Re: [talk-au] Snapping Major regional roads to GPS traces
On 14/5/21 4:23 pm, Bob Cameron wrote: Just checking if this is an okay thing to do. ie moving a major road so it is centred on GPS traces - assuming there enough data for accuracy (eg bidirectional, multi trace etc) Just a word of caution, to say that using historical GPS data will undo updates covering recent road straightening or other realignments. The traces are probably more accurate than overhead imagery. Other features placed relative to roads will also need moving? I've moved rivers and railway lines in the past when that need was unambiguous. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hume and Hovel Walking Track in the Bargo SF
I haven't walked those sections between Blowering Dam and Tumbarumba, so I'm happy to trust your judgement. I'm still hoping to map more one day on foot with GPS. If I do, I'll revisit OSM, as I always do when I got good traces. John On 21/02/17 11:30, Warin wrote: For comparison of the data I have added; Way: 475962239 - LPI path - probably H http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/475962239#map=16/-35.6419/148.2472 Way 475966488 - Strava path - probably H http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/475966488#map=16/-35.6419/148.2472 OSM H presently in that area; Way 285630127 and Way: 248788644 + many others http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/285630127#map=16/-35.6419/148.2472 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/248788644#map=16/-35.6419/148.2472 I am inclined to go with the strava as that has more than one source/person (I hope). Where that is lacking then the LIP data. I am depreciating the present OSM data as it comes from one person and no source is stated .. I think it is an indication - better than a total lack of data, but there are now better sources. - I think leaving all 3 is not helpful. But what to remove and and why is a judgement call that would be made from one area to another. ___ 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] Hume and Hovel Walking Track in the Bargo SF
On 20/02/17 20:49, Warin wrote: I'd no be worried by 10 m ... the differences are ~100 metres in places. Might be more in some places too .. have not been measuring .. just concerned at the differences. It could be as simple as running off a map and going a bit off the official course as 'it looks better'. I mapped the area around Burrinjuck Dam during the last big drought. So I've got the track going well out into where the water is now, and to where walkers got on and off the boat at that time. Looks odd on the hiking map with the dam showing as full, especially at the southern end, on the Goodradigbee River to the north of Wee Jasper. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging for the router
On 02/09/16 07:10, Andrew Davidson wrote: Come and visit Canberra; u-turns at traffic lights are permitted. Only where specifically permitted. The "ACT Road Rules", Rule 40 states: "Making a U–turn at an intersection with traffic lights" "A driver must not make a U–turn at an intersection with traffic lights unless there is a U-turn permitted sign at the intersection." "Offence provision." The August 2016 version of the "ACT Road Rules Handbook" has identical wording. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Melbourne Airport (mapped as both node and way)
On 01/10/15 20:44, Andy Townsend wrote: I'm no mkgmap expert and even I manage to do it, using the "--add-pois-to-areas" flag. :) Wow, mkgmap has come a long way since the early days. Time for me to have another look and revise my flags :) One of the things it needs to do to be really useful in a vehicle GPS is to correctly list nearby service stations as POIs correctly whether they me mapped as nodes or a ways. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Melbourne Airport (mapped as both node and way)
On 30/09/15 19:31, Andrew Harvey wrote: Currently Melbourne Airport appears in the database twice, once as a node once as a way. Is there any reason why I should not move the tags from the node to the way and delete the node? http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/235151361 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/305804278 Garmin GPS units have always been a favourite with OSM mappers, as well as the general public who don't want to pay exorbitant prices for map updates. I regularly update and use an OSM base map on my Garmin car GPS. It's great for finding routing errors in the underlying OSM data. When using a GPS unit, all manner of things come under the heading of points-of-interest (POI). As a consequence, there are those of us who rely on things like shops, schools, servos, toilets, etc being nodes rather than ways so that they're correctly listed in the various POI categories the GPS offers. I'm sure there are those who will argue that the mkgmap program should render appropriate ways as POIs when converting to Garmin maps. To the best of my knowledge, it still doesn't. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Average speed limit cameras
On 18/09/15 12:26, Andrew Davidson wrote: Currently in NSW point-to-point cameras are only used to check heavy vehicle speeds. That restriction certainly doesn't apply in the ACT. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] A way with no tags
On 02/09/15 13:55, Nev Wedding wrote: I think you should add tags as you think appropriate using satellite imagery and any gps traces in the area and then add a changeset comment to the person who originally entered the data, explaining what you have done ask for a check or further info. The person will get an email i think alerting to the comments you have entered and then you or they may be able to resolve the problem. I guess it is likely to have been a beginner who was unsure how to enter the data or just forgot or was distracted from finishing the job. Thanks. I'll do a GPS survey of the road in the next week or so, and fix it up properly then. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] A way with no tags
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
Re: [talk-au] possible duplication of streets by new mapper
Hi sparrowhawk, Done. You may want to revise details on the versions that remain. Regards, John On saturday night I made my first edit, adding a couple of streets that appeared to be missing and naming an unnamed street in Glen Innes NSW. I used Mercaartor (SP) included in ubuntu 14.04.2. When I got JOSM working yesterday I looked at two of the streets and there appeared to be two versions on the map. Can someone have a look and make any repairs needed. the streets are Scott Street, Robinson Street and Veness Street Glen Innes sparrowhawk ___ 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] Murchison - Square Kilometer Telescope not showing on Garmin maps
On 31/12/13 11:17, Warin wrote: Any other thoughts? Use mkgmap to make your own Garmin maps. Edit the mkgmap points file and add an entry for radio telescope. Eg: man_made=radio_telescope [0x6411 resolution 21] John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] loading JOSM
On 27/10/13 12:27, Arthur Geeson wrote: Firstly a thank you to the replies I got about the missing bench seats that were not appearing on the map. I have been trying to get JOSM working and it implied that I had a version of java that was too old. I then spend several hours to get a new version of java and now when I try to run JOSM it just falls over. I am using Ubuntu 12.04 Did you use apt-get to install java? Eg, sudo apt-get install java-1.7.0-openjdk If not, there may be a missing dependency. I'm no expert on apt-get or Ubuntu. I use Fedora, which uses the yum command instead. However, josm works just fine on my system, with java-1.7.0-openjdk [john@localhost ~]$ java -version java version 1.7.0_25 OpenJDK Runtime Environment (fedora-2.3.12.1.fc17-i386) OpenJDK Server VM (build 23.7-b01, mixed mode) John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Openstreetmap Quality Issues
On 19/10/13 11:20, Neil Penman wrote: Unfortunately the culture seems to have become that any accurate local mapping should be replaced with unthinking tracing over the top of obsolete satellite imagery. I find that it sometimes helps to add an appropriately-worded note to the nodes or ways in question: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:note John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Canberra bus stop numbers
On 24/08/13 18:43, Chik Foo wrote: I'm fairly active in Canberra. It's time to put those bus stops onto OSM, along with the stop number as a ref=* tag. I'm guessing ACTION will place these stop number information in the google_transit.zip file from http://www.action.act.gov.au/timetables_and_maps/transit_for_google_maps Well found. Yes there's a stops.txt file in the download, which has the stop numbers along with a brief description and the coordinates of each. Rather takes the fun out of mapping. Just in case that makes it easy for someone. I haven't looked into the licensing requirements for importing this data directly. Very important! I'll be massaging that data into a gpx file for my own interest. Then it displays readily on my Garmin GPS units, and in QLandkartGT. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail
On 30/04/13 14:29, Nick Hocking wrote: The other day I was riding the push bike along some trails and got talking to some horse riders. It turns out the Lady (Jenny) is the ACT coordinator for (and also the secretary of) the Bicentennial National Trail Ltd. Naturally I dropped the term Openstreetmap and it appears that they are very interested to hear about OSM and their mapping guy would like to talk to us about what they could do with OSM. Apparently they are doing quite a bit of remapping in Queensland, due to the floods, so I see BNT and OSM being very usefull to each other. I told Jenny that one of our Canberra mappers (John) had done quite a bit of work on the BNT in the ACT and they would love to talk to you about it, if you'd be agreeable to that. I'd be delighted to offer what help I can. I haven't done any active mapping for a while, and the OSM BNT route needs to be remapped from the Barton Hwy east to the NSW border. This is because the BNT has been rerouted through the new suburbs. I've created a relation for the BNT: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/176684 I've also configured the route to show up on: http://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=9lat=-34.76218lon=149.35801route=1 There it's marked using a symbol to represent the official trail marker (a yellow triangle with two vertical ochre stripes) as osmc:symbol=green::yellow_triangle:||:red They also need to have topographical maps for their trail guides but I'm not sure whether OSM has that yet for Australia. It turns out that the trail I was riding on is part of the BNT but is not yet mapped as such in OSM, so I'll have to start surveying the southern part of the ACT's bit of the BNT when time permits. Therefore, my question is, who is the best OSM person to advise BNT of the various technical details of using OSM map data. That's a good question. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycle routes and MTB routes
On 12/02/13 12:29, Barker, Nicholas wrote: Hi all I’m after a bit of clarification regarding national cycle route and mountain bike route relations in Australia. I've searched the wiki but still have some questions. I hope someone can point me in the right direction. As many of you will know we have a few well known long distance (100km+) cycle routes, some of which cross state boundaries. These routes are also rugged and designed to be ridden on mountain bikes or hybrids only. A few examples of these are: The Bicentennial (VIC/NSW/QLD) The goldfields track (VIC) The Mawson Trail (SA) The Munda Biddi (WA) My Questions… As these are extended bicycle routes (albeit for MTBs or tough hybrids) are of national significance do they constitute a national cycling network and should they be mapped as such? If I can comment on the BNT, I started mapping that a long time ago in my region (with a lot of discussion on this list). I created a relation for it, and believe further mapping should be added to that as the primary relation - http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/176684 Some of what I mapped is now out of date, as urban sprawl has changed the route in places. Redaction damage may not be fully repaired either. The BNT is primarily an equestrian route, with walking and cycling as important activities. All of it is suitable for walking - cycling a little less so in places. John H Indeed if they do not cross state borders are the only of state significance and to be mapped as a RCN? If a cycle route is rough enough to be MTB only (an unsurfaced rail trail for example) does that relegate it from the LCN, RCN or NCN to just being a MTB route only? Should these routes carry two relations, NCN and MTB routes? Can anybody assist? Thanks Nick ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
On 12/12/12 23:35, Nathan Van Der Meulen wrote: I completely disagree that population alone should be used to classify a location (unless the populations are seriously reduced). Going by the suggested populations, places like Tenterfield, Glen Innes, Charleville will become villages and Norseman, Laverton and Lockhart hamlets. The population method may well work in most of Europe as a 'village' of 2,000 people will rarely be further than 50km from a town and therefore won't need facilities beyond a basic fuel station and general store.Rural Australia is a different game. Absolutely. When I'm planning a trip, I like to look at OSM maps online. There's nothing more frustrating than seeing a few towns (obvious from the network of streets), but not a town name to be seen. Sure, I can zoom in to see the names, but when I do that, I've got to zoom in so far that I can no longer see the spacial relationship between those few towns (because I can see only one at a time). This is the result of tagging rural Australian towns purely on the basis of population. The principle of not tagging for the renderer can be taken too far. The maps must be useful. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
On 11/12/12 09:17, Chris Barham wrote: I really do think Gympie, Maryborough, Warwick and Charters Towers are cities, and should have remained tagged as such. Are there others, in other states, within this changeset that should have stayed as is? I remember the fact that Warwick officially became a city sometime in the early to mid 70s. I was there at the time. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
On 11/12/12 15:02, Michael James wrote: Warwick - April 1936 Thanks - it must have been an anniversary celebration that I remember from the mid 70s. They certainly made a fuss about being a city. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] When is a road a cycle route?
On 02/12/12 09:10, Ben Kelley wrote: 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. I take a simplistic approach to this. A road is a bicycle route if and only if it has a bicycle lane (lanes if a two-way road). Australian Road Rules: Rule 153: A bicycle lane is a marked lane, or the part of a marked lane: (a) beginning at a bicycle lane sign applying to the lane; and (b) ending at the nearest of the following: (i) an end bicycle lane sign applying to the lane; (ii) an intersection (unless the lane is at the unbroken side of the continuing road at a T–intersection or continued across the intersection by broken lines); (iii) if the road ends at a dead end — the end of the road. Rule 247: The rider of a bicycle riding on a length of road with a bicycle lane designed for bicycles travelling in the same direction as the rider must ride in the bicycle lane unless it is impracticable to do so. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] traffic lights on dual carriageway intersections
Steer wrote: I have been trying to find the accepted practise for mapping traffic lights where dual carriageways interest. There is much discussion on various sites, but most seems to be a bit old, and I’m not convinced I’ve found what is the latest accepted practise. I checked some intersections in Melbourne’s CBD, and the method I saw that I liked and thought the best was where there were 4 lights at the intersection, but they were not placed on the intersecting modes, but one node back “upstream” on each way. I think this is good because no matter which way you go through the intersection, you only pass one set of lights (rather than 2 if they were placed on the actual intersecting nodes). Any comments? I have always entered such traffic lights on dual carriageways in the way you describe. This is because: 1. The traffic light count along a section of road is then accurate, and 2. It's the accurate representation of what's on the ground. It lets us convey the significance of the stop lines associated with the lights. That's something we can't do with two-way traffic without compromising point 1. I have argued this position on previous occasions. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] traffic lights on dual carriageway intersections
On 04/11/12 07:29, Ian Sergeant wrote: By choosing to place traffic light not on the intersection node, you are failing to represent that this is an intersection of two roads, controlled by traffic signals. Instead you are choosing to represent There is a stop line here and traffic signal and further on there is an intersection. We have different intuitions about what's important here. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Adelaide Metro using OpenStreetmap/OpenTripPlanner instead of Google Transit
On 01/11/12 23:43, Daniel O'Connor wrote: What's the best kind of contribution that would make their use of OSM more relevant to the public? Putting in the footpaths which aren't alongside the road. I mean the important ones which run between buildings to allow pedestrian access between streets without having to go the long way around (and following the route cars would have to take). John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads - a summary
On 23/10/12 15:42, Mark Pulley wrote: Over the last few years I have added many tracks that are definitely drivable with a 2-wheel drive (the vast majority added using the GPS trace from my 2-wheel drive car). 4x4 required should definitely not be implied by highway=track. Seconded, from similar experience. I hasten to add that wet weather might make ANY unpaved road impassable in places, but tracks likely more so. Any experienced driver will understand that. We can't begin to think that we can keep everyone out of trouble by adding a few tags to OSM. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
On 21/10/12 12:03, dban...@internode.on.net wrote: lanes=[1; 2] I thing the lanes tag is best not used, unless there's more than two marked lanes on a two-way road, or more than one lane on a one-way road. This is the recommendation in the Australian tagging guidelines: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging#Number_of_lanes I have two reasons for arguing this. Firstly, it's something else that would need checking when doing OSM maintenance (and quite unnecessarily). And it's something else to get wrong if it's used routinely. It's easier for everybody if its used is reserved for the special cases. Secondly, as an active mapper, I often download the whole of Australia every week for use as route-proving on my Garmin GPSs. If every road in Australia had a lanes tag, that'd be a lot more data to download. Similarly, even on the east coast, its not unusual to see dirt roads defined as 'tertiary' or even 'secondary'. I think a lot of roads get pumped up to be more important than they are. The great majority of country roads should be unclassified. It's hard to make a judgement as to when a different tag should apply. Is it a main connecting road between towns with a Post Office? How many cars per hour travel it? Another example is the tagging of the Hume Highway as a motorway. Most of it isn't. The Hume Freeway in Victoria is, but most of the NSW section has normal side-road junctions, and is certainly not a motorway. By tagging it as a motorway, we've destroyed this useful distinction. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Lanes tag
On 21/10/12 13:40, Paul HAYDON wrote: It occurs to me there's at least one other case which warrants tagging the lanes - a two-way road (or section thereof) having only a single lane. I.E. when there are LESS than one in each direction, making passing difficult or unsafe at normal speeds. Any thoughts? I reckon that's quite legitimate if two cars can't pass. Exceptional conditions should be flagged as appropriate. But I wouldn't think a road simply too narrow for two caravans to pass should automatically get the lanes=1 treatment. Caravaners are especially aware of the need to drive to the prevailing conditions, as are truck drivers. The width or est_width tags from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features are more appropriate in most such circumstances. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
On 21/10/12 13:28, dban...@internode.on.net wrote: OK, I'm interested in what you say about lanes= John (and the rest too!) I use lanes=1 to indicate that a road is generally only wide enough for one car, if one approaches traveling in the other direction, both need to slow a little and pull of to the side. Similarly for overtaking. Thats actually a pretty important factoid, lots of caravaners for example would studiously avoid such a road. That's especially important if pulling off the road is also impossible. I can think of cases where roads cut into mountainsides have short sections too narrow for two cars, and have a drop on one side and a rock face on the other. Don't forget the established use of tagging a way as access:caravan=unsuitable John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Routing islands
On 12/10/12 20:34, Nick Hocking wrote: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/debug.html?view=routing_non_eulon=150.82846lat=-33.7503zoom=15opacity=0.98 gets the routing outside europe ( I had the same problem and went looking for this url) That's much better, thanks. http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?schema=50error=38081608 paints an even gloomier picture. I am well on the way to fixing Canberra but the number of errors was/is amazing. I'm just about to do the floating Islands (orange in keep right). I've been giving you a bit of a hand there, but mainly outside Canberra. I apologise for not marking things I've fixed as ignore temporarily (error corrected). That's because I thought that flag was stored on my own PC, and not visible to all. Many intersections in Cootamundra had no connecting node. These are among the things I've fixed, although that problem was obviously pre-redaction. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] GPS accuracy
Hi Russell, I've installed and run it in JOSM OK. But I see it operates only for straight lines. I was hoping it'd average GPS traces downloaded from OSM in JOSM around corners and curves. That would be a big ask, I know. John On 24/09/12 01:16, Russell Edwards wrote: On 22/09/12 10:20, Ben Johnson wrote: That is absolutely fantastic - cant wait to see it. BJ It should be available now if you tell JOSM to download a new plugin list. It's called GPSBlam. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/GPSBlam Please tell me it works as it was a bit of a black art getting it up into the repository! Cheers Russell ___ 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] GPS accuracy
On 24/09/12 06:21, Abhi Beckert wrote: Somebody else (or maybe me) will notice eventually and take the time to replace it with more accurate data. Or, having taken great pains to get it very accurate, somebody will correct it with wildly inaccurate data. Sometimes from imagery with a big offset (incorrect datum). But that's life. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] OSM Australia Garmin download update timing and method
Hi Ian, On 23/09/12 22:27, Steer wrote: I have been updating OSM in my suburb, and am getting the feeling that while the Garmin maps on OSM Australia update every night, the changes I make don’t seem to come through for many days. Can someone please explain the process so I know when to start looking for my updates ? I see changes come through within hours at higher resolutions (I hope I've got the right term there). But I've often got to click on reload current page in my browser to fetch the latest version instead of seeing the old cached version. At lower resolutions, changes can take a week to come through. That being said, you can force an update on any individual tile at any time. Right-click on the map to get the URL of the individual tile that interests you. Paste that into your browser's address bar and add /dirty to the end. Then press Enter to activate that URL. Eg, http://a.tile.openstreetmap.org/16/60531/38961.png becomes http://a.tile.openstreetmap.org/16/60531/38961.png/dirty and you'll get a result of Tile submitted for rendering. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Aligning steets
On 20/09/12 22:41, Ross Scanlon wrote: No, a mini-roundabout can be traversed by ANY vehicle legally and this is not the case in Australia. You can only do so where impracticable for the vehicle. That bit about ANY vehicle is not part of the current definition of a mini_roundabout in OSM. A mini-roundabout is a one-way street with right-of-way and a traversable center island. In particular, large vehicles are allowed to drive across the center island if otherwise not possible due to their dimensions, i.e. it might be impossible for a large vehicle to drive through a roundabout but possible to drive through a mini-roundabout with the same dimensions. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmini_roundabout#Possible_misinterpretations John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Aligning steets
On 20/09/12 18:37, Stephen Hope wrote: Mini-roundabout doesn't mean you can legally drive over it in any vehicle, it means that you can physically drive over it if you need to. The australian guidelines are wrong, in this case. And yes, I know how they evolved to this state, I've kept up on the discussion over the years. But with the recent clarifications to the definition of mini-roundabout and roundabout in the main tagging guideline, and the fact that you can't tag a fully drawn out roundabout as traversable, there is now a need for using mini-roundabout in Australia. I agree that we seem to have some, as they're currently described. I'd like to see the justification for the view that we don't, so that we can reassess it. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] GPS accuracy
On 20/09/12 22:27, Peter Hoban wrote: Discovering the accuracy of a unit is easy. Find a convenient spot near your house and with your GPS record its position. Come back next day (or at least a few hours later) and do it again. Repeat daily until you are sick of it and you will then have a good idea of how accurate any particular observation is likely to be. No technical expertise required. The question of absolute accuracy is complex. Survey marks mostly were placed before the current modelling of the earth was developed. While these may now have GDA coordinates (typically about 100 mm different from WGS in Australia) there are complexities that arise (eg from continental drift and the instability of the earth's axis of rotation) which are significant variables. There are many assumptions in the modelling. WAAS also works in Europe and Japan. There is no likelihood of it being implemented in Australia as our population density is too low. Switch it off. If it is left switched on there is some risk that spurious signals from other systems may degrade the accuracy of your device. I've been using a Garmin GPSMAP 60CSx for a number of years. Normally for logging GPS tracks by car for use in OSM, I use it in conjunction with an external antenna (mounted above the driver's seat so it's closer to the centre of the road). With a good view of the sky, this GPS unit usually claims its accuracy to be ± 3m, with one important exception. And that's when cornering. If I superimpose track logs from several days in JOSM, I do see incredible consistency in the tracks. The exception is in the corners, where there's distinct variation. The solution is to drive around corners more slowly (where safety considerations permit). Then the GPS seems more inclined to accept cornering as the reason for the deviation from going straight ahead (rather than its interpreting the change in direction as resulting from a noisy or degraded satellite signal instead). I've struck another situation where the GPS reports significant uncertainty about its position. That's when bushwalking with thick tree cover and especially with cliffs or hills to one or both sides. It's clear to me that the signal is weak, with echoes only making the situation worse. Here the GPS might report an accuracy in the order of ±15m, and superimposed logs confirm this variation. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Rest areas
Hi all, I want to draw attention to the correct tag for rest areas, namely highway:rest_area http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Drest_area Most I've seen have been tagged as amenity:parking and/or tourism:camp_site. The camp_site tag is wildly misleading, as setting up camp is prohibited in rest areas. I'm fixing these as I come across them. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Rest areas
On 20/09/12 08:17, John Smith wrote: The rest area to the south of Gympie allows camping for up to 48 hours or something like that, it's not the only one, but the one I know off the top of my head. I'm aware of a few of those free caravan/camping facilities, sometimes provided by local council to boost trade in a struggling town. I think we'd all agree those should be tagged as tourism=camp_site, along with maxstay=2 days for example. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxstay John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] import of state borders?
On 24/08/12 21:24, Nick Hocking wrote: One spot where my GPS traces don't indicate the border is on the extension to Hugh Mackay Crescent. John, does your information of this area (Bicentennial Natiuonal Trail) indicate where the border is? I deleted all my GPS data from that area. Way back then, I didn't foresee any need to keep it, as I do these days. But my clear recollection from many trips to that area is that this gate http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/258492338/history is exactly on the border. And that the border follows this fence-line (at least in the vicinity of the gate): http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/69891320/history Likely the final position I gave the gate was quite accurate. I mapped that area on bicycle and tend to use the averaging feature on my Garmin for 30 seconds or so to refine the position of nodes like gates. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fixing relations in Canberra
On 14/08/12 22:27, Nick Hocking wrote: Still until the licence change is complete I'm not about to add any new stuff. JOSM 5356 says License change data redaction is finished, if that's what you mean. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] maxspeed - best practice?
On 15/08/12 02:26, Ben Johnson wrote: I really like this, but I think your source:maxspeed=AU:urban below is a typo. It would be simply maxspeed=AU:urban The problem is that AU:urban isn't numeric. It isn't a speed at all. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] maxspeed - best practice?
On 15/08/12 06:49, Ben Johnson wrote: It's part of a traffic zone proposal. It derives values based on the country and type of zone. It looks like it can be an effective way to define an entire set of tags that should apply consistently across a group of ways (eg a method for all ways in a defined built-up area to share a common set of key/values including maxspeed, and other rules). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trafficzone#Examples and bottom of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Maxspeed#Implicit_maxspeeds_set_by_.22trafficzone.22_and_.22highway.22 I guess the danger with this again is presumptions!!! Interesting. But it's only a proposal at this stage. For the time being, I'd argue for adherence for the existing maxspeed tag value types at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Question about relations
On 25/07/12 16:07, Adrian Plaskitt wrote: Greetings all. I usually confine my mapping to bush tracks and cycle paths as this is what I am most interested in and is often not available from other sources. With the recent devastation of the base map I am remapping some of my local area, and rapidly realising how little I really understand, so forgive this basic question. I also find the wiki very hard to practically understand as it assumes a level of knowledge that is beyond me. I am interested in mapping/remapping the walking route the great north walk, which is an established relation. My specific question is, when the route passes down only part of a way, say just a few blocks of a longer street, how do you assign the relation to just a few internodes. Is it necessary to split the ways at the nodes and then just assign the relation to the segments between, or is it necessary to create a new way over the top which is just the walking route, or is there some method that is simpler that I have failed to appreciate. I am only able to use the potlach editor. Yes, split the way as required, and add only the relevant sections to the relation. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] City routing grid for Australia and the US
On 22/07/12 09:31, Nick Hocking wrote: Excellent stuff Kai, Canberra-Adelaide will be underway soon. Right after Golf that is :-) Unfortunately, I know what's going to happen - I'll be zipping along the highways and will be sidetracked into fixing up every country town I pass that I have mapped in the past. I'll see if I make make it to Cootamundra tonight! I put Burley Griffin Way (Bowning - Wallendbeen section) back in a couple of days ago! I did most of Binalong a few weeks ago. There's still stuff to fix around Harden, and I haven't checked Coota. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Redaction progress
On 19/07/12 19:29, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Show of hands - Who's going to 1) stick around and help fix the Australian OSM map I've never had any intention of moving to an alternative. JOSM users shouldn't forget that they can tick Raw GPS data when downloading sections of map to work on. It's a great tool for fixing well-travelled roads using accumulated GPS traces from others. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] The MEM project
On 19/07/12 20:01, Brett Russell wrote: Ok, it has mountains at 300 metre zoom level along with walking tracks but given that cyclemaps is for a peddle powered adventurer I am not surprise. Ok next step getting mountains to appear at higher levels along with tracks. So thanks John for the clues on doing that. Now just have to figure it out how. Aside from resolution, also look at level, on this site: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mkgmap/help/style_rules I'd also forgotten that my 60CSx Garmin gives some control over the level of detail shown. On my menu system it's under: Menu, Setup, Map, General, Detail. Also rather puzzled by the size limits of mkgmap. Garmin will support IMG files up to 4Gb (must be FAT limit) so the limitation must be with mkgmap. I would dearly like to get all of Tassie on one IMG file. You need to pass big OSM files through the splitter, and let mkgmap combine the resultant parts into the single image file. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I feel like such a newbie
On 18/07/12 01:46, SomeoneElse wrote: FWIW recent splitter and mkgmap versions should work OK with pbf files, I think. Thanks for the tip. I'm happy to report that I've updated my splitter and mkgmap, and have created my gmapsupp.img from australia-oceania.osm.pbf without using osmosis at all. I note however that mkgmap spat out this one warning: SEVERE (LineSplitterFilter): 63240017.osm.gz: Way (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/143243495) has a max dimension of 32767 and is about to be split (routing will be broken) I haven't got to the bottom of what's going on there. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Introduction Brett Russell (Ent)
On 18/07/12 18:45, Brett Russell wrote: I have been playing with the IMG file for Tasmania from OSM website, both routable and standard and like what I see but they are optimised for vehicles with foot tracks not showing unto at the 300 metre scale is zoomed to. As do mountains. This means you are navigating at the micro level when these features should be at the macro level. Huts is another item that needs to show up on macro level. Have you managed to get a gmapsupp.img Garmin file out of mkgmap yet? If and when you do, try editing the points file entry for natural=peak, and change the resolution value in that entry to (say) 16. Then make a new gmapsupp.img and see how your mountains display at different zoom levels then. For walking tracks, try a similar change to the lines file for highway=path. If you want to do more significant changes (say making walking tracks show as a bold purple line), then you need to use a style file (a TYP file). I've used this online editor for maintaining mine: http://ati.land.cz/gps/typdecomp/editor.cgi but there may be easier methods available these days. This is how cycling maps derived from OSM might make cycle paths show more prominently than roads. I'm guessing you've already discovered that you can download your own custom area of OSM data by clicking on Export when viewing the ordinary OSM map. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I feel like such a newbie
Hi Brett, You've made remarkable progress in a very short time! I'm a Linux user rather than Windows, so I can be of limited help there. I can add to Steve's reply. Firstly, you need to convert that pbf file to an osm one. You use the osmosis program to do that. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osmosis Here's the Linux script I run to turn the pbf file I download into the Garmin gmapsupp.img file. It's a routable road map for my Garmin nuvi car GPS unit. I also create a cycling-orientated map for my Garmin 60CSx. #!/bin/sh cd $HOME/OSM/mkgmap/style/work /usr/user/osmosis-0.39/bin/osmosis --read-bin $HOME/OSM/mkgmap/style/australia-oceania.osm.pbf --write-xml australia.osm /usr/bin/java -Xmx1400M -jar /usr/user/splitter-r181/splitter.jar --cache=/tmp --output=xml australia.osm rm australia.osm /usr/bin/java -ea -Xmx1400M -jar /usr/user/mkgmap-r1995/mkgmap.jar --remove-short-arcs --style-file=$HOME/OSM/mkgmap/style/roadrte --route --gmapsupp -c template.args mv gmapsupp.img $HOME/OSM/mkgmap/road rm *.* cd I hope it hasn't wrapped, and still makes Unix-sense. I've inserted blank lines for readability just in case. Note that I need to use the splitter because my australia.osm file is so large. The splitter creates a series of manageable (smaller) osm files. John On 17/07/12 20:52, Brett Russell wrote: Ok thanks to John I am starting the first baby step to using mkgmap so I have installed Java. It think it works as I am using JOSM and that worked. Downloaded a small sample file of the Walls area using OSM data extract as I could not as yet figure out the other option and borrowing Australia from another suggested site was a bit big in file size for me and I was hoping to avoid splitting at this stage working on the KISS principle. This created a Walls_test.OSM file. Now quite chuffed with progress but then came unstuck here with this command line instruction. java -jar mkgmap.jar --route --remove-short-arcs --add-pois-to-areas --index --gmapsupp *.osm.pbf Now this is were my newbie status shows in spades. Am I correct to assume that this is a DOS command line instruction? If it is I then get this error 'Java' is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file. Now and ice age of two has passed since I used DOS or Unix in anger and something tells me for java to be recognized it needs to be in a path. Ironically I would have a better chance of doing this in Unix than DOS as I once used .profiles extensively in Unix. Now if you have fallen off your chair laughing as this is not a command line instruction then please point me to what I should be doing. Also big hint on scripts would be good. I assume it might be a text file you write/steal/borrow? The idea is to create a MEM (Middle Earth Map for an Ent) just for Tassie at this stage with the zoom levels optimised for bushwalking. By that, big peaks and foot tracks showing up big time. As mentioned I played with the OSM_Australia *.IMG files with good success but they are optimised for motorised wheel machines not the la (or is is le?) ped. The ultimate is to bring contours and wait for it, natural features such as heath which is code for somewhere to pitch a tent. If I get it right then from the satellite imagines I should have a few spots pre-worked out. For those that have walked you can be five metres away from a perfect campsite but never know it. As again any pointers greatly appreciated. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Setting up Garmin zoom level
Hi Brett,
On 16/07/12 20:16, Brett Russell wrote:
When navigating in the bush you often target big object so it would
be great if peaks could appear earlier, say even fifty kilometres as
otherwise you are navigating by looking at blades of grass. Also
be good if you could set the tracks to show up earlier. On OSM view
the zoom relationship is pretty good but on the Garmin it is very
poor.
Any clues or pointers?
As far as I know, this aspect of visibility is controlled by the map,
which tells the Garmin at what resolution objects should be displayed.
To do what you want, I believe you'll need to explore the delights of
making your own custom Garmin maps (unless you can find suitable hiking
maps already made).
See: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mkgmap/help/Custom_styles
This is a huge topic. But once set up with some scripts, you can
automate the downloading of raw OSM data, and the creation of your own
custom Garmin maps (either topographic or routable). You can also
integrate contours from other sources (although that's something I
haven't personally got around to).
To get down into the fine detail, you'll need to adjust values in the
mkgmap points file for:
natural=peak [0x6616 resolution 21]
and the mkgmap lines file for the likes of:
highway=path {add access = no; add foot = yes} [0x16 road_class=0
road_speed=0 resolution 20]
John
(an old bushwalker - old enough to have once walked the Overland Track
in summer without seeing another person for three days).
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] OSM boosted by google paywall for maps
See article for details: http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/01/openstreetmap-google/all/1 John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Residential Roads
On 10/12/11 21:11, Sam Couter wrote: Many urban residential roads have speed limits of 60 or maybe 70km/h. I think rural roads with moderately dense residential acre blocks and 80km/h speed limits are still residential, unless they're also the main route to a neighbouring town, in which case they're tertiary. This is my rule-of-thumb also. Another aspect is the classification applied by local councils for rate purposes. If we followed this, I think more rural unclassified roads would be tagged as residential. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Residential Roads
On 11/12/11 08:35, Sam Couter wrote: In the ACT 50km/h is the default if there are no signs. I know that's what the road signs say as you enter the ACT. It's also repeated on official ACT government web sites. But it's an over-simplification. The ACT version of the Australian Road Rules tells the real story. The default 50 km/h limit applies only in built-up areas. The default speed limit elsewhere in the ACT is 100 km/h. A built-up area is defined as: built-up area, in relation to a length of road, means an area in which either of the following is present for a distance of at least 500 metres or, if the length of road is shorter than 500 metres, for the whole road: (a) buildings, not over 100 metres apart, on land next to the road; (b) street lights not over 100 metres apart. See http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/2010-113/current/pdf/2010-113.pdf rule 25 and dictionary of terms. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Re-entering data to avoid licensing failure
As time and opportunity arises, I've started re-entering rural roads where it's clear that the original is scheduled for deletion. I'm deleting the old way completely, and re-entering it from GPS data I'm gathering. JOSM now has a License Check plugin to identify potential deletions, bringing up the way's history and looking at the mapper's details shows whether the original ways (and significant edits) were mapped by somebody who's declined the new contributor terms. Similar functionality seems to be available in Potlatch. Are others doing this? Is there a better way of maintaining OSM's integrity given the situation we find ourselves in? John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Re-entering data to avoid licensing failure
On 15/12/11 02:15, Ross Scanlon wrote: That's fine so long as you are not transferring any tags from the original way. Yes, and that's why I'm trying not to reuse any original nodes. I imagine a lot of corners and other detail is going to disappear from some ways which remain (as I interpret the influence of individual mappers on the cleansing process). I see it's perfectly feasible to cautiously remap from historical GPS traces. The caution relates to having local knowledge about realignments resulting from road works. Is source=survey the correct attribution for using others' GPS traces? It seems the most appropriate of the established values. Much of Australia's major highway network is going to be removed without such action. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ABS [ ODbL data.gov.au permission granted]
On 04/12/11 00:09, Steve Bennett wrote: Fwiw, I get Garmin maps from osmaustralia.org. Obviously anyone can custom generate their own Garmin maps and remove the suburb boundaries, but that wasn't really my point. I realize that, but I was trying to help with the specific problem you raised. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] A way to go
On 02/12/11 12:27, Andrew Laughton wrote: I would like a copy of the map before these deletes are made for my GPS, has someone done this before these deletes were done ? I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for, but I've got a copy of http://download.geofabrik.de/osm/australia-oceania.osm.pbf I downloaded on 14 Nov (184.2 MB). I also turned it into a routable Garmin image file (185.4 MB). John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ABS [ ODbL data.gov.au permission granted]
On 03/12/11 10:47, Steve Bennett wrote: To play Devil's Advocate here, does anyone actually want the suburb boundaries retained (or reimported)? To me, they've always been a big pain in the arse - they get in the way when you're trying to map, they show up in various renderings and add noise, they show up on my GPS and can be mistaken for roads. I leave them out of the image files I make for the GPS with mkgmap. They're just commented out in the lines file like this: # boundary=administrative [0x1c resolution 18] # boundary=national [0x1e resolution 17] # boundary=political [0x1c resolution 17] John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Where did the town go?
On 01/12/11 19:15, Andrew Harvey wrote: Deleted by user: cc_cleaner in changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9915617 I found this by looking at this area in the owl viewer: http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/owl_viewer/map Thanks Andrew. I wasn't aware of that facility. It gives me somewhere to start. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Where did the town go?
On 01/12/11 22:34, Mark Pulley wrote: User cc-cleaner? I've had a quick look at some of the changesets, and they all seem to be just deleting things. I have a suspicion that the things being deleted are by users who haven't agreed to the new license, but I didn't think we were up to this stage yet. Should we get all of these changesets undone? I've also just noticed that most of Cobar has gone. I did some edits on the way through in May, some of these have been left alone, but some have disappeared completely or been replaced by highway=road. As one example, here is Louth Road: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/119756523 This is just a stub, this used to link on to the other roads. No idea why this has been done, as I *have* agreed to the new license, so my edits don't need to be done again. (This was done by Firefishy, who doesn't even live in Australia - I've just sent him a message to enquire about this particular way.) I saw the same relationship with Firefishy (from South Africa) and went to bed puzzling about the coincidence. Firefishy was adding in a little data within minutes of cc-cleaner's massive deletes. I woke up a couple of minutes ago realizing that this pair of users must be the licence-change grim reaper at work. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Where did the town go?
On 02/12/11 01:11, Grant Slater wrote: I have nothing to do with the cc_cleaner user's deletes/edits. I often watch OSM edits using http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/LiveMapViewer and noticed the deletes of mostly DrLizAU's contributions. I suspected DrLizAU was removing her own contributions, but cannot back this up. I decided to get stuck in and remap what I could easily remotely remap. PS: LiveMapViewer is awesome ;-) That explains it. Apologies for thinking you might have anything to do with the grim reaper. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Where did the town go?
On 02/12/11 01:11, Grant Slater wrote: I often watch OSM edits using http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/LiveMapViewer and noticed the deletes of mostly DrLizAU's contributions. I suspected DrLizAU was removing her own contributions, but cannot back this up. DrLizAU's ethical standards are very much higher than that in my experience. To me it appears that the completely comment-less, stealthy, anonymous deletions are more likely to be official OSM work. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] A way to go
On 02/12/11 09:00, Richard Weait wrote: Deleting tainted data and remapping by local mappers is far superior to waiting until March 31 and running a script. So removing data from decliners and remapping it, and reaching out to those who haven't yet responded is valid and valuable. Thanks for the clarification. I agree, but feared that something entirely different was happening. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Censorship
On 04/11/11 11:09, Steve Coast wrote: I disagree. Moderation is the only way to stop this channel being filled with diatribes and I'm glad that the moderator(s) are being reasonable enough to let the better emails through. To each his own. I look up Liz and John S and value their opinions. And I want to hear and consider their criticisms, even if I don't always agree with them in the final analysis. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail
On 06/10/11 16:47, Steve Bennett wrote: It would be very cool to have it fully mapped. As a trail, it has the same issue as some other trails like the Tasmanania Trail, which really work best for horses and are problematic for cyclists (poor surface, obstacles) and hikers (lacking interest, long distances between campsites)... Not to mention that BNT maps are usually out-of-date before they're even printed. Even in my area (the part already mapped), the exact route changes several times a year. This makes it ideal for OSM coverage of course, as long as there's enough enthusiasm to keep it reasonably current. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail
On 06/10/11 17:17, Steve Bennett wrote: Interesting. Who makes the changes? Do they update any signs? I did the initial mapping and some changes, but I notice that others have contributed updates. Generally, new signage gets added (although old signs on disused sections usually get left there). In many places, there are no signs. But it's usually obvious how a rider/cyclist/hiker would travel between remaining signs. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 08/09/11 07:58, Ian Sergeant wrote: The issue I have is with using a route relation with a road name to link split parts of a named road, and including roads that don't have a name or alternate name in common with the route, and can't clearly be identified as part of that route by survey. I take a pragmatic approach, something like this: Given my local knowledge, and being on-site, how would I direct somebody who is unfamiliar with the exact route but wants to be given turn-by-turn directions from A to a distant B. I've been mapping routes like the Hume and Hovell Walking Track. This includes unnamed paths, named roads and highways, and things like roundabouts (unnamed, of course). But they all form part of the track nevertheless. Sometimes the precise route is unclear. It doesn't really matter if I can make a safe and convenient choice for a routing algorithm to follow. If someone else knows better, I'm delighted for them to refine the route. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Mapnik rendering
highway=ford is not rendering on Mapnik, eg: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-35.50894lon=149.67154zoom=17layers=M I believe it should. I have no idea who to raise this issue with, or how. Before I spend more time looking, does somebody happen to know? John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapnik rendering
On 02/09/11 10:16, Ian Sergeant wrote: Hi, I'm pretty sure mapnik doesn't render highway=ford on a way. It is probably for the best that it doesn't, IMO. See http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=7510#p7510 and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stylesheet for information on what is included in the stylesheets. And http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2944 for a trac item about rendering fords. And the wiki for the discussion on tagging fords at the expense of the type of the underlying highway. Thanks for that info. I'm still puzzled as to what you mean by tagging fords at the expense of the type of the underlying highway. I actually hope I'm not missing something obvious. I did have that way tagged as highway=unclassified and ford=yes, but the OSM wiki wording suggests that's for places which just might get wet. The ford I'm concerned with is long, is the river bed of the Shoalhaven River, and is always submerged. So the wiki is adamant it's highway=ford. Have I missed some alternative way of having OSM show that the road at the river is a through road, and doesn't just stop at either side? John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapnik rendering
On 02/09/11 12:44, Ian Sergeant wrote: So, if I were you, I would either use highway=ford on a node, rather than a way, or use highway=unclassified, ford=yes. Thanks. I'll put it back to that again. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Missing streets in Sydney
On 26/08/11 13:33, Nick Hocking wrote: I'd really like it if all roads that don't have names yet (in OSM) were just deleted. Then II'd be much more inclined to drive there and collect all the infomation. Having a quick look around, it looks like one of us needs to put some names onto the map of Cowra: http://osm.org/go/uNfeplBS-?layers=N John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Missing streets in Sydney
On 27/08/11 06:47, Liz wrote: A lot of those streets were placed by a particular person whom I know traced from Google in particular places. I'll stop that accusation there. I haven't been able to put many names to streets in Cowra because I don't travel through there often. If the streets are traced from sources which shouldn't have been used, then of course they should be deleted as Nick suggests. Thanks for the info. If turn out to be the first one there collecting names, I'll keep the GPS trace on and realign the streets from that (attributing source=survey at the same time). John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] label rendering errors at Fernvale Qld
On 25/08/11 08:36, Chris Barham wrote: Hi, at this link http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-27.4395lon=152.726zoom=14layers=M in Fernvale, there are two label oddities: 1) Bottom left - town label Fernvale appears, but the town is also labelled correctly up to the North East already (where the town is) 3) Top Right - Lake Manchester label appears, but the actual lake (and it's label) already appear to the South. Looking in Potlatch I can't see the source of these spurious labels, anyone know what's going on? I suspect the labels derive directly from two multipolygon relations bearing those names. Lake Manchester: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/91460 Fernvale: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/96375 John H Note for Richard/whoever: Can this stupid censorship please cease before much more harm is done. I had no significant criticism of OSM until it was imposed. But now I have, and it's increasing daily. You'll find Australians are like that! ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11/07/11 00:02, Richard Fairhurst wrote: So please, let's stop hitting each other over the head with this. That's a very unAustralian attitude. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 08/07/11 00:01, 80n wrote: The probability of collisions is quite small in practice. We are able to automatically sync all OSM updates into fosm.org http://fosm.org in near real time. Consequenly fosm.org http://fosm.org already has more content than OSM and the gap will continue to widen. It will become a massive gulf if OSM ever has the courage to mass delete all non-ODbL licensed content, but I can't see that happening any time soon. I opened a new OSM account (for new contributions) when it became clear that the data I'd already entered was in danger of being deleted. As it transpired, I was able to accept the new conditions for my earlier data thanks to Nearmap's resolution of the sticking point. What particularly turns me off fosm.org is that I am unable to see a map when I go to the site. Using Firefox on Linux, I click on Maps and get redirected to http://fosm.org/poly/tah.html#2.00/34.4/-5.9 which is a blank screen for me. My other two Linux browsers (Arora and Konqueror) come up with a completely blank home page at http://fosm.org/ When I boot into Windows XP, neither Explorer nor Firefox fare any better. What do I have to do to see an fosm map? John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On 20/06/11 11:49, James Andrewartha wrote: Ah, that welcoming OSM spirit. Yes, it's easy to forget sometimes that we're all friends here. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission ofderived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 16/06/11 10:21, David Groom wrote: I should have added how impressed I am with the generous attitude that Nearmap has taken in regards to these past contributions, please pass my thanks on to those concerned. I second that. I'm delighted that I can now accept the new terms without losing all my GPS-derived rural contributions to OSM because of a little contamination by my historic use of the Nearmap JOSM plugin. That's a very clever and satisfying resolution to the issue. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Nearmap badly out of date
On 14/05/11 16:35, Ben Kelley wrote: IMHO definitely put source=survey if it is. (e.g. from a gps track) It can be difficult to determine this later. E.g. I can see that there is a GPS track log nearby, but did the person use it? This brings up a point which I'd like clarification on. When I input data from my own GPS, I tag it as source=survey. But what if I use the JOSM download of Raw GPS data to plot the way? What should the source tag say then? As long as there have been more than a handful of passes logged, This seems the most accurate way by far to get the true path of a winding road. The false points (when individual GPSs can't decide whether a corner has come up, or accuracy has gone down) get nicely averaged out. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors
On 08/04/11 06:25, {withheld} wrote:
Whilst I agree / commiserate with your basic point (been there; done
that; spent the fuel), don't you still have the raw traces from your
device? I certainly do, and consider at no point have I ever given up my
rights to them.
I couldn't see any point in keeping those traces at the time, so a
couple of years OSM work of mine will be lost to OSM.
John H
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors
On 08/04/11 07:30, {withheld} wrote:
VNT-2: You didn't upload the traces to OSM, and thus have the capability
to legitimately download them again; do you? Worth checking:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/your-OSM-id/traces.
Unfortunately no. The few traces I've uploaded have been the pure
ones, where I've kept in the traffic lane. When I'm mapping, I tend to
wander around and mark waypoints that I make notes about. It all makes
sense to me if I process it when I get home. But I don't want other
mappers being mislead by my meanderings, as I'm often mapping roads
which have no traces already.
John H
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Mapping food outlets using OSM in Scientific American
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mapping-the-food-desert John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On 17/02/11 20:16, {withheld} wrote:
Here is a suggestion:
Whenever a situation like this comes up (i.e. posted signage which does
not fit neatly in a predetermined/official tag case), why not introduce
a new tag:
signposted: Literal text from sign
...on the basis such a thing cannot be questioned, because that is what
is there in reality. (Further hint: photograph to prove it?)
The downside I can see is the difficulty in rendering software being
able to make use of the information given in the exact text. The same
information may be expressed quite differently in different locations.
It's potentially useful to caravaners to have a standard tag for roads
best avoided. There's quite a few roads across the country signposted
as unsuitable for caravans, and there may be local variations, such as
the inclusion or absence of the word Road. Or unsuitable between X and Y.
By all means include a signposted tag for clarity. It's a good idea if
we can standardize on it.
John H
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On 17/02/11 12:58, John Smith wrote: Saw a couple of roads signed unsuitable for caravans which seems like council butt covering but I'm not sure how to tag it since it's a sign to discourage rather than to disallow. I've got at least one to tag also. Maybe access:caravan=unsuitable John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On 17/02/11 16:12, David Murn wrote: Presumably if its unsuitable for caravans, its also unsuitable for HGV? Maybe simply re-use the HGV access tags already in place? I think they should be kept separate - there'll likely be places where caravans are permitted (encouraged even), but HGVs not permitted. And then there's John Smith's point about the caravan case being advisory only. For HGVs it's a prohibition (a penalty offence). John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Locata augmenting GPS in GPS hostile areas
On 08/11/10 20:49, Peter Ross wrote: Their idea is that a museum (say) would buy these locata things and place them throughout their building then people could wander around with their smart phone and get information relevant to where they are, or alternatively firefighters could place the beacons around a burning building and then be able to record where every firefighter is in real-time with meter level accuracy. Or put them in road tunnels like Sydney's M5, so that visitors like me using OSM get told about the correct exit inside the tunnel instead of being told we've missed the turn when we eventually exit. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Direction of flow, rivers and streams
I note the wiki says that Direction of the way should be downstream. Most streams I look at on OSM have been drawn uphill, and I've been reversing the direction of ones I notice as wrong. Indeed, I find it more natural to draw streams that way myself, and then reverse them. This is just to point out the direction issue to those who may have missed it. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Another day, another bridge...
On 12/07/10 10:33, Simon Biber wrote: I don't think size is the deciding factor... pitch is used in general as an area for a sport (including individual sports like sport=skateboard). In this case it seems that most people have been using leisure=fishing instead of sport=fishing so I guess we should go with the established usage. Is the alternative to make (almost) the entire coastline a fishing pitch? John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] How to tag a church without its own building
On 05/07/10 17:49, John Smith wrote: There is no church, they're using a school hall for church based activities... church is a significant amenity provided by that building, surely. It is, by all accounts, a place of worship. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] How to tag a church without its own building
On 05/07/10 19:19, John Smith wrote: At most the church (as an organisation) makes use of a location, what's on the ground is a school facility that may have many such uses... Like a Post Office building also acting as a weather-monitoring station, for example? Just tag the Post Office? John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian Timezones
On 20/06/10 11:52, John Smith wrote: Does anyone know why Linderman Island and 2 other islands close to the northern Qld coast get their own time zone? Are you sure that's not just on April 1st? John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hikers on this list?
On 17/06/10 15:48, John Smith wrote: I knew someone had brought it up in the past, but I'm wondering if we could map it as an area rather than a line? Arguably the best approach would be to mark the wilderness area as such, and perhaps show any tracks stopping at the boundaries. Others may have different suggestions to air. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hikers on this list?
On 17/06/10 23:13, Tom Brennan wrote: Not always true. For example, from the Plan of Management for Kanangra Boyd National Park Existing walking tracks on the Kanangra Tops within the wilderness (as indicated on the map on the central pages of this plan) will be retained and managed to minimise impacts on natural values. These tracks would certainly be expected to be mapped. It depends on the park and the local Parks and Wildlife Service. Thanks - I wasn't aware of exceptions. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hikers on this list?
On 17/06/10 15:27, John Smith wrote: tagging names... AS2156=* isn't descriptive enough, the standard covers several aspects from gradients to publicity, this document was interesting, if nothing else for the publicity section on the bottom of page 5: http://www.bluemountainsguides.com.au/documents/Western_Arthurs_Appendices.pdf AS 2156 Class 6+, publicity guidelines: All publicity to be discouraged. Routes not to be identified on maps except for internal (ie Service) management purposes. Authors will be encouraged to keep route descriptions vague (eg in accounts of past expeditions). Photographers and publishers will be encouraged not to identify the precise location of photographs taken in trackless areas. I may have raised this issue in the past. Walking tracks are never signposted or otherwise marked through declared wilderness areas. This includes some sections of the Australian Alps Walking Track. Maps should not show tracks in those specific wilderness areas. It's every man to herself, so to speak. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Things that would be nice if they rendered...
On 11/06/10 19:28, John Smith wrote: Thanks for going to so much effort, I was only expecting 1 or 2 shots of the same stile... No problem - just a pleasant bicycle ride along the BNT for a retiree. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Things that would be nice if they rendered...
On 10/06/10 15:08, John Smith wrote: As I said, it was just a stub page, feel free to extend it :) I've added In some countries, a horse stile might be more commonly called a cavaletti or a horse hop. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Things that would be nice if they rendered...
On 10/06/10 10:33, John Smith wrote: On 10 June 2010 06:49, John Hendersonsnow...@gmx.com wrote: I'm more than happy to go with barrier=horse_stile, given that established usage. I'll change the cavalettis I've already tagged, and look at putting a note on the map features page when I take some photos. Can someone get a picture of one of these that we can use on the wiki? I'm new to this digital photography thing, but I've photographed 7 different cavalettis and put them here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/51019...@n07/ I presume you can just lift what you want from there. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Things that would be nice if they rendered...
On 09/06/10 16:55, John Smith wrote: On 9 June 2010 10:08, John Hendersonsnow...@gmx.com wrote: barrier=cattle_grid cattle_grid=cavaletti What about: barrier=horse_grid They aren't cattle grids, and they aren't proper cavalettis either from what I've seen, cavalettis seem to be horse jumps these barriers aren't meant to be jumped, in fact they make them large enough to dissuade a horse from crossing at all without a little extra encouragement. There's plenty of evidence now that the correct term is cavaletti. I've also found a BNT area coordinator, and active horsewoman, referring to them by that term. horse_grid is potentially much more ambiguous. I feel that its being a barrier cavaletti and not a jump is completely and adequately given by the tag barrier=cavaletti. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Things that would be nice if they rendered...
On 09/06/10 17:28, John Smith wrote: Just found something, it seems the brits refer to them as horse stiles... like a turnstile but for horses... Rather than a turnstile, more like the existing barrier=stile, which allows a walker to cross a fence using rudimentary stairs/steps to climb it. A very simple one in the top photo here: http://www.leapingstiles.co.uk/ I already use that tag for conventional stiles on walking tracks. Thanks for the horse_stile find, reinforced by Simon Biber's research. I'm more than happy to go with barrier=horse_stile, given that established usage. I'll change the cavalettis I've already tagged, and look at putting a note on the map features page when I take some photos. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Things that would be nice if they rendered...
On 10/06/10 11:15, John Smith wrote: On 10 June 2010 11:10, Jim Croftjim.cr...@gmail.com wrote: there is one near my place... will try and iPhone it this weekend... Thanks, in the mean time I wrote a stub page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dhorse_stile Shouldn't the page header and text say horse_stile instead of horse stile (ie, with an underscore instead of a space)? And would it also be a good idea to mention cavalettis and horse hops, so that mappers searching for those thing would discover the horse_stile tag? John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Things that would be nice if they rendered...
On 09/06/10 09:22, John Smith wrote: On 9 June 2010 09:07, John Hendersonsnow...@gmx.com wrote: Do I put it on the main international wiki, or just the Australian one? Map features page, but first I'd come up with a better name, even wikipedia couldn't find anything related to the 2 keywords you list below Just to make things more difficult, searching for a dictionary definition gives me alternative spellings: cavaletti and cavalletti. I guess I should try to determine which is more widely used, although my spell-checkers don't like either. Dictionary.com had this: A small, portable jump for schooling horses. Constructed of light poles, 4 to 6 ft long, resting on a cross of timber at each end so that the pole is 12 to 18 inches above the ground. Which doesn't seem like a permanent barrier type to me. The term gets used for both - the temporary horse training ones and the fixed barrier structures. The name is correct. I've found several references to the need to cross a cavaletti when walking or cycling a track. And I initially got the name from workmen constructing a new one on the BNT. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Things that would be nice if they rendered...
On 09/06/10 09:40, John Smith wrote: The name might be correct, but I don't think it is a good choice for a name since it doesn't appear even in wikipedia, then again I can't seem to find anything better, nor any images of permanent installations. Almost completely obscured by cyclists, but you get the idea: http://members.pcug.org.au/~rmeurone/mtb/bacon03/bacon03-Pages/Image1.html It runs parallel to the left-hand fence, where the continuation of that fence is a cavaletti with parallel log-fence sides. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Making a laptop Into a Big-Screen GPS (cont.)
On 03/06/10 13:31, Eraina and Richard jenkins wrote: 2.At least two people suggested that an eeepc 701 would make a great GPS using Navit. I'd love to find a howto for this because I have one sitting on my desk ... and I could do a simple PS to run it off the car electrics. Mine is the 4 meg model ... currently running easy-peasy. I'll just sound a note of caution about running an EeePC from 12 volts DC. I've tried with my 1000H and my son's smaller version (700 series). In both cases, the power light on the EeePC just rapidly switches between red and green. I've tried from various 12v sources, including a 12v regulated power supply capable of delivering 6 Amps. I've gone back to using the genuine AC power supply, with a 230v inverter when I use it in the car. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
