in an underground pipe so you get a gap from the dam wall
 to the outflow from the power station.  I assume we map what we see from
 Bing?

 As usual, any guidance would be appreciated to improve my mapping quality.
 

 I used OSM on a nine day Overland Track Wall and found it very good with
 the Garmins that I was using.  Used the routable maps and found they were
 about a one kilometre in ten understated on distance due to fewer nodes
 recorded in OSM compared to the distance tracked by the GPSs.  Still very
 impressive compared to the expensive and poor quality Garmin maps.  Need
 to work with someone to get OSM bushwalking maps going as walking tracks,
 mountains and huts need to be zoomed in a long way to see thus you get
 “lost” in the trees finding them.   Also the search feature on the Garmin
 can be rather “broken”, by that items do not appear in the all POI lists
 but can be found in sub lists.  Bit more work needed by my to refine the
 tracks and the features but gradually working my way south to north
 refining the track.

 Mud Map 2 looks promising but sadly it does not render lakes and mountains
 being optimised for 4WD tracks.  It is better suited to the 4WD users than
 bushwalkers at the moment but I do hope that they continue its development
 to cover bushwalkers.

 It would be great to combine Contour Australia 5M with OSM data into one
 img file rather than having both OSM and Contour Australia 5M maps enabled.
 Especially useful for Garmin Basecamp on the computer as you either have
 OSM or Contours Australia 5 showing.

 Also for drawing in rivers and streams it would be good in JOSM to have
 Contours Australia as a data layer so I can deal with rivers and streams
 that run under forest cover.

 As usual again any help greatly appeciated.

 Cheers Brett


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


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

Re: [talk-au] Alphanumeric references in NSW

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

The new routes are supposed to be complete by the end of this year.

I know it takes me a while to get around to fixing something on OSM.

Perhaps if you are keen then approach 2 is OK (and signage will catch up
eventually). If you are lazy then 1 is the default. :)

  - Ben Kelley.
 On 10 May 2013 07:06, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi,

 I'm surprised you couldn't find some F3 signs there as well!

 In any event, we can..

 1. Ignore the new routes until they are completed.  Then re-reference the
 road.
 2. As soon as the route is confirmed and there are some signs,
 re-reference the road
 3. Adopt some new schema that allows us to have both route references at
 once.
 4. Adopt of hodge-podge approach, and reference partial roads, based on
 the assessment/whim of the mapper concerned.

 I originally proposed 1, but now I'm leaning towards 2, because I feel I'm
 swimming against the tide.

 I don't think we're capable of doing 3.  And I'd hate to end up with 4.

 Ian.


 On 10 May 2013 05:29, Ben Johnson tangarar...@gmail.com wrote:

 I took a look there last weekend. As you say... inconsistencies
 everywhere.

 Northbound all are M1 with B74, and there's even a distance reassurance
 sign (not interchange-related) showing distances to Brisbane, titled M1
 Pacific Mwy which I was surprised to see.

 Southbound all are NR1 with B74.

 The signs at the top of the ramps are in odd combinations like NR1
 Pacific Mwy on one sign, and M1 Freeway on another...

 It's a real tourist attraction for sign geeks!

 BJ

 On 09/05/2013, at 22:11, Nathan Van Der Meulen natvan...@yahoo.com
 wrote:

  You're not going to win any way you change the route references.  On
 the ground, around the Tuggerah Interchange alone are references to Nat
 Route 1, M1, Pacific Motorway etc.  Note that the freeway is referenced as
 M1 from Wyong Rd (B74) but on the freeway it's still NR1.  B74 only seems
 to be referenced at the interchange.  If you only edit as per what's on the
 ground, how do you edit that?
 
  Sent from my iPad
 
  On 03/05/2013, at 21:00, talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
 
  Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 
  To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://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. Alphanumeric references in NSW (Ian Sergeant)
   2. Re: Alphanumeric references in NSW (Ben Kelley)
   3. Re: Alphanumeric references in NSW (Ian Sergeant)
   4. Re: Alphanumeric references in NSW (Ben Johnson)
   5. Re: Alphanumeric references in NSW (Ian Sergeant)
 
 
  --
 
  Message: 1
  Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 15:07:02 +1000
  From: Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com
  To: OSM - Talk-au Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
  Subject: [talk-au] Alphanumeric references in NSW
  Message-ID:
CALDa4YLY+4KEnutrnBmjcRpE5z3G5hH4z6Yzyu=duwiw5sn...@mail.gmail.com
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
 
  Hi,
 
  I've noticed a few people are changing the references in NSW to the
  alphanumeric references before the signage has changed.
 
  I don't see the purpose of this.  I doesn't correspond to what is on
 the
  ground, it must be confusing to people actually trying to use OSM for
  navigation.  Also, given it is the RTA coordinate this, it wouldn't be
  surprising if some of the routes actually differed from the proposed
 routes
  on the webpage.
 
  To the best of my knowledge the only route that has been re-referenced
 is
  the B73, the others still retain their existing signage - with perhaps
 an
  uncovered sign here and there.  I traced the
 
  I'd suggest we can use the wiki to coordinate as these references
 change?
  That way we can ensure the entire route is renamed at once, rather
 than a
  patchwork?
 
  Ian.
  P.S. Of course there have been a few routes (M7, A31/M31 approaching
  Albury) that have been this way for a while, and aren't at issue here.
  -- next part --
  An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
  URL: 
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20130503/f593d5da/attachment-0001.html
 
 
  --
 
  Message: 2
  Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 15:33:45 +1000
  From: Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com
  To: Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com
  Cc: OSM - Talk-au Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
  Subject: Re: [talk-au] Alphanumeric references in NSW
  Message-ID:
CAE4-2TKPPKzjA3EE-kwfkDrH=8b-_by+h74hv3ytdgn+ajl...@mail.gmail.com
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
 
  Hi.
 
  I have seen a few A15 signs on the New England Highway, but there are
 still
  quite a few 43

Re: [talk-au] Alphanumeric references in NSW

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

I have seen a few A15 signs on the New England Highway, but there are still
quite a few 43 and 15 signs along the route. The ground can still be a bit
confusing.

  - Ben Kelley.
On 3 May 2013 15:08, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi,

 I've noticed a few people are changing the references in NSW to the
 alphanumeric references before the signage has changed.

 I don't see the purpose of this.  I doesn't correspond to what is on the
 ground, it must be confusing to people actually trying to use OSM for
 navigation.  Also, given it is the RTA coordinate this, it wouldn't be
 surprising if some of the routes actually differed from the proposed routes
 on the webpage.

 To the best of my knowledge the only route that has been re-referenced is
 the B73, the others still retain their existing signage - with perhaps an
 uncovered sign here and there.  I traced the

 I'd suggest we can use the wiki to coordinate as these references
 change?   That way we can ensure the entire route is renamed at once,
 rather than a patchwork?

 Ian.
 P.S. Of course there have been a few routes (M7, A31/M31 approaching
 Albury) that have been this way for a while, and aren't at issue here.
 ___
 Talk-au mailing list
 Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


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

Re: [talk-au] Suburbs in Australia

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

Suburb can mean an area bounded by a gazetted boundary. There is a sense in
which town is similar to suburb, in the sense of how the boundary is
defined. I am pretty sure the UK is different in this regard.

I don't know if West Pymble is a gazetted suburb (I think yes), but it
would then have a boundary. The name you see is likely a node, possibly
placed within the gazetted boundary for West Pymble, or possibly not.

See the recent discussion on this list for town vs city, in the OSM sense.

  - Ben.
On 20/12/2012 9:35 PM, Darren Burt burt.dar...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi

 I wrote a long question at OSm help and they referred me to you guys. Hope
 you can help me help OSM.
 ---
 Hi

 I've been editing around the area, and noticed that the location of the
 [suburb][1] is not what I would have called a reference to West Pymble. I
 would have called West Pymble the shopping centre located [here][2]. I note
 the following with respect to Sydney:

 a) Cities. There are few 'cities' in comparison, to , eg California, where
 I would have compared many cities to be 'suburbs'. It's probably a
 population thing. There seems to be a trend towards more cities, (eg
 Sydney, Parramatta, Bankstown, Penrith etc) but in general usage, most
 places are referred to principally as 'suburbs'.

 b) Towns in general are referring to country centres. If I 'went to town'
 in Sydney, I would be going to Sydney City centre, eg Town Hall station.
 This is in contrast, eg to the UK, where many of the places I would have
 referred to as suburbs were referred to as towns.

 These are probably a historical growth thing. Sydney has generally
 expanded organically from a central point.

 c) As a general definition, if somebody referred to just the suburb, they
 would refer to the principal activity centre of that area. In most cases
 that is the main shopping or commercial area. Sometimes it might be a train
 station. Sometimes something else. But if you drive to the West Pymble
 located above, you are in the middle of a residential area. And here's
 where things extrapolate.

 **IMPORTANT**
 Please refer to this recent article about [Apple Maps in Australia][3]. My
 West Pymble example is trivial. However, in Australia is not just a matter
 of inconvenience.

 I'd welcome any other Aussies kicking in their opinions as well. As I
 said, my example is trivial, but it could turn wickedly wrong on some of
 the cattle stations that are [24000 square kms][4] (6m acres). Centre of
 that (geographically) could see you 100s or 1000s of kms away from help,
 and be life or death.

 I went looking at the definition of suburb and [found][5] that it refers
 to the 'centre of the suburb'. It is not clear if this is meant to be the
 geographic centre or some other type of centre. This need clarification.

 Look. I'm new to this editing and everything. I am hoping to get some
 clarification on this to help with not just this suburb, but to provide
 valuable guidance for other suburbs as well. I would request an update to
 the wiki as well to help clarify this.

 Appreciate your help.


   [1]: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?**lat=-33.756665lon=151.128885**
 zoom=18layers=Mhttp://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-33.756665lon=151.128885zoom=18layers=M
   [2]: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?**lat=-33.761018lon=151.128327**
 zoom=18layers=Mhttp://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-33.761018lon=151.128327zoom=18layers=M
   [3]: 
 http://www.geekosystem.com/**apple-maps-australia/http://www.geekosystem.com/apple-maps-australia/
   [4]: 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Anna_Creek_stationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Creek_station
   [5]: 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/Suburbhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Suburb

 -

 __**_
 Talk-au mailing list
 Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-auhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

Re: [talk-au] Sydney Circular Quay missing

[Ben Kelley]

Thanks for that.

  - Ben Kelley.
On 17/12/2012 8:37 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:

 Ben Kelley wrote:

 Most of Circular Quay, east of Pitt St seems to have disappeared.

 Seems to be change 14271851. Could someone revert this?



 I've reverted it.  I'll send a polite message to the mapper - it looks
 like a I just want to create a simple map for my hotel reception

 Cheers,
 Andy


 __**_
 Talk-au mailing list
 Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-auhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[talk-au] Sydney Circular Quay missing

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

Most of Circular Quay, east of Pitt St seems to have disappeared.

Seems to be change 14271851. Could someone revert this?

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

[talk-au] When is a road a cycle route?

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

I think we should specify a little more what constitutes a cycle route on
the tagging guidelines.

Some background: For the cycle map layer you can tag any way as a local
cycle route (lcn=*), a regional cycle route (rcn=*) or a national cycle
route (ncn=*). The tag can be applied to the way, or a relation can be
defined. On the cycle map these ways are highlighted, and some routing
engines use this information to route cyclists differently to other
vehicles. (e.g. ridethecity.com)

In some sense, any street or path you can ride a bike on is a potential
cycle route, but I don't think this makes it a cycle route in the OSM
sense.

I would reason that the way (streets especially) need some kind of marking
(signs, or road markings such as painted bike symbols) to indicate that the
arm of government who maintains that street has designated the street to be
a cycle route, before we mark it as a cycle route in OSM. Does that seem
reasonable?

Where it gets more complicated is when we start to think what kind of
marking we should expect to see on the ground before we say that this is a
cycle route in the OSM sense. The same applies when deciding that some
street is not really a cycle route.

Note that I am not talking about a legal definition on whether you can ride
a bike there (bicycle=yes or bicycle=no), and I am not talking about how we
tag paths/footpaths/cycleways. That is a different discussion.

How about the following cases: (bicycle=yes is true for all of these)

Some that are not cycle routes:

* Normal residential street. No road markings. No signs. No maps listing
this street as a cycle route. I would say this is not a cycle route.
* As above, but where I think this is a handy street to ride down. I would
say this is not a cycle route.
* As above, but where some other people also think this is a handy street
to ride down (and in fact I saw some just the other day). Again, not a
cycle route in the OSM sense.
* As above, but there is a council map that says this street is a cycle
route. (The map also lists other streets as cycle routes, and other streets
do have signs, but this street does not.) I have found this to be fairly
common. I would say this is not a cycle route.

Tricky ones:

* A council map says this is a cycle route, but there are no markings. In
fact the council does not use road signs or paint to mark any of its cycle
route. This is tricky, but I would not mark this in OSM, as the
(copyright) map cannot be verified on the ground.
* A section of street that does not have any markings connects other
streets that do have markings (e.g. bike symbols painted on the road).
Cyclists commonly use this street to connect. Maps show this street as a
cycle route. This also is tricky.
* A shared use path that does not connect to any other known cycle routes.
I would probably not mark this as a cycle route, but it depends on where it
is.
* A section of road has a cycle lane (where the law requires cyclists to
ride in it), but the section of road does not connect to any other known
cycle routes. Again tricky, and it probably depends on where it is.

Easier ones:

* In states where riding on footpaths is normally not allowed, a shared use
path that connects known (marked) cycle routes. Yes this is a cycle route.
* A number of other maps show this as a cycle route. It has bikes painted
on the road. Signs every 500m saying Cycle Route. Signs at every
intersection with a picture of a bike, and showing the destination. Yes
this is a cycle route.

I can think of more tricky edge cases, but in general I am more concerned
with whether some physical presence on the ground is required, as opposed
to I thought this might be a nice street to ride my bike down.

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

Re: [talk-au] tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up.

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

My 2c.

It seems like there are a few issues here:

1 - The current mapnik style does not identify unpaved roads at all.

2 - For an unpaved road, the quality of the surface can vary a lot, and it
would be good to have a way to tag this.

3 - Some roads require a 4WD. This can be a legal requirement, or just
common sense based on the surface. If you need a 4WD, you want to know this
in advance.

While these are all related, maybe addressing them separately is the way to
go.

Starting with 1 would be a good change simply using surface=unpaved. A trac
ticket would be the way to go. Suggest a dashed style in some way.

For 2, this is tricky, as this will be subjective at some level. It seems
it might be hard to get agreement on a way to do this.

Obviously 2 relates to 3. Maybe start with a rendering change for roads
that need 4WD legally (using existing tags), and work on defining a way to
handle when 4x4 is advisable.

  - Ben.
 On Nov 13, 2012 10:32 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote:


 OK, I have to recognise that my proposed proposal is not attracting any
 support. So I will walk away. However, that leaves the problem unsolved and
 , I still think, dangerously so.

 Are there any alternatives folks ? Should we (ie in Australia) encourage
 people to use smoothness= for example ? I hate the tag name and the values
 associated with it but maybe its the only game in town ? There are already
 considerably more horrible, very_horrible and impassable values set against
 smoothness than 4wd_Only  tags and by a considerable factor. It does offer
 a degree of fine grain against 4wd_only's 'yes' or not there.

 However, (eg) OSM website map ignores smoothness= (unlike tracktype) but
 that may be becuse not enough people are complaining about it. But I must
 say, I would not feel anywhere near as confident asking renderers about
 smoothness= as I would about an extended tracktype=.

 Please consider

 David,

 - Original Message -
 From:
 Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com


  This is a complete failure of the cartography and if it represented
  unpaved vs paved as dotted casing then I would have been prepared and
  expecting the surface change along the road.

 Indeed, but as long as mappers present the renderers with a mismash of
 data, we can expect no better !

  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

 No, I don't really think my proposal fits into this catagory, but it does
 take a more pragmatic view than many OSMs would. I understand it may well
 be too pragmatic !


   I think your extension proposal make is more complicated as it is
  unclear what the scale represents since it isn't a linear scale for one
  attribute.

 well, in that case, I think I have failed. My plan was always to seek the
 simplest way through a very complicated maze. If its still not simple
 enough, so be it !

   We have,
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/surface_unification
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/usability
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/mtb:scale
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:Sac_scale
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:4wd_only%3Dyes

 Only useful use of surface= is unpaved. I have tried and failed with
 tracktype=, the 'proposed' ones mentioned above are all either abandonded
 or should be. mtb is about mountain bikes and so on. we are really not
 addressing this problem folks !

  Although this issue does affect Australia due to the nature of the
  outback, it is a global issue. I think it would be best to take your
  thoughts to the global tagging list at let the discussion happen there.

 No, to be realistic, if I cannot get any support here in Oz, little hope
 of doing so elsewhere.

 Sorry about any awkard editing here, using an android device as I am away
 and left my laptop powersupply at home!

 David


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


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

Re: [talk-au] scenic routes

[Ben Kelley]

Agreed. What Ian says. Use a route relation.

  - Ben.
 On Nov 8, 2012 9:18 AM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:

 Traditionally, I've seen these mapped as route relations

 type=route
 route=road
 network=T
 ref=number

 Where they are numbered tourist routes.  There are a fair few of them
 around, and this is documented on AU tagging guidelines page, I think..

 Ian.

 On 8 November 2012 08:47, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote:



 Yep, good idea Wil. I don't see anything obvious in Map Features,
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features you really have two
 choices, define your own or start a campaign to define a suitable key.
 First is easier, second will do a heap better job as if most people do
 it the same way, its going to be easier to find entries. If you go for
 the roll your own solution, do doc it in the Australian page so local
 people can at least follow you example.

 I think its something you add to a road, so maybe its -

 highway=*
 tourism=scenic_route
 .

 However, most of the things defined under tourism
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tourism are really POI like, does
 that mean they should not be applied to a linear thing ?

 David


 On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 23:32 +1030, wil ly wrote:
  Hi all,
 
  I have an angle for updating OSM. I want to find a file of all scenic
  drives. The ones sign posted with brown signs that you see when
  driving. For all my Googling, I can't seem to find a map or a file of
  these. It would be good to tag all such roads in OSM so it's easy to
  plan scenic trips.
 
  I want to do this so I can discover more nice parts of Queensland.
 
  Wil
  ___
  Talk-au mailing list
  Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



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



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


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

Re: [talk-au] Optimising map rendering for recreational use

[Ben Kelley]

You can change how mapnik renders by defining different styles for
different zooms.

Essentially with render hints you are saying that you would like this way
to look like a different type of way. If this does not map to some
verifiable attribute of the way then it becomes your preference.

Presumably there is something about the road that leads you to want it to
look differently. Why not tag the physical (and verifyable) thing that is
different, and change your style definition when you render it?

Is it the surface? The importance? The width? The destination?

  - Ben.
On Nov 1, 2012 5:13 PM, Daniel O'Connor daniel.ocon...@gmail.com wrote:


 What do you guys think?


 It's non trivial to do it this way, but:

- Define a relationship between zoom level and number of ways/nodes
within the bounding box
- Sort the ways in a weighted fashion - roads first, land boundaries
second, etc
- Zoom level max, with 10 nodes to render: well, that should likely
render everything
- Zoom level max - 1 with 1 billion nodes to render - roads only

 To actually set up the balance between zoom and what to render would be
 hard, but I think that's a better approach than render hints.
 Alternatively, after implementing it, you could add a 'render
 weighting/interest' attribute to a lot of ways, which would be *like* a
 render hint but also suitable for other purposes - ie: routing or search.



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


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

Re: [talk-au] Optimising map rendering for recreational use

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

I think tagging for the renderer is a bad idea.

Essentially you are talking more about render hints, but I think that
becomes a matter of preference pretty fast. Especially when OSM data can be
rendered in a number of ways.

I think it is worth considering what about a road makes you want to render
it as a different type of road.

  - Ben Kelley.
 On Nov 1, 2012 3:01 PM, Li Xia lisxia1...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hey everyone, have an idea about map rendering and want to get your
 thoughts.

 One of the challenges is in rendering a useful map for recreational use is
 displaying roads, tracks, trails and to some degree water lines at
 appropriate zoom levels in more remote regions where the density is lower
 compared with urban regions.

 In my opinion, most map service online services or offline vector engine
 experience the same issue. Here are some illustrations of the issue, by
 comparing Google / OSM / Raster map of the same region:

 Googlehttp://www.mud-maps.com/li_temp/1211/Screen%20Shot%202012-10-25%20at%204.42.31%20PM.png

 OSMhttp://www.mud-maps.com/li_temp/1211/Screen%20Shot%202012-10-25%20at%204.42.26%20PM.png

 Raster 
 maphttp://www.mud-maps.com/li_temp/1211/Screen%20Shot%202012-10-25%20at%204.42.22%20PM.png

 As you can clearly see, at that zoom level, there's no deal on either OSM
 or Google maps, where as the raster map is useful. yes you can zoom in on
 Google or OSM, but with a smaller viewing port, orientation is more
 difficult and you loose that overview which is try handy for trip planning.

 By using a tag specific for rendering purposes, this issue can be
 overcome. Rendering engines can take advantage of these tags to optimise
 rendering of various regions.

 The tags are fairly self explanatory. By tagging a road with
 render_as:trunk, this feature can be rendered at the same zoom level as a
 trench road. Each class of road will have it's own tag so if a
 highway:territory should be rendered at the same zoom level as a primary,
 then tag render_as:tertiary.

 What do you guys think?

 Cheers

 Li.


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


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

Re: [talk-au] surface tag

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

Common usage is that surface=paved is any kind of sealed road including
asphalt.

  - Ben Kelley
 On Oct 24, 2012 9:23 AM, Andrew Laughton laughton.and...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Hi People

 Sorry if this has already been stated, I have not mapped since the
 licence change and I am only reading some emails.

 I my humble opinion, surface=unpaved should not be used.
 surface=paved should only be used is the surface is literally paved
 with brick, bluestone, cobblestone, whatever.
 surface=asphalt should be used for asphalt or bitumen.
 surface=gravel should be used for gravel roads.
 surface=dirt should be used if there is no surface covering, the track
 has been literally made out of whatever the ground is made out of.
 Think fire breaks.
 surface=sand where there is no surface covering, but the ground is
 sand or very sandy.
 surface=concrete for concrete bike or walking tracks.
 surface=wood for wooden walkways, jetty's and so forth.

 I even have a faint memory of using surface=grass, where the track was
 very overgrown, but too many tags might not be so good for rendering
 machines.

 I do not think I ever used it, but I think there is a smoothness tag
 which might be worth some research if you are worried about a track
 falling between 4x4_only=[recommended; yes;no].
 The 4x4_only tag might be better left to legal definitions set by rangers.

 As well as a speed_limit tag, thought should be given to a speed_avg tag.
 Some roads might have a legal speed limit of 100 kmh, but you can be
 lucky to get out of second gear because of the rough road surface, or
 even heavily used roads that are normally very crowded, and the
 average speed is actually not very fast.
 The speed_avg tag would be handy for routing engines.

 My 2 cents worth.

 Andrew.




 On 21 October 2012 12:03,  dban...@internode.on.net wrote:
 
  Hi Folks, recent I have been going over parts of OSM mapped some time
 ago,
  following up on the infamous redaction. One thing that jumps out at me is
  the inconsistent tagging of dirt roads. Even, I must say, ones I have
 done
  myself but over a several year time span.
 
  So I started to write some notes for myself and thought that maybe I
 should
  add them to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging I
  don't think this is inconsistent with whats there now, just more
 detailed.
  However, I do suggest that we need consider what the rendering engines do
  with our data and I know that is a bit naughty. But, in this case, I'd
  suggest to do otherwise is negligent as it can have quite serious safety
  issues.
 
  So, would people like to comment on what I say here ? If we can reach
  consensus, I'll graft some of it onto the OSM wiki.
 
  Unmade roads
 
  These are typically forestry and remote tracks, while they may have been
 cut
  initially by a bulldozer they are not regularly maintained and,
 importantly,
  are not domed and don't have good run off gutters on the side. Such roads
  might or might not be single lane, 4x4 only, might be dry weather etc. Be
  careful about deciding on such restrictions, some people are often
 surprised
  at how well a carefully driven conventional vehicle can use these tracks.
  Highway=track will typically render to a dashed line.
  highway=track
  surface=unpaved
  lanes=[1; 2]
  4x4_only=[recommended; yes]
  source=survey
 
  Made but unsealed roads.
 
  Many rural roads fit here. There is no asphalt but the roads are 'made'
 and
  regularly maintained by, eg, the local council. These roads often have a
  gravel base, always have dome shape, the middle is somewhat higher than
 the
  sides and there is some sort of gutter at the edge. The gutter will
 usually
  have run offs to drain water away from the road. Such roads are almost
  never 4x4_only nor dry weather only.
  highway=[unclassified; tertiary, secondary]
  surface=unpaved
  lanes=[1; 2]
  source=survey
 
  Use of the highway tag on dirt roads.
 
  While the selection of tags should not be defined by how current
 rendering
  engines display, we cannot ignore the final outcome. In Australia, a lot
 of
  dirt roads are quite important and sometimes its necessary to compromise
 a
  little to achieve a useful result. So the correct highway tag may be
  determined by a combination of the purpose of the road and its condition.
  Tracks are often rendered as dashed lines and most people would
 understand
  that means some care may well be needed. Unclassified would indicate a
  purely local function and is typically rendered as two thin black lines
 with
  white between Tertiary  roads usually are rendered with two black lines
 and
  a coloured fill and many people (incorrectly) interpret that as meaning a
  sealed road, so maybe mappers should ensure they apply that tag only to
 dirt
  roads that are reasonably well maintained. Secondary roads are shown as
  wider and a different colour than tertiary and are definitely presented
 as
  viable routes for people passing through

Re: [talk-au] Lots of amenities ?

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

Yes just put multiple nodes.

E.g. petrol station that has a toilet.

  - Ben.
On Oct 17, 2012 3:14 PM, dban...@internode.on.net wrote:



 Hi folks, I have been fixing some of the errors that
 http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?schema=50error=38081608 tells us
 about.
 I note that at some stage someone has logged that the General Store near
 me sells both fuel and fast food (and, for that matter, other stuff, its a
 post office for example). To tell OSM about both the fuel and fast food,
 they have put separate two POI in, I have just named it. It seems that does
 not render very well, only one shows up.

 I really have not played with the amenity= stuff but I'd assume this is
 not a surprising issue ? Must be a lot of cases where one site provides a
 number of different amenities ? Anyone have a better way to deal with it ?

 Search for Axedale, Victoria.

 David


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


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

[talk-au] Routing islands

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

I noticed this the other day: Geofabrik Tools has a Routing layer that
highlights islands.

Islands are ways that you cannot route to, and generally point to a problem
somewhere.

The routing layer only seems to apply to Europe, and puts hashing over the
rest of the world, although the pink Islands overlay does work for
Australia.

e.g. See this section of Sydney:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routinglon=151.08138lat=-33.86157zoom=15

This shows a section of the M4 that could not be reached. It was due to a
bridge incorrectly marked as being the wrong way. (Now fixed.)

Here's another one that is not fixed yet:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routinglon=150.82846lat=-33.75053zoom=15

I haven't looked into that one yet, but I suspect one end of the road (or
both ends) is not connected to the surrounding streets.

It's quite a useful tool.

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

Re: [talk-au] School Zones

[Ben Kelley]

I came to the opinion that a maxspeed tag didn't really capture a school
zone, even with complex time restrictions.

Possibly it makes more sense to keep using restriction=school_zone but as
others have pointed out, probably nothing reads these. I know some brands
of car GPS devices can warn you about a school zone, but I don't think
there are any that could get this from OSM.

For now I preserve these tags if I am editing a way that has them, but I
don't add them if they are not there already.

  - Ben Kelley.
On Aug 24, 2012 6:38 AM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 24/08/12 03:18, Ben Johnson wrote:

 So... with the prospect of re-editing, and the uncertainty of the
 maxspeed:(condition) proposal, this has lead me full-circle back to
 thinking the simple [restriction = school_zone] tag is the most effective
 method to mark a school zone for later refinement. We could include the
 extended information (e.g. operational times and days) as either a [note =
 ...] (notes are not displayed to end users), or even a [description = ...]
 (descriptions are potentially displayed to end users as text hints/guides).

 Does anyone else have thoughts about school zones? I'm particularly
 interested in whether we can come up with a method that is appropriate for
 all states.


 I went through the same thought process as you, and came to the same
 conclusion.

 School Zones only apply school days, so the times of application can't be
 captured.  They have different demerit point structures.

 See this photo..

 http://img213.imageshack.us/**img213/4364/gopr1691.jpghttp://img213.imageshack.us/img213/4364/gopr1691.jpg

 Obviously someone regards a school zone as distinct from a maxspeed.

 Ian.

 __**_
 Talk-au mailing list
 Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-auhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[talk-au] Good no name layer?

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

Does anyone know a good way to find streets with no names? Potlatch no
longer has this option, and Cloudmade's noname map is not up to date.

Basically I'm trying to find any streets with no names in an area where
most streets have names.

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

Re: [talk-au] Good no name layer?

[Ben Kelley]

Oh actually OSM Inspector can show this. http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/

Choose view Highways and check boxes as appropriate.

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

Re: [talk-au] Missing data

[Ben Kelley]

It sounds like the redaction bot then.

E.g.

1 You map the area initially
2 someone else later remaps it
3 License change announced
4 remapper does not agree to new CTs
5 remapped data deleted by redaction bot

Hopefully now you are seeing

6 someone else remaps streets deleted by the redaction bot

  - Ben Kelley.
 On Aug 20, 2012 9:52 AM, Diego Molla dmollaal...@gmail.com wrote:

 (sorry I forgot to type a title)

 I added the data a few years ago, and I think it was deleted in the last
 couple of weeks.

 Today I noticed that some of the data is back but not all. I'll keep
 checking...


 Diego
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Diego

 --

 Message: 2
 Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 12:51:45 +1000
 From: Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com
 To: Diego Molla dmollaal...@gmail.com
 Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [talk-au] (no subject)
 Message-ID:
 
 cae4-2t+mbsee1tokgrvthvw1w7_zyedvfmscc6yqsgdqrkk...@mail.gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

 Hi.

 When did you originally map it? Are you aware of the work of the redaction
 bot around the license change?

 It's possible some of it was deleted by the bot after it had been remapped
 by someone else.

   - Ben Kelley
 On Aug 19, 2012 11:58 AM, Diego Molla dmollaal...@gmail.com wrote:

  Somebody has erased data from the area of Macquarie Park:
 
 
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-33.7797403335571lon=151.125891208649zoom=16
 
  Can someone restore the deleted data? I added that data some time ago
 but
  now it's gone
 
  Diego
 
  http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Diego
 
 



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


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

Re: [talk-au] RMS (NSW)'s Bicycle infrastructure map in beta ( http://www.bicycleinfo.nsw.gov.au/maps/cycleways.html )

[Ben Kelley]

I had a quick look at it this morning, and it seems a bit inaccurate in
areas where I know OSM is good. (Ashfield, Marrickville, Burwood)
Essentially routes marked on the map that are not cycle routes and actual
cycle routes missing.

That said, there are probably places where it lists real cycle routes that
OSM does not have, but possibly it is no more useful than council maps in
this regard. Either way you need to survey, but proving that something
isn't a cycle route tends to be more time consuming than proving something
is.

  - Ben.
On Aug 20, 2012 9:06 AM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Sam,

 I'm sure we can do better.

 I was following apmon's remapping idea on the weekend, and for each
 suburb pair in Sydney produced a travel distance for car routing
 (using all motor vehicle accessible roads) and a quiet cycle routing
 (using only highway=residential|cycleway, cycleway=*, lcn=*, rcn=*),
 then sorted the resulting grid in terms of % difference.

 I'm yet to come to terms with exactly what the numbers mean (if
 anything :-), but I think there are certainly some pointers to further
 urban exploration in there.

 Ian.

 On 18 August 2012 11:17, Sam Russell g.samuelruss...@gmail.com wrote:
  Hi,
 
  RMS is now supplying an infrastructure map with all of the usual fun
 and
  follies: http://www.bicycleinfo.nsw.gov.au/maps/cycleways.html
 
  All of the usual wonder and enjoyment of dealing with the RMS on bicycle
  related issues, now in one map!
 
  thanks,
  Sam.
 
  ___
  Talk-au mailing list
  Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
 

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

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

Re: [talk-au] (no subject)

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

When did you originally map it? Are you aware of the work of the redaction
bot around the license change?

It's possible some of it was deleted by the bot after it had been remapped
by someone else.

  - Ben Kelley
On Aug 19, 2012 11:58 AM, Diego Molla dmollaal...@gmail.com wrote:

 Somebody has erased data from the area of Macquarie Park:

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-33.7797403335571lon=151.125891208649zoom=16

 Can someone restore the deleted data? I added that data some time ago but
 now it's gone

 Diego

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Diego


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


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

Re: [talk-au] Marrickville Cycle Routes (Was: Re: Redaction recovery)

[Ben Kelley]

I have been doing a cleanup of Marrickville routes.

For routes that have a reference (and a relation on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sydney_Cycle_Routes#Marrickville ) these
are now done:
* L1
* L4
* L6
* L7
* L8
* L10
* L11
* L12 (pretty short route really)
* L13

L2 and L5 seem to get confused in places, and I have not checked them yet,
but they both seem to have bits missing.

L9 needs work, but I haven't been there in a very long time.

There are a few more routes that don't have references that need work, but
they are a bit harder to find.

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