Re: [talk-au] Tagging Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears"
Andrew beat me to it. There is a speed restriction associated with the "Must use low gear signs" under the road rules. It states: "you must drive in a gear that is low enough to limit the speed of your vehicle without using the foot brake." Unfortunately it's not a defined limit although in places there may be a speed limit sign for trucks and buses as well. eg on the Great Eastern Freeway heading towards Perth. Cheers Ross On 18/1/23 11:29, Andrew Harvey wrote: Good point. If it's a restriction, it should be more like the maxspeed tag, maxspeed:hgv=* So something like low_gears:hgv=designated rather than using the hazard key. On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 11:25, Ben Kelley wrote: 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 ___ 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] Wadbilliga Road south east NSW marked 4WD only
It may be shown as tertiary but I'd be cautious about removing 4wd_only based on the NSW basemap only. Have you had a look at the NSW imagery for that area or checked any other form of road conditions eg. https://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/things-to-do/4wd-touring-routes/wadbilliga-road-drive Cheers Ross On 18/06/19 16:05, Warin wrote: Hi, This appears to be an error. On the LPI Base map it looks like a tertiary rd.. Way: Wadbilliga Road (380747553) ... this extends to the east as well. Any objections to removing the 4WD only and upping it to tertiary class? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] new OpenStreetCam competition
Hi Martijin, When an upload completes how long should it take to show on the openstreetcam.org website? Cheers Ross On 19/03/19 01:08, Martijn van Exel wrote: Howdy. We had a good time with the first OpenStreetCam competition, the winners received their prizes, and we decided to hold another one. The main prize this time is an OSC Waylens Horizon camera. This is a fairly nifty device that lets you automatically record and upload to OSC. The competition is open now until April 15th. As before, just collect more OSC points than other mappers to win. Read details on the Telenav ImproveOSM blog: http://blog.improveosm.org/en/2019/03/announcing-the-second-openstreetcam-australia-and-new-zealand-competition/ . Related: * A previous blog post <http://blog.improveosm.org/en/2019/02/openstreetcam-detect-signs-in-australia-newzealand/> about the impact of competition number 1 * the OpenStreetCam JOSM plugin <http://blog.improveosm.org/en/2019/03/openstreetcam-plug-in-display-osmelement/> was just updated with some new features as well. Let me know if you have any questions, and Happy mapping! -- Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org <mailto:m...@rtijn.org> ___ 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] Editing speed limit in Australia
Welcome to oz roads. I had a look on street view and can not see any 60 signs along Warwick Road they are all 70. Cheers Ross On 09/03/19 10:20, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 08:48, Ross Scanlon <mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com>> wrote: What you've said is correct for off ramps but would be incorrect for on ramps. The on ramp speed limit may be determined from the adjoining road(s), as the last speed limit sign is the applicable limit until you pass another sign. So in the example given if the 60 sign was not on the link the applicable limit would be what it was for Warwick Road, which from memory is 70 near that underpass, and this would be the limit up to the 60 sign. So for this link it should be 70 - 60 - 100 as you go past the 60 and 100 signs. Or, stupidly enough, if for some reason you've come down off the Centenary Highway via https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/144077977#map=17/-27.66335/152.73924, through the traffic lights, then taken the on ramp we're talking about to go back up onto the Highway, your speed would be 60 - 60 - 100 as there's a 60 sign on that off-ramp. So you'd, quite legally, have 2 different speed limits on that stretch of road! Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Editing speed limit in Australia
| In some situations, especially on off-ramps, there isn’t any speed limit sign at the beginning of the link only at the end of it or in the | middle. I observed that in these situations the speed limit of the motorway is added on the first part of the link. Because this is the | predominant way of adding speed limit on links, we will map in the same way: if there isn’t a speed limit sign at the beginning of the link | we will add the speed limit of the motorway and other speed limit that occurs along the link. If there is a speed limit sign at the beginning | of the link (e.g.SL60 in our example) we will add the speed limit in the way you mentioned (60 then 100). What you've said is correct for off ramps but would be incorrect for on ramps. The on ramp speed limit may be determined from the adjoining road(s), as the last speed limit sign is the applicable limit until you pass another sign. So in the example given if the 60 sign was not on the link the applicable limit would be what it was for Warwick Road, which from memory is 70 near that underpass, and this would be the limit up to the 60 sign. So for this link it should be 70 - 60 - 100 as you go past the 60 and 100 signs. Cheers Ross On 09/03/19 02:11, Lacramioara Maghiar - (p) wrote: Thanks for your response! I got 80 from the trunk way from which the motorway link leaves. In some situations, especially on off-ramps, there isn’t any speed limit sign at the beginning of the link only at the end of it or in the middle. I observed that in these situations the speed limit of the motorway is added on the first part of the link. Because this is the predominant way of adding speed limit on links, we will map in the same way: if there isn’t a speed limit sign at the beginning of the link we will add the speed limit of the motorway and other speed limit that occurs along the link. If there is a speed limit sign at the beginning of the link (e.g.SL60 in our example) we will add the speed limit in the way you mentioned (60 then 100). Best, Lacri *From:* Graeme Fitzpatrick *Sent:* Thursday, February 28, 2019 12:19 AM *To:* Lacramioara Maghiar - (p) *Cc:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Editing speed limit in Australia Hi Lacri On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 21:56, Lacramioara Maghiar - (p) <mailto:lacramioara.magh...@telenav.com>> wrote: Hi all, I’m writing you regarding the speed limit mapping in Australia. Specifically, how would you add the speed limit on a motorway link where the speed limit sign appears in the field towards the end/in the middle of the link? In Qld at least (& I think Aust-wide) speed limits officially change at the sign - you may start accelerating as you pass it, not before; but you must start slowing early so you're at the lower limit as you pass the sign. Please take a look at the following example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37282555. Here, there is a speed limit sign of 100 (SL100 hereafter) in the middle of the motorway link. You can see the sign here: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo=cTDOkTXf0M0gVBjem4mt9A=-27.664412022684786=152.7436576757009=17 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.mapillary.com%2fapp%2f%3ffocus%3dphoto%26pKey%3dcTDOkTXf0M0gVBjem4mt9A%26lat%3d-27.664412022684786%26lng%3d152.7436576757009%26z%3d17=E,1,Dr9tRyo_JV7aLrJTI5H8eB_cGPOQYwUzZHu7vqnOcZUHg9O7IuFsCaZZnaTALecbyZ-jbVucut0EZjGJmPSAbExe_qqJQFEGjOtx8VOC58l8myJR5XQY=1>. In which way would you add the speed limit information in the above-mentioned case: 1. maxspeed=80 until the SL100 sign and maxspeed=100 until the end of the link? I'm not sure where you got 80 from? I can only see a 60 sign at the start of the link https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-27.663581886206885=152.73979205152136=17=0.49548370263958935=0.50767663189853=0=B-1LcWLyCAjIQqhNjTQ7AQ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.mapillary.com%2fapp%2f%3flat%3d-27.663581886206885%26lng%3d152.73979205152136%26z%3d17%26x%3d0.49548370263958935%26y%3d0.50767663189853%26zoom%3d0%26pKey%3dB-1LcWLyCAjIQqhNjTQ7AQ=E,1,VJy80ltGkmFEycG1wSxU0pFFSi4mqdzKkwIchqbf-uGbYO0hoK9VYP3-n_3S9-g4xBFJwAWHD2gHsrDeoWScqeT9zGXMl_oFkwA_02lw=1>, & speed then jumps to 100 just before merging out onto the Cunningham Highway 1. maxspeed=80 represents the speed limit of the trunk way from which the motorway link leaves. Welcome to Australian roads! Just because it's a trunk road, doesn't necessarily mean it's got an appropriate speed limit :-( 2. nothing until the SL100 sign but maxspeed=100 starting with the appearance of the sign in the field? 60, not "nothing" between the 2 signs, then 100. Hope that helps! Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://l
Re: [talk-au] Issues with a user putting back incorrect tags
Contact the Data Working Group On 09/09/17 10:34, Philip Mallis wrote: Hi all, I am seeking advice on how to proceed with an issue around Melbourne and Victoria regarding tagging of abandoned/disused railway stations and railways. The Outer Circle Line is a railway that has been almost entirely ripped up and abandoned. The former track and its stations were previously incorrectly tagged with railway=station which meant that they showed up on the default OSM layer, in navigation apps and other places where they should not appear. I and others have been changing them to the correct railway:historic=station_site or railway:historic=station as per the consensus here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Railway_stations#Stations_and_sites_which_are_not_currently_in_operation. Unfortunately, every time these tags have been corrected, the user has changed them back. One of the recent instances is here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4695022174/history I have tried messaging the user twice but no response was received and, as of eight days ago, the reverting has continued. I know of at least three other users who have also tried contacting this user over the past year or so to no avail. Any advice on how to proceed? Thanks, Philip ___ 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] When is a Road a Track
On 11/02/17 12:21, Warin wrote: On 11-Feb-17 11:28 AM, Ross Scanlon wrote: On 11/02/17 07:00, Warin wrote: The NSW LPT base map is particularly helpful for road classifications .. tracks, unclassified, tertiary and paths. It is in some ways better than a survey as it looks to take into account the importance to the community and that is very hard to determine by simply travelling the road. Where a 'track' travels a long distance .. say over 50 km I would argue that it is 'unclassified' as that length suggests it is not a simple service/maintenance track but a connection between distant points. As far as seeking out the 'interesting/adventure' roads .. I first look for unpaved, then connecting. The old 'Tracks for Australia' garmin map is helpful but well out of date. So your saying above that a track like the Canning Stock Route should be an unclassified road? It's about 1800kms and is definitely a track not a road. There are some sections you could possibly call an unclassified road but they are not maintained. For the majority of it's length it is two wheel tracks through the scrub and sand dunes. I'd suggest everyone have a read of the wiki pages for track and unclassified. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack "roads for mostly agricultural use, forest tracks" "classify them as usual <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highways#Classification> according to the conventions in your country," You conveniently left out the rest of this sentence: " Do not use tracks to represent public unpaved roads in *built-up areas*[1] <https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/110>, that would be consideredtagging for the renderer <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer>. In this situation,classify them as usual <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highways#Classification>according to the conventions in your country, and also provide asurface <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface>=*tag." My bolding. "vehicular use is dominated by field access or forest management, but not any heavier sort of industry. " http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified* "*used for minor public roads typically at the lowest level of the interconnecting grid *" "*The least important sort of minor roads which are either a) proper signposted formal parts of the public road network, or b) nominally private or just unsignposted but the locals use them anyway. The idea is that "4"-wheel vehicular use by the general public is possible, the general public use dominates other uses, and no single specific purpose dominates.*" * These are not clear and there is suggestions to refer to the country guidelines http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Unsealed_and_4wd_Roads_.28Dirt.2C_Gravel.2C_Formed.2C_etc.29 and that is not clear either. I've always tagged them by looking to see if they are maintained/graded. If they are graded, and that's generally pretty obvious from aerial imagery as well, then they are minimum unclassified. If not then they are tracks. How frequently are they graded? Sections of the Canning are graded. A track locally to me was recently graded .. last grading was probably done 20 years ago ...but I'd not call it 'unclassified' as it is not important enough. It is in quite good condition now. As I said sections of the CSR are probably unclassified, but the remainder is definitely a track. There's always exceptions, so the "a track longer than 50kms" really does not apply to tracks like the CSR. And the CSR can I'm talking about well maintained roads by council or state governments, graded at least once a year and could be sealed easily with spray pave if needed it's just an example of what is a road and not a track. There are lots of these in WA in particular that are tagged as track but should really be unclassified surface=gravel/ground. Tracks are like the image on the highway=track wiki page. The actual track is only maintained by the passage of vehicles along it. Have a look at this area in josm, with bing imagery http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-30.0090/116.8188 or here it is on bing maps: https://binged.it/2kcYMV6 and where it's unsealed https://binged.it/2kd8irh Looking at the road that comes up from the south east and then according to MRWA it continues to the north west. MRWA classifies the south east part as osm tertiary and the north west part as unclassified. However I'd tag the north west part as track as it's little more than two wheel tracks through the scrub and the further you go along it the more it deteriorates. The condition/difficulty of the road is best determined by travelling the road, I don't add that detail unless I have travelled it. I do add surface=unpaved/paved ... on
Re: [talk-au] When is a Road a Track
On 11/02/17 07:00, Warin wrote: The NSW LPT base map is particularly helpful for road classifications .. tracks, unclassified, tertiary and paths. It is in some ways better than a survey as it looks to take into account the importance to the community and that is very hard to determine by simply travelling the road. Where a 'track' travels a long distance .. say over 50 km I would argue that it is 'unclassified' as that length suggests it is not a simple service/maintenance track but a connection between distant points. As far as seeking out the 'interesting/adventure' roads .. I first look for unpaved, then connecting. The old 'Tracks for Australia' garmin map is helpful but well out of date. So your saying above that a track like the Canning Stock Route should be an unclassified road? It's about 1800kms and is definitely a track not a road. There are some sections you could possibly call an unclassified road but they are not maintained. For the majority of it's length it is two wheel tracks through the scrub and sand dunes. I'd suggest everyone have a read of the wiki pages for track and unclassified. I've always tagged them by looking to see if they are maintained/graded. If they are graded, and that's generally pretty obvious from aerial imagery as well, then they are minimum unclassified. If not then they are tracks. Have a look at this area in josm, with bing imagery http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-30.0090/116.8188 or here it is on bing maps: https://binged.it/2kcYMV6 and where it's unsealed https://binged.it/2kd8irh Looking at the road that comes up from the south east and then according to MRWA it continues to the north west. MRWA classifies the south east part as osm tertiary and the north west part as unclassified. However I'd tag the north west part as track as it's little more than two wheel tracks through the scrub and the further you go along it the more it deteriorates. The condition/difficulty of the road is best determined by travelling the road, I don't add that detail unless I have travelled it. I do add surface=unpaved/paved ... on some bridges I remove the surface tag as I cannot be certain what is there, on a few I change it to concrete. On 10-Feb-17 05:55 PM, David Bannon wrote: Do you mean without seeing them yourself Warren ? I personally think that you should only correct another mapper's work if you have personally seen something that needs correction. I am sure there are some exceptions. But here, in particular, you seem to have "negative" information. Its also worth remembering that highway= indicates the purpose of the road or track, a number of other tags indicate its condition. In theory David On 10/02/17 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 ___ 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] Tagging for Pipeline Reserves
On 08/02/17 11:17, Warin wrote: On 08-Feb-17 12:10 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote: On 08/02/17 11:00, Warin wrote: Some pipe lines cross farms, residential areas ... so ? I will ask on the tagging list as it is not Australian specific. I note the pipeline is not visible ... I assume underground and the location is not evident so you cannot map the pipe line itself. As far as most people are concerned it is a park, so that is appropriate. I don't think park=pipeline_reserve would be best .. as you would then need something similar where the pipeline crosses a farm etc. Why would you need that? For the same reason you need to tag the pipe line reserve in the park. Most of the time it has no effect on the attributes of the place. However it is an added attribute that is verifiable and can be mapped. But you don't have to have it where it crosses other areas. In this case we are talking about what type of park it is. Not what type of pipeline, which to me is what you are trying to do. The area shown by Adam is the whole area not a sub area of it. It appears to be a park and locals probably consider it as a park. However it is still a pipeline reserve so that's what type of park it is. By tagging it park=pipeline_reserve your describing the type of park not the type of pipeline. A pipe line reserve is not necessarily a park. Yes, but in this case the park is a pipeline reserve, so describe what type of park it is. On 08-Feb-17 11:31 AM, Ross Scanlon wrote: park=pipeline_reserve On 08/02/17 10:29, Adam Horan wrote: My local area (and I'm sure many others) have lots of pipeline reserves. I'm really not sure how to tag these. They appear to have public access for walking at least. (One local one has a sign disallowing golf...) Some others appear to be across private land, and i'm less interested in those, I'd really like to show those ones with public access. examples: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370388062#map=17/-38.15997/145.20073 I've tagged them as leisure=park previously, and paths evident on the ground have just been tagged highway=path. Any ideas? Thanks, Adam ___ 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 ___ 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] Tagging for Pipeline Reserves
On 08/02/17 11:00, Warin wrote: Some pipe lines cross farms, residential areas ... so ? I will ask on the tagging list as it is not Australian specific. I note the pipeline is not visible ... I assume underground and the location is not evident so you cannot map the pipe line itself. As far as most people are concerned it is a park, so that is appropriate. I don't think park=pipeline_reserve would be best .. as you would then need something similar where the pipeline crosses a farm etc. Why would you need that? By tagging it park=pipeline_reserve your describing the type of park not the type of pipeline. On 08-Feb-17 11:31 AM, Ross Scanlon wrote: park=pipeline_reserve On 08/02/17 10:29, Adam Horan wrote: My local area (and I'm sure many others) have lots of pipeline reserves. I'm really not sure how to tag these. They appear to have public access for walking at least. (One local one has a sign disallowing golf...) Some others appear to be across private land, and i'm less interested in those, I'd really like to show those ones with public access. examples: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370388062#map=17/-38.15997/145.20073 I've tagged them as leisure=park previously, and paths evident on the ground have just been tagged highway=path. Any ideas? Thanks, Adam ___ 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] Tagging for Pipeline Reserves
There's no real issue with heading out on your own with this type of tag. What you are doing is describing the type of park. So in this case the park is a pipeline reserve so therefore park=pipeline_reserve would be acceptable. People still regard it as a park which is the major tag. On 08/02/17 10:56, Adam Horan wrote: There's only a few hundred examples of park=* in taginfo, and none are for pipeline_reserve. I don't really want to head out on my own if there's already a convention. I'm not even sure if leisure=park is an accurate description :) On 8 February 2017 at 11:31, Ross Scanlon <i...@4x4falcon.com <mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com>> wrote: park=pipeline_reserve On 08/02/17 10:29, Adam Horan wrote: My local area (and I'm sure many others) have lots of pipeline reserves. I'm really not sure how to tag these. They appear to have public access for walking at least. (One local one has a sign disallowing golf...) Some others appear to be across private land, and i'm less interested in those, I'd really like to show those ones with public access. examples: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370388062#map=17/-38.15997/145.20073 <http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370388062#map=17/-38.15997/145.20073> I've tagged them as leisure=park previously, and paths evident on the ground have just been tagged highway=path. Any ideas? Thanks, Adam ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au> ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au <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] Parks Vic data
capad On 08/02/17 09:49, nwastra wrote: Hi I have found many problems with the Heathcote-Graytown National Park in Victoria. Is there a place from which I can download the boundary as we have done with the NSW LPI NPWSReserve - public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries, so I sort out where the gazetted boundary is and then fix the boundary in the osm? ___ 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
[OSM-talk] agri.openstreetmap.org not working
All the imagery hosted on openstreetmap servers as listed here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Aerial_imagery#Imagery_hosted_on_OSM_servers Except for the South African imagery. Cheers Ross ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[talk-au] agri.openstreetmap.org not working
All the imagery hosted on openstreetmap servers as listed here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Aerial_imagery#Imagery_hosted_on_OSM_servers Except for the South African imagery. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Advice on Tags in a Hamlet
Split the way at the railway tracks, add name="Smith Street", add alt_name="Lalbert - Kerang Road" to the section west of the railway. Like this: http://map.fosm.org/browse/way/102503479#map/18/-35.676/143.377 Cheers Ross On 16/01/17 10:30, Simon Slater wrote: G'day all, We needed our daughter to pick something up from Lalbert and since she had never driven there herself, we looked up the map. However, Smith St did not appear, instead tagged as the Lalbert Kerang Rd, as here: https:// www.openstreetmap.org/way/80838220#map=17/-35.67595/143.37920 For the locals and for street numbers, it is Smith St, at least from the Swan Hill - Donald road to the rail tracks. How can I tag to reflect this, leaving the Lalbert - Kerang tag for the bigger picture? On a secondary note, the node for Lalbert is in the middle of empty land: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1774352212#map=16/-35.6726/143.3759 Should this be moved a bit more centrally, like near the cafe and garage on Main St? I have seen both these scenarios a few times in the hamlets around here. Apart from tidiness, would this also improve routing? ___ 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] Tagging for the router
On 01/09/16 20:27, Andrew Davidson wrote: On 01/09/16 09:37, Nick Hocking wrote: Ok so how do we "ensure that routing engines embody the regional rule:? The regional rule won't help in this case. All that the routing engine can see are the nodes connected by ways. In NSW the rule is that you can't do a u-turn at traffic lights and in the rest of Australia as well ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging for the router
I'm assuming you mean the Intersection with Lane Cove Rd. If so it's not permitted to make a u-turn here anyway, as there is no sign permitting u-turns at the traffic signals. So I'd not add it as a restriction as anyone driving there should know that they can not make a u-turn there. Cheers Ross On 31/08/16 20:49, Nick Hocking wrote: What do people think about the intersection at -33.6793339 151.264475 The road geometry clearly indicates that there is no way you can do a turn from Moan Vale Road Eastbound back down Mona Vale Road Westbound, yet there are no signs saying so and I believe that most routers would suggest this if you were caught out going to opposite way that you intended. Trying to do a u turn here would cause a crash quite often, I believe. So should I add a no-u-turn restriction or not? ___ 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] Use of Gold Coast Council info?
Basically no unless you have explicit approval from Gold Coast Council. It has more to do with osm user conditions than whether or not GCC licence is compatible. It's the section that says something like "you own the data or have explicit permission to use it". If the data licence was compatible and you received explicit approval from GCC then you could use this data. Cheers Ross On 10/08/16 17:10, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: G'day all Been mapping on & off for a few years now but have recently got into it more actively due to having more time available. Mainly working around the Gold Coast / SEQ but occasionally further afield as well. Have only just found the talk list & forum, & have read quite a few threads re copyright & use of Govt data, so a question to all you knowledgable folk! :-) Gold Coast City Council have (fairly) recently set up an online city plan: http://cityplanmaps.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/CityPlan/, which shows planning zones etc as well as street names. As part of the terms & conditions it includes this for copyright: "2.0 Copyright Council owns or is licensed to exercise copyright and all other intellectual property rights to material on this website. You may reproduce the contents of this website in your web browser (and in any cache file produced by your web browser) for the sole purpose of viewing the content. You accept that your use of interactive mapping is limited to your own personal use or for use in the ordinary course of your business. You must not on-sell or distribute interactive mapping information for reward or otherwise to any other third party, nor produce any hardcopy products incorporating the information for commercial use." Full T if anyone wants to check anything: http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/planning-and-building/city-plan-interactive-mapping-terms-conditions-21859.html I'm guessing that we can't make use of that plan info because of "You must not on-sell or distribute interactive mapping information for reward or otherwise to any other third party"? They also have a Park Finder page which let's you search for park names, facilities, sports & so on: http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/thegoldcoast/park-finder-24304.html It's disclaimer & copyright page: http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/disclaimer-and-copyright.html, says: "Works and subject matter other than works, including pages, documents, online graphics, audio and video are protected by the/Copyright Act 1968/as amended. All rights, including moral rights, are reserved. When you access the site, you agree to: * use the material on the site only for personal or educational information purposes and not for any other purpose * include the copyright notice in any copy you make * not modify information found in Council materials, attribute it as Council material, and then present it as Council material without prior written permission." So, how about that one, can we use it? Has anybody ever dealt with GCCC re access to their data? Any luck? May be a letter to the CEO asking for permission! 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] Gondwana Rainforests of Australia World Heritage Area
My understanding is that they are mutually exclusive. Whilst some areas may have mutual boundaries there are Gondwana Rainforest area's that are totally surrounded by national park, state forest, state conservation area, etc. There are also Gondwana Rainforest not included in other protected areas. I'd suggest where the boundary is the same then add the Gondwana Rainforest boundary to the LPI boundary multipolygon but leave the rest alone. For example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/-28.4882/152.4099 The Gondwana area does not completely encompass Tooloom National Park but appears to share some boundaries. Cheers Ross On 05/02/16 16:39, Nev Wedding wrote: I am finding that the new LPI NSW Administrative Boundaries NPWS Reserve boundaries are often in conflict with the previously imported Gondwana Rainforests of Australia World Heritage Area. The Gondwana data also does not name the individual protected area. Is it best to use the most similar polygon (or several similar if any) from the LPI NPWS Reserve boundary data and ‘replace geometry’ of the Gondwana data to keep a history. Then add all the new LPI polygons to make a new multi polygon and add the latest tags to it as normal. Then remove those out of date polygons from the Gondwana Rainforests of Australia World Heritage Area multipolygon. If you leave the Gondwana mp with an updated geometry and have a separate new LPI mp, the Gondwana name overlies the LPI name so I can’t see a way to have both. So, does the old Gondwana mp gradually get scavenged by the new LPI data as we add more parks. If so, should we also be adding tags to the newly created LPI Multipolygons to indicate that they are also part of the Gondwana Rainforests of Australia World Heritage Area. how? I expect that I have already mucked up some parts of the Gondwana mp unfortunately. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/protectedareas/GondwanaWorldHeritageArea.htm Nev ___ 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] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers
On 25/01/16 20:36, Ian Sergeant wrote: On 25 January 2016 at 19:38, Ross <i...@4x4falcon.com> wrote: And the guess does not get fixed there are many locations where roads are still on admin boundaries but the boundary is no long there (changes to boundaries) or the road has moved but nobody comes back to correct it. To me this seems like a more general problem. Mapping bare areas gets done, but when a road moves or a boundary moves then they don't tend to get noticed as much. After the ABS2006 data was imported, it wasn't linked to features, but quickly fell out of date as suburbs changed and were added. Ian. There was plenty of linking to roads/rivers/railways with this import. They are still to be found in the database. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers
On 25/01/16 14:31, Ian Sergeant wrote: On 25 January 2016 at 14:48, Ross <i...@4x4falcon.com> wrote How do you know it is the physical feature? Just because it follows approximately the feature does not mean it is. When originally gazetted the physical feature may have been located differently (roads, railways realigned, rivers making new paths) Don't automatically assume that the feature is still in the same place without looking at the imagery or physical survey. Don't assume that the boundary changes to the new position of the road, etc. There are numerous ways you can 'know' something. Legislation (including regulations, court judgement) is often the primary thing involved here. I'm not calling on people to guess, but we should bear in mind that OSM is an evolution, and we have often used these features in evolving the map until we locate or have free access to a definitive source. So you check each and every time for a source that shows the boundary you are working on is the physical feature and then provide the source in a tag? As you suggest most people will just guess and a lot of the time it may be so but it still causes issues with later changes and corrupting the original data (such as the NSW reserves boundaries). And the guess does not get fixed there are many locations where roads are still on admin boundaries but the boundary is no long there (changes to boundaries) or the road has moved but nobody comes back to correct it. But the border has not changed the river might have but there is no change to the border from when it was first surveyed/gazetted. The border is the line as when gazetted, not as where the riverbank is now. I think you're wrong. The border has been defined by High Court Judgement as including accretions and erosion. Including landslip such as in the Ward case. Of course, where the river has fundamentally changed course, the original course remains the boundary. But gradual erosion actually changes the border. Ian. But not in all cases as your previous post suggested and the location I pointed out shows. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers
In Australia all property boundaries are not the centreline of the road there is always a road reserve as Andrew pointed out. So simple do not make boundaries the road. Likewise be very careful assuming the boundary is the centreline of a river. eg the NSW Victoria border along the Murray River. If you don't know it's actually the southern river bank. Realistically with these boundaries if you move them to align with any physical feature then you are corrupting the data. Also if you make the boundary part of a physical feature without checking the full length of the boundary then you are corrupting the data again. It's really much cleaner and easier to just import/trace the boundary. If this shows up where a road/railway/whatever should be then trace it from the imagery as a separate way and tag it appropriately. Cheers Ross On 25/01/16 08:53, Ian Sergeant wrote: On 25 January 2016 at 09:29, Andrew Davidson <u...@internode.on.net <mailto:u...@internode.on.net>> wrote: The boundaries of the parks and forests are not going to be roads as they consist of a number of property lots that get declared for that purpose. Property boundaries don't run down the middle of the road, they'll be offset (at times the existing road isn't within the road reserve anymore). Property boundaries can be rivers (bank or thalweg depending) or the MHWM (also known as the "coast" in OSM). If OSM was only a colouring-in exercise, then this would be straightforward. However, roads in OSM are a vector representation of the road. And is is very common for the boundary of an area to be the road itself, that is there is no small gap between the area and the road. When the boundary of an area *is* the road, then I think it's entirely correct to include the ways that make up the road in the multi-poly that defines the area. Even though the vector nature of OSM slightly expands features that are 2 dimensional when they are adjacent to features that are 1 dimensional. The data is correct. Of course, if the boundary isn't defined by the road, but just happens to be close to it, then that's different. Ian. ___ 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] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers
On 25/01/16 11:58, Ian Sergeant wrote:
Hi,
The road is a vector, representing the road. It does not represent
the road centreline. It has properties, such as width and lanes, and
sidewalks.
If the boundary *is* the physical feature, then it is not corrupting
the data by making it align with the physical feature. If the boundary
is not the physical feature, then don't align it.
How do you know it is the physical feature?
Just because it follows approximately the feature does not mean it is.
When originally gazetted the physical feature may have been located
differently (roads, railways realigned, rivers making new paths) Don't
automatically assume that the feature is still in the same place without
looking at the imagery or physical survey. Don't assume that the
boundary changes to the new position of the road, etc.
The NSW/Victorian border has been done entirely along the riverbank.
Much of it by me and a few others after you guys decided to take your
bat & ball. So, I don't believe this is actually an issue. Do you
have any examples of where this is a concern?
No. It was just an example of were an incorrect assumption had been made.
Tracing the actual border between NSW/Victorian border was actually
quite interesting. You have the gradual accretion or divulsion to
consider, and it is clear the LPI data is not necessarily aligned with
what is current. Most of the border that I've traced I'd consider to
be more current than the LPI data, and I'd certainly want to thrash it
out before someone started replacing it with yet another import. We've
had so much ugliness in the past with these imported data sets with no
follow up.
But the border has not changed the river might have but there is no
change to the border from when it was first surveyed/gazetted. The
border is the line as when gazetted, not as where the riverbank is now.
An example of this is here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-36.19879/148.03658
Open it in josm then open the nsw imagery, and the nsw basemap and you
can see where the river was originally and where the border runs.
Cheers
Ross
This issue doesn't come up too much with property boundaries - that
are defined independent of the roads. It does come up with rivers and
coastline, and other areas where the physical feature is what is the
boundary.
Ian.
On 25 January 2016 at 11:09, Ross <i...@4x4falcon.com
<mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com>> wrote:
In Australia all property boundaries are not the centreline of the
road there is always a road reserve as Andrew pointed out. So
simple do not make boundaries the road.
Likewise be very careful assuming the boundary is the centreline
of a river. eg the NSW Victoria border along the Murray River.
If you don't know it's actually the southern river bank.
Realistically with these boundaries if you move them to align with
any physical feature then you are corrupting the data. Also if
you make the boundary part of a physical feature without checking
the full length of the boundary then you are corrupting the data
again.
It's really much cleaner and easier to just import/trace the
boundary. If this shows up where a road/railway/whatever should
be then trace it from the imagery as a separate way and tag it
appropriately.
Cheers
Ross
On 25/01/16 08:53, Ian Sergeant wrote:
On 25 January 2016 at 09:29, Andrew Davidson
<u...@internode.on.net <mailto:u...@internode.on.net>> wrote:
The boundaries of the parks and forests are not going to be
roads as they consist of a number of property lots that get
declared for that purpose. Property boundaries don't run down
the middle of the road, they'll be offset (at times the
existing road isn't within the road reserve anymore).
Property boundaries can be rivers (bank or thalweg depending)
or the MHWM (also known as the "coast" in OSM).
If OSM was only a colouring-in exercise, then this would be
straightforward.
However, roads in OSM are a vector representation of the road.
And is is very common for the boundary of an area to be the road
itself, that is there is no small gap between the area and the road.
When the boundary of an area *is* the road, then I think it's
entirely correct to include the ways that make up the road in the
multi-poly that defines the area. Even though the vector nature
of OSM slightly expands features that are 2 dimensional when they
are adjacent to features that are 1 dimensional. The data is correct.
Of course, if the boundary isn't defined by the road, but just
happens to be close to it, then that's different.
Ian.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
http
Re: [talk-au] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers
On 22/01/16 23:36, Andrew Davidson wrote: I found while doing the few test cases that I had to: - Make sure that common boundaries use only one way (which means that the more parks, state forests, admin areas, etc that share ways the more time consuming it gets) Why? There is no reason to have only one way for a boundary where a park and state forest (for example) join. The two ways can share the same nodes but keeping the two separate makes later editing correction so much easier. I'd also be very careful joining to admin boundarys without confirming with the basemap that the admin boundary is correct. - Make judgement calls about if you should use the new boundary or keep the existing way where the boundary is something physical on the ground like a river bank or coastline. This is why I tagged the new ways with source:geometry so other mappers can see where they came from. I don't think this is a good idea and your actually corrupting the data. The boundaries are separate to what is on the ground. I've see many where the boundary was where the original river was but over time the river has moved and the boundary is no longer where the river is. Likewise roads that have been rerouted. - If there are already ways in place, using the replace geometry function of the utils2 plugin to try and preserve history. The cases I tried as a test were: South East Forest National Park: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5853354 Murramarang National Park: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5858067 Clyde River National Park: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5857616 The South East Forest case was a multi-hour mapping marathon as the park has a lot of separate sections and shares many boundaries with neighbouring state forests and parks. The other two were much simpler but Murramarang need more time than Clyde River as it has more sections and shares a lot of common ways with the coast and various rivers. Did you compare the boundary with the coastline on the imagery? It's probably not the same and therefore should not be joined to the coastline. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers
Looks good to me. On 23/01/16 13:19, Nev Wedding wrote: Done…Here it is http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5892156 On 23 Jan 2016, at 12:43 PM, Ross <i...@4x4falcon.com <mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com>> wrote: On 23/01/16 12:26, Nev Wedding wrote: I have followed this process for Kooyong State Conservation Area which has gone well after opening the kms file and have simplified and added all the tags, …but on trying to upload the final boundary I get this ominous message “ You are about to upload data from the layer 'Kooyong.kml'. Sending data from this layer is *strongly discouraged*. If you continue, it may require you subsequently have to revert your changes, or force other contributors to. Are you sure you want to continue? “ I assume the warning is to dissuade mappers from careless import of large uncorrected datasets.? Yes. Sooo…, am I ok to continue or is there another reason? ..I am on-hold here until I see a reply Nev However you may want to upload one, provide a link to it and then see what others think. Cheers Ross On 22 Jan 2016, at 11:36 PM, Andrew Davidson <u...@internode.on.net <mailto:u...@internode.on.net>> wrote: You can extract the geometries from the database directly, you don't have to scan them. I tried this on three park areas to see how much work was involved. The recipe I followed was: 1. Use the query tool to find out how many objects have the name that you are looking for. You do this with: http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries/MapServer/6/query with the return format set to html. Names must be in upper case and you need to see what object ids are returned. For example if you search for Yanununbeyan with: http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries/MapServer/6/query?text=YANUNUNBEYAN==esriGeometryEnvelope==esriSpatialRelIntersects=false=false=truehtml You get three different ids (198,208,1131) because there is a Yanununbeyan State Conservation Area, Yanununbeyan Nature Reserve, and Yanununbeyan National Park. All of which need to be tagged differently. Follow the object links to find out what type of area they are. 2. Having found the object id you need you get the geometry by using the query tool and setting the object id, setting the output spatial reference to 4326 (WGS84), and changing the output format to JSON. 3. Save the resulting page, say output.json 4. Use ogr2ogr from GDAL to convert the output into something JOSM can read: ogr2ogr -f "KML" output.json output.kml 5. If you have the opendata plugin installed you can open output.kml in JOSM. 6. Use the simplify way option in JOSM as there are far too many points in the resulting kml. I personally thought that the default 3m looks OK. 7. Tag the ways with an appropriate source:geometry and add a note to the effect that the way has been simplified using a max error criterion set to whatever you used. 8. Now comes the difficult and time consuming bit. You have to cut up and conflate the new boundaries with the existing data as you merge each new way from the layer you opened the kml in to the layer the osm data is in. This is the step where you could really make a mess. I found while doing the few test cases that I had to: - Make sure that common boundaries use only one way (which means that the more parks, state forests, admin areas, etc that share ways the more time consuming it gets) - Make judgement calls about if you should use the new boundary or keep the existing way where the boundary is something physical on the ground like a river bank or coastline. This is why I tagged the new ways with source:geometry so other mappers can see where they came from. - If there are already ways in place, using the replace geometry function of the utils2 plugin to try and preserve history. The cases I tried as a test were: South East Forest National Park: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5853354 Murramarang National Park: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5858067 Clyde River National Park: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5857616 The South East Forest case was a multi-hour mapping marathon as the park has a lot of separate sections and shares many boundaries with neighbouring state forests and parks. The other two were much simpler but Murramarang need more time than Clyde River as it has more sections and shares a lot of common ways with the coast and various rivers. As to the import question it seems to me that there is a tacit agreement that tracing the boundaries one at a time is acceptable (not sure what the rest of OSM would think about this). Given that the biggest problem with an import would be conflating the data with the existing, provided that we're carefully hand-crafting each park I think we're OK. Does anyone have a differing opinion? On Tue, 19 Jan 201
Re: [talk-au] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers
On 23/01/16 12:26, Nev Wedding wrote: I have followed this process for Kooyong State Conservation Area which has gone well after opening the kms file and have simplified and added all the tags, …but on trying to upload the final boundary I get this ominous message “ You are about to upload data from the layer 'Kooyong.kml'. Sending data from this layer is *strongly discouraged*. If you continue, it may require you subsequently have to revert your changes, or force other contributors to. Are you sure you want to continue? “ I assume the warning is to dissuade mappers from careless import of large uncorrected datasets.? Yes. Sooo…, am I ok to continue or is there another reason? ..I am on-hold here until I see a reply Nev However you may want to upload one, provide a link to it and then see what others think. Cheers Ross On 22 Jan 2016, at 11:36 PM, Andrew Davidson <u...@internode.on.net <mailto:u...@internode.on.net>> wrote: You can extract the geometries from the database directly, you don't have to scan them. I tried this on three park areas to see how much work was involved. The recipe I followed was: 1. Use the query tool to find out how many objects have the name that you are looking for. You do this with: http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries/MapServer/6/query with the return format set to html. Names must be in upper case and you need to see what object ids are returned. For example if you search for Yanununbeyan with: http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries/MapServer/6/query?text=YANUNUNBEYAN==esriGeometryEnvelope==esriSpatialRelIntersects=false=false=truehtml You get three different ids (198,208,1131) because there is a Yanununbeyan State Conservation Area, Yanununbeyan Nature Reserve, and Yanununbeyan National Park. All of which need to be tagged differently. Follow the object links to find out what type of area they are. 2. Having found the object id you need you get the geometry by using the query tool and setting the object id, setting the output spatial reference to 4326 (WGS84), and changing the output format to JSON. 3. Save the resulting page, say output.json 4. Use ogr2ogr from GDAL to convert the output into something JOSM can read: ogr2ogr -f "KML" output.json output.kml 5. If you have the opendata plugin installed you can open output.kml in JOSM. 6. Use the simplify way option in JOSM as there are far too many points in the resulting kml. I personally thought that the default 3m looks OK. 7. Tag the ways with an appropriate source:geometry and add a note to the effect that the way has been simplified using a max error criterion set to whatever you used. 8. Now comes the difficult and time consuming bit. You have to cut up and conflate the new boundaries with the existing data as you merge each new way from the layer you opened the kml in to the layer the osm data is in. This is the step where you could really make a mess. I found while doing the few test cases that I had to: - Make sure that common boundaries use only one way (which means that the more parks, state forests, admin areas, etc that share ways the more time consuming it gets) - Make judgement calls about if you should use the new boundary or keep the existing way where the boundary is something physical on the ground like a river bank or coastline. This is why I tagged the new ways with source:geometry so other mappers can see where they came from. - If there are already ways in place, using the replace geometry function of the utils2 plugin to try and preserve history. The cases I tried as a test were: South East Forest National Park: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5853354 Murramarang National Park: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5858067 Clyde River National Park: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5857616 The South East Forest case was a multi-hour mapping marathon as the park has a lot of separate sections and shares many boundaries with neighbouring state forests and parks. The other two were much simpler but Murramarang need more time than Clyde River as it has more sections and shares a lot of common ways with the coast and various rivers. As to the import question it seems to me that there is a tacit agreement that tracing the boundaries one at a time is acceptable (not sure what the rest of OSM would think about this). Given that the biggest problem with an import would be conflating the data with the existing, provided that we're carefully hand-crafting each park I think we're OK. Does anyone have a differing opinion? On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:44:12 +1000 Nev Wedding <nwas...@gmail.com> wrote: Should the JOSM Scanaerial plugin be able to scan the LPI NSW Administrative Boundaries NPWS Reserve WMS layer and others. I would like to zoom in to a section and use t
Re: [talk-au] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers
scanaerial or tracer2 plugins both work with the Reserves WMS layer. As to setting it up on OSX I'd suggest it's similar to the linux setup as the operating systems are similar, just need to put the config file in the appropriate place and have python installed. Cheers Ross On 19/01/16 13:44, Nev Wedding wrote: Should the JOSM Scanaerial plugin be able to scan the LPI NSW Administrative Boundaries NPWS Reserve WMS layer and others. I would like to zoom in to a section and use the plugin as an initial pass instead of manually mouse clicking around the long and winding boundary and then refine the result before tagging and uploading. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Scanaerial I am using a mac OS X and there are no instructions for that install so I may not have it set up correctly yet, so first up before proceeding further, I would like to know if it will help anyway. I am unfamiliar with tracing shapes other than tediously wandering around the boundaries one click at a time. I played around with Gimp and Inkscape but found that to be quite a task too and wasn’t sure if I could use the output in Josm in anyway. How do you manage such tasks? Are their special mouse tools available? Is what I am trying to do essentially considered to be part of an import and/or the current LPI layers unsuitable for the tracing process. Some links to where to find more info on this topic would be appreciated. ___ 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] Osmose in Australia
Be interesting to see if it does.
I think it's one of those that may need a human to check and say yes
this is correct or not.
Cheers
Ross
On 17/01/16 09:47, Sam Wilson wrote:
Ah, yes! Good point, I'll fix that. :) But I think Osmose would still
complain, because landuse and waterway shouldn't go together. I think.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osmose/issues#4030
—Sam
On 17/01/16 07:40, Ross wrote:
Probably because landuse=commercial is for office buildings etc.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dcommercial
I'd suggest that it should be landuse=industrial
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dindustrial
Cheers
Ross
On 17/01/16 08:54, Sam Wilson wrote:
This is a very groovy tool. :-)
Can anyone help me with this error
http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/error/5218289675 ?
I thought waterway=boatyard and landuse=commercial would be a
reasonable combination. ("Boatyard - a place for constructing,
repairing and storing vessels out of the water" says the wiki
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dboatyard>.) But
then, it doesn't really make sense for that to be a 'waterway'...
Thanks,
Sam.
On 17/01/16 05:43, Frédéric Rodrigo wrote:
Hello,
This is not fully setup, yet.
We switch from check the country in one piece to do by states.
http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/errors/?country=australia_*=
If "approximate waterway" (or other) is not appropriate for
Australia we can switch off.
Frédéric.
As Prof. Farnsworth would say: Good news people.
It seems that some time in mid-December Australia was added to the
countries being analysed by Osmose:
http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/errors/?country=australia=
The map is here:
http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/
It's interesting that the most common error is "approximate
waterway",
I'm guessing that the algorithm may be tuned for European conditions
and our quickly sketched river look bad.
___
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
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Residential/commercial property boundaries
I don't believe that the address should be on either the property or the building. Specific example are where you have a 1 million acre property and if you map it out and put the address on the boundary way it will show up outside the property because of the shape of the property. If you put it on the building it shows up but gives no indication of where the property access is and if you attempted to get there you'd just get lost. I always put address on node preferably where the access to the property is. examples of these properties are here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/-16.1609/135.6528 Bauhinia Downs is one and the other is Lorella Springs on the other side of the north south road here. As far as landuse=residential goes I have mapped from different sources but rather then mapping individual properties map the whole area of residential/retail/industrial etc. An example here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-21.0723/149.2217 Cheers Ross On 04/01/16 01:42, Michael Gratton wrote: So basically there's no consensus about whether property boundaries should be included or not, but regardless they won't get rendered anyway. I experimented by adding some properties and their addresses for a couple of streets in around Enmore, and Nominatum was able to find the addresses as you'd expect, e.g. searching for "22 charles st, enmore" returns <http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/389348302>. However also as expected no boundary or even house number was rendered. What a shame. It seems that in lieu of having any buildings marked out, using property borders would have been a useful way to indicate addresses - also seems more correct than using buildings, to my mind anyway. //Mike ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Importing Vicmap Lite data
As Andrew pointed out explicit permission is required to import/trace etc, data you do not own. It's part of the contributor terms of osm. http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms This basically says "if you don't own the data then you have permission to use it". Otherwise as below: On 14/12/15 12:17, Russell Edwards wrote: Hi, I just wanted to double check before I do this as people seem to talk casually about using Vicmap Lite data but the OSM Wiki has a long process to go through with the community before doing any imports. I have downloaded "Statewide Public Land Classification boundaries, polygon - 1:250,000 to 1 :2 million. Vicmap Lite". It is CC BY-4.0-International. I want to add boundaries of some local state forests I frequent, using this data. My questions are * Can I just go ahead and do it? Probably not as you don't have explicit permission. * I haven't done boundaries before, do I need a shared node where roads and waterways cross the boundary? No * What if there is an existing overlapping area natural=wood that follows the aerial tree extent (which doesn't exactly match the boundary)? Leave them both there? Do I need natural=wood on the state forest boundary area to, to make it display green? What about the conflict there? Yes but it's going to depend on the actual boundary. It may be that there is a firebreak and someone has traced the wood outline but the boundary is actually about 5metres away. Maybe have a look at doing one area and post a link to get feedback from others. * Anything else to watch for? Don't join boundaries to things that are not boundaries. Cheers Ross ___ 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] Cities in Australia
Hi Leith, Problem is that the place= definitions in the main part of the wiki really do not apply to Australia. I'd consider Port Macquarie a city. Cheers Ross On 14/11/15 15:07, Leith Bade wrote: Hi Ross, Yeah I finished adding population tags (and updating old ones) to all cities in Tasmania and NSW using the 2011 Census. It has seemed to help improve the map a bit. I will also continue adding population to the other "Significant Urban Areas" that are towns as defined by Census. Hopefully these get picked up. However maybe these significant towns should be made "cities" for the purposes of OSM to remain consistent. E.g. Port Macquarie is technically still a town, but is bigger than a number of regional NSW cities. Thanks, Leith Bade le...@mapbox.com <mailto:le...@mapbox.com> On 13 November 2015 at 22:24, Ross <i...@4x4falcon.com <mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com>> wrote: Hi Again, This has been discussed before: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#City.2C_Town_or_Village.3F I'd suggest searching/reading the wiki to see what's been accepted and why things are as they are. Adding a population key is probably a good idea though. Cheers Ross On 13/11/15 18:42, Leith Bade wrote: Hi, I have been working in OSMI to tidy up Australia's places. My goal is to try and get it roughly in line with the quality in New Zealand. There are a few places with non-numeric population tags, a few labelled "town" but the population is tiny (100-200). I have been trying to work out a reasonably consistent methodology for City vs Town. I am thinking of ensuring that all "City" councils are listed as a city. Additionally every "City" should have a recent population tag which I have been taking from the 2011 Census. This makes it easier for people making maps from the data as they can differentiate large/small cities. As for very small "towns" the situation is less clear. Most towns don't have a population tag so OSMI does not flag them, the few that do get flagged. I think we will just have to leave those as is since the local community will have a better sense of if the locals consider a place to be a town or a village. Thanks, Leith Bade le...@mapbox.com <mailto:le...@mapbox.com> ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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] Cities in Australia
Hi Again, This has been discussed before: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#City.2C_Town_or_Village.3F I'd suggest searching/reading the wiki to see what's been accepted and why things are as they are. Adding a population key is probably a good idea though. Cheers Ross On 13/11/15 18:42, Leith Bade wrote: Hi, I have been working in OSMI to tidy up Australia's places. My goal is to try and get it roughly in line with the quality in New Zealand. There are a few places with non-numeric population tags, a few labelled "town" but the population is tiny (100-200). I have been trying to work out a reasonably consistent methodology for City vs Town. I am thinking of ensuring that all "City" councils are listed as a city. Additionally every "City" should have a recent population tag which I have been taking from the 2011 Census. This makes it easier for people making maps from the data as they can differentiate large/small cities. As for very small "towns" the situation is less clear. Most towns don't have a population tag so OSMI does not flag them, the few that do get flagged. I think we will just have to leave those as is since the local community will have a better sense of if the locals consider a place to be a town or a village. Thanks, Leith Bade le...@mapbox.com <mailto:le...@mapbox.com> ___ 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] Highway route number prefixes for QLD and NT
To me your proposed changes appear to be a lot like tagging for the renderer: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer If the states are not doing alphanumeric then they should not be rendered that way. I'd suggest linking to the routes you are proposing to change and see what opinions you get. I'm sure this has been discussed before and I think the general consensus was "only tag with alphanumerics where it is signposted as such". You may also want to have a look at these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_road_routes_in_Queensland There is a similar wikipedia page for each state. Cheers Ross On 10/11/15 16:19, Leith Bade wrote: Hi, I work for Mapbox as their only southern hemisphere contractor based in Canberra. Recently we begun a project to enhance our maps with highway shield images. Most of Australia has been fairly straightforward to develop shield selection rules for thanks to the alphanumeric system. However there are a states where no prefix is used with numeral only routes. Particularly Queensland (which has a mix of numeral and alphanumeric systems due to ongoing transition), the Northern Territory, and West Australia (which have not adopted the alphanumeric yet). In other states prefixes are used to separate National Highways (green and gold shields), National Routes (white shields) and State Routes (blue shields). Notably in Melbourne a "S xx" and West Australia a "Sxx" prefix is used for blue shield routes. Also in Tasmania "NH1" is used for the only non-alphanumeric route. For national consistency I would like to change all state routes in the Northern Territory and Queensland to use a "Sxx" prefix. Additionally in West Australia and Northern Territory to change all national highways to "NHxx" prefix. There is no use of a prefix currently anywhere for a national route, however changing the few remaining routes in West Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland to use a "NRxx" prefix would be useful. Finally I found state route 24 in Northern Territory is highway=trunk when at most it should be highway=primary to match the rest of the state. Also in Queensland national route 1 from Cairns heading out west is also trunk when at most it should be primary since it does not connect to a major city. I welcome any feedback or suggestions. Thanks, Leith Bade le...@mapbox.com <mailto:le...@mapbox.com> ___ 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] Brisbane river
Good. Cheers Ross On 21/07/15 06:35, Phillip and Kerrie wrote: Thank you Ross for the pointer about my tool chain. I have now found a much more comprehensive import tool set and am able to produce the picture that I am looking for. On 20 July 2015 at 16:26, Phillip and Kerrie phil...@gmail.com mailto:phil...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks, I will now go away and look into using a different tool set to get the data into QGIS. On 20 July 2015 at 15:51, Ross i...@4x4falcon.com mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: Ok. So looking at this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1693549 The riverbank multipolygon is closed otherwise this would not render. It is a relation made up of 5 ways. Are you sure you are loading all the data? There are also limits on how many nodes you can have in a way, that's why larger lakes rivers etc are made up of numerous ways in a multipolygon relation. I'd suggest rather than changing the osm data you modify the data in QGIS and then generate the map. Cheers Ross On 20/07/15 13:52, Phillip and Kerrie wrote: yes I would just be closing the river bank ways. And yes I am tagging for the renderer. I am making maps for my employer, in QGIS and mapinfo, and wanted to use the OMS data imported as lines and polygons as part of my background. For this to work with the QGIS importer the river banks need to be closed so as to become polygons. Phillip Shelton On 20 July 2015 at 13:40, Ross i...@4x4falcon.com mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: Guess it depends on how you go about this. I'm guessing that you intend to create waterway=riverbank[1] multipolygons for the rivers and leave the waterway=river[2] in place marking the centerline of the river. If so should not be a problem. Be careful that you are not tagging for the renderer though. As this: Having the wide rivers as closed objects means that waterways import as polygons and that makes making good looking maps easier. sounds very much like manipulating the data to create the output you want. Cheers Ross [1]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank [2]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driver On 20/07/15 13:17, Phillip and Kerrie wrote: HI, I recently downloaded the openstreetmap data for parts of South East Queensland. When I imported this data into GIS, I found that the waterways were not always closed objects. Having the wide rivers as closed objects means that waterways import as polygons and that makes making good looking maps easier. Would I be stepping on anyone's toes if I closed the waterway ways on the wider rivers in SEQ? Phillip Shelton ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto: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] Brisbane river
Guess it depends on how you go about this. I'm guessing that you intend to create waterway=riverbank[1] multipolygons for the rivers and leave the waterway=river[2] in place marking the centerline of the river. If so should not be a problem. Be careful that you are not tagging for the renderer though. As this: Having the wide rivers as closed objects means that waterways import as polygons and that makes making good looking maps easier. sounds very much like manipulating the data to create the output you want. Cheers Ross [1]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank [2]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driver On 20/07/15 13:17, Phillip and Kerrie wrote: HI, I recently downloaded the openstreetmap data for parts of South East Queensland. When I imported this data into GIS, I found that the waterways were not always closed objects. Having the wide rivers as closed objects means that waterways import as polygons and that makes making good looking maps easier. Would I be stepping on anyone's toes if I closed the waterway ways on the wider rivers in SEQ? Phillip Shelton ___ 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] Brisbane river
Ok. So looking at this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1693549 The riverbank multipolygon is closed otherwise this would not render. It is a relation made up of 5 ways. Are you sure you are loading all the data? There are also limits on how many nodes you can have in a way, that's why larger lakes rivers etc are made up of numerous ways in a multipolygon relation. I'd suggest rather than changing the osm data you modify the data in QGIS and then generate the map. Cheers Ross On 20/07/15 13:52, Phillip and Kerrie wrote: yes I would just be closing the river bank ways. And yes I am tagging for the renderer. I am making maps for my employer, in QGIS and mapinfo, and wanted to use the OMS data imported as lines and polygons as part of my background. For this to work with the QGIS importer the river banks need to be closed so as to become polygons. Phillip Shelton On 20 July 2015 at 13:40, Ross i...@4x4falcon.com mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: Guess it depends on how you go about this. I'm guessing that you intend to create waterway=riverbank[1] multipolygons for the rivers and leave the waterway=river[2] in place marking the centerline of the river. If so should not be a problem. Be careful that you are not tagging for the renderer though. As this: Having the wide rivers as closed objects means that waterways import as polygons and that makes making good looking maps easier. sounds very much like manipulating the data to create the output you want. Cheers Ross [1]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank [2]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driver On 20/07/15 13:17, Phillip and Kerrie wrote: HI, I recently downloaded the openstreetmap data for parts of South East Queensland. When I imported this data into GIS, I found that the waterways were not always closed objects. Having the wide rivers as closed objects means that waterways import as polygons and that makes making good looking maps easier. Would I be stepping on anyone's toes if I closed the waterway ways on the wider rivers in SEQ? Phillip Shelton ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto: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] OSM people in ACT
Hi Kristy, I'm not in the ACT but the following would be nice data to add and could be done by anyone if licenced appropriately. Addresses In a ESRI shape file or osm file geocoded like the Vic, Tas and Qld. Victorian and Tasmanian are the best examples have a look at thelist.tas.gov.au or data.vic.gov.au Building outlines. In an ESRI shape file or osm file geocoded like the Launceston and Glenorchy City Council data on thelist.tas.gov.au also. Road centerlines with names. As a wms layer same as at thelist.tas.gov.au This is not overly necessary as most of the names can be deduced from the address data. Just sometimes there is short streets where there is no actual property with an address so it can be looked up. Also where one road changes names partway along the road with no discernable intersection. Cheers Ross On 05/05/15 16:11, Kristy Van Putten wrote: Hi All, I am searching for active OSM contributors in ACT, if you are one please email me or contact me via my mobile. I am interested to get your thoughts on the current state of OSM in ACT and if there is any aspect the government can assist in. Cheers Kristy Van Putten kristy.vanput...@gmail.com 0414844825 ___ 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] Use of mapconnect data in OSM [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
On 15/04/15 23:14, Andrew Harvey wrote: On 15 April 2015 at 23:01, Ross i...@4x4falcon.com mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: The issue is not with the licence. The current terms and conditions require permission to add data not owned by the contributor. Is there a source for this statement? Go back to all the discussions in the 12 months prior to the licence change. This was one of the major sticking points for a number of contributors. I was under the assumption that in order to contribute data (whether your own or someone else's) into OSM, the data must comply with the contributor terms. Although the CTs agree to always give attribution, this (probably) still isn't compatible with the attribution required by CC-BY and the provide a link to the license and indicate if changes were made clauses of CC-BY. So my thinking is for data to be added to OSM under the current CTs it needs to waive these requirements of CC-BY and settle for attribution only (and perhaps a specific form of attribution). As you point out though this data is upto 8 years old and in many cases there is probably better or more current data available eg Tasmanian Estate Reserve. CAPAD is seems pretty good, http://www.environment.gov.au/fed/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7B4448CACD-9DA8-43D1-A48F-48149FD5FCFD%7D ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Use of mapconnect data in OSM
I did not say that you can't import it, just that you need permission from the data owner to do so and you need to advise them that it's going into a different licence. Cheers Ross On 6 April 2015 at 10:40, Ross i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: With the current terms and conditions you need to have permission of the work owner to add it to the database. Something that is licenced CC-BY-SA does not imply permission. There have been numerous debates on this pre and post licence change in 2012 Is there a reference for this? That CC-BY data (not CC-BY-SA) cannot be imported into OSM under the current CT+license? ___ 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] Use of mapconnect data in OSM
With the current terms and conditions you need to have permission of the work owner to add it to the database. Something that is licenced CC-BY-SA does not imply permission. There have been numerous debates on this pre and post licence change in 2012 See here for an example of what has been done previously: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tasmania_Parks_Import Cheers Ross On 05/04/15 19:38, Warren wrote: Can someone in the know talk with me about mapconnect? http://mapconnect.ga.gov.au/MapConnect/index.jsp The licensing statement at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode and the human readable version seem to me to indicate that its use is OK provided you give appropriate credit and show a link to the license. I was looking for a way to import National Park Boundaries into OSM. The data is there but, lets face it the licensing issues are so complex that I do not know if we are allowed. I have put a boundary around John Forrest National Park, just east of Midland WA, ex an shp file from mapconnect. Easily revertible. I would appreciate a response to the licensing issue and if the boundary definition is OK. Thanks Warren ___ 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] AGRI.openstreetmap.org not working
Still not available. Any update on when it's likely to be back. Cheers Ross On 17/10/14 08:40, Ross Scanlon wrote: Any update on when this will be fixed? Cheers Ross On 10/08/14 23:54, Grant Slater wrote: Hi All, Sorry... Not yet been able to get access to the broken machine. It will remain high on my task list to get it up and running again. Longer term the rest of the sysadmin team are planning to replace faffy with a better more reliable imagery server. / Grant On 10 Aug 2014 12:25, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 July 2014 15:30, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com mailto:openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: We had a problem with the server (faffy) which runs agri.openstreetmap.org http://agri.openstreetmap.org, it no longer starts up, we were limited on time and were not able to get it up and running again. I will visit the data centre in a week to fix or replace the hardware. I do find the AGRI imagery useful and it would be great if we could access it again. Many thanks for all your effort Grant, hopefully you are able to fix the remaining issues. ___ 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] AGRI.openstreetmap.org not working
As the title says agri.openstreetmap.org does not appear to be working. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] VicMap in Potlatch2
Thanks.
It can also be used in josm.
Edit-Preferences-WMS/TMS
add a new tms
http://whoots.mapwarper.net:80/tms/{zoom}/{x}/{y}/WEB_MERCATOR/http://api.maps.vic.gov.au/geowebcacheWM/service/wms?VERSION=1.1.1TILED=true
Cheers
Ross
On 14/05/14 11:08, Steve Bennett wrote:
Hi all,
I've just discovered you can add VicMap, Victoria's open data
licensed authoritative mapping service, into Potlatch 2. It's not at all
obvious how, so here's the answer:
In Background, click Edit then add:
http://whoots.mapwarper.net:80/tms/$z/$x/$y/WEB_MERCATOR/http://api.maps.vic.gov.au/geowebcacheWM/service/wms?VERSION=1.1.1TILED=true
To explain:
- Vicmap provides an API which is basically a weird forked version of
OpenLayers:
http://api.maps.vic.gov.au/index.php/developers-resources/javascript-api
- Digging through that you can find their actual WMS endpoint, which is
http://api.maps.vic.gov.au/vicmapapi/map/wms
- Except, that data is in EPSG 3111 projection, rather than the web
standard EPSG 3857. Their documentation says that EPSG 3857 will be
available by the end of August 2013, then no more info about it:
http://api.maps.vic.gov.au/index.php/product-information/projections-sacles/web-mercator
- Anyway it turns out the EPSG 3857 projection is available at
http://api.maps.vic.gov.au/geowebcacheWM/service/wms (I assume the WM
stands for 'web mercator', aka EPSG 3857)
- But still, it's only provided as a WMS service, which isn't directly
supported by Potlatch 2. That's why you need to use the
whoots.mapwarper.net http://whoots.mapwarper.net proxying service
which converts WMS to web tiles.
Enjoy.
Steve
___
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] QLD GTFS Data Imports
On 24/02/14 12:01, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Bummer that you can't get in contact with morb_au Have you tried twitter? A search there shows he's still around but possibly not really interested in osm any more. His first diary post gives a hint to the dis-interest. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Motorway edits in NSW / Vic
If DWG has put a block then he can not edit until responding to it to the DWG. That's not to say he can not make another user name. Cheers Ross On 17/02/14 09:27, Jason Ward wrote: It still leaves correction of errors up to the community I'm afraid and if he ignores that message in the user block DWG will need to be notified again to get that account dealt with more permanently. Good luck guys. Cheers, Jason On 17 Feb 2014 07:41, Leon Kernan lker...@gmail.com mailto:lker...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Jason for contacting DWG on this. It seems he's been issued with a warning, we'll see if it has any impact. Today the Western highway has been upgraded again after it had been reverted to normal. I notice that supposedly we have tunnelled around Beaufort now, As a Victorian taxpayer i'd like to know how we can afford these tunnels as long as the East-West link! :-p One positive in this, it's got me to start using JOSM a little. I might just change over from Potlatch 2 yet.. On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Jason Ward jasonjwa...@gmail.com mailto:jasonjwa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi DWG (CC talk-au list), Below is a segment of a discussion on talk-au regarding edits made by http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/robbief14. He is unresponsive to messages sent via OSM and continues to add and remove content that has been established as incorrect. I am notifying you as users within the talk-au discussion have established some actions within his edits to be vandalism (with some rollbacks by users being re-added back in by this user). If you have any questions please contact the guys on the list and I apologise if you have been notified separately to my comms (no-one was nominated or volunteered so I just sent this message). Cheers, Jason On 16 February 2014 08:31, Leon Kernan lker...@gmail.com mailto:lker...@gmail.com wrote: No, he seems to be putting back his fake roads again. Just as I finished fixing some of them from last time... Has anyone managed to contact him (I noticed several people in the talk-GB list were trying to) and is it time to get someone like the Data Working Group involved to deal with him? At the least, I believe every one of his edits in Australia is bogus. I've checked the following: He's reinstated the Shepparton bypass again. I can say with certainty that that road doesn't exist except in the road authorities future plans. There is also a Pacific Highway tunnel that's appeared in Sydney that I believe is still in the planning phase. The Adelaide northern connector is also in the planning phase (still not funded according to their website) and sure enough, he's made it complete. Look at this minor example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/261508781#map=19/-37.56324/143.93172 There is no justification for adding those ramps, which would be dangerous if they were actually built like that. On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 3:49 AM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk mailto:li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: There seem to be a lot of deletions in this and subsequent changesets: http://www.openstreetmap.org/__changeset/20555081 http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/20555081 Are they valid? Cheers, Andy _ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.__org/listinfo/talk-au https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto: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] Motorway edits in NSW / Vic
Contact the DWG, get them to put a block on this user. Then you can do something about the edits. This is similar to previous vandalism in the Perth area by the likes of user Brendan_Cherry Cheers Ross On 16/02/14 13:23, Leon Kernan wrote: Problem is that some of these were tagged under construction where appropriate. He's just changing them to open and sometimes adding his own embellishments. On Sunday, February 16, 2014, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: Some don't read their email How about marking the things he is adding - under construction - so they don't apear on maps Nameing them Reiff14 READ YOUR EMAIL! Adding Note with the same as name... Note I've not used his actual 'name' .. but I'd think that may get through? There is a twitter account with that name ... and a mapmy person with the same name too... On 16/02/2014 9:31 AM, Leon Kernan wrote: No, he seems to be putting back his fake roads again. Just as I finished fixing some of them from last time... Has anyone managed to contact him (I noticed several people in the talk-GB list were trying to) and is it time to get someone like the Data Working Group involved to deal with him? At the least, I believe every one of his edits in Australia is bogus. I've checked the following: He's reinstated the Shepparton bypass again. I can say with certainty that that road doesn't exist except in the road authorities future plans. There is also a Pacific Highway tunnel that's appeared in Sydney that I believe is still in the planning phase. The Adelaide northern connector is also in the planning phase (still not funded according to their website) and sure enough, he's made it complete. Look at this minor example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/261508781#map=19/-37.56324/143.93172 There is no justification for adding those ramps, which would be dangerous if they were actually built like that. On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 3:49 AM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk'); wrote: There seem to be a lot of deletions in this and subsequent changesets: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/20555081 Are they valid? Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Talk-au@openstreetmap.org'); https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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] Motorway edits in NSW / Vic
If the DWG does not respond then try contacting Frederik Ramm at; frederik at remote dot org He is usually very helpful with instances of vandalism. Cheers Ross On 16/02/14 13:46, Ross Scanlon wrote: Contact the DWG, get them to put a block on this user. Then you can do something about the edits. This is similar to previous vandalism in the Perth area by the likes of user Brendan_Cherry Cheers Ross On 16/02/14 13:23, Leon Kernan wrote: Problem is that some of these were tagged under construction where appropriate. He's just changing them to open and sometimes adding his own embellishments. On Sunday, February 16, 2014, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: Some don't read their email How about marking the things he is adding - under construction - so they don't apear on maps Nameing them Reiff14 READ YOUR EMAIL! Adding Note with the same as name... Note I've not used his actual 'name' .. but I'd think that may get through? There is a twitter account with that name ... and a mapmy person with the same name too... On 16/02/2014 9:31 AM, Leon Kernan wrote: No, he seems to be putting back his fake roads again. Just as I finished fixing some of them from last time... Has anyone managed to contact him (I noticed several people in the talk-GB list were trying to) and is it time to get someone like the Data Working Group involved to deal with him? At the least, I believe every one of his edits in Australia is bogus. I've checked the following: He's reinstated the Shepparton bypass again. I can say with certainty that that road doesn't exist except in the road authorities future plans. There is also a Pacific Highway tunnel that's appeared in Sydney that I believe is still in the planning phase. The Adelaide northern connector is also in the planning phase (still not funded according to their website) and sure enough, he's made it complete. Look at this minor example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/261508781#map=19/-37.56324/143.93172 There is no justification for adding those ramps, which would be dangerous if they were actually built like that. On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 3:49 AM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk'); wrote: There seem to be a lot of deletions in this and subsequent changesets: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/20555081 Are they valid? Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Talk-au@openstreetmap.org'); https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
I'd still suggest addr:city=Brisbane addr:suburb=The Gap This follows the full addressing, I don't know if there is any other suburb The Gap but imagine two suburbs A_suburb in two different cites A_city and B_city in the same state in the same country. The if you put: addr:city=A_suburb addr:state=state addr:country=country Then which one are you talking about. Where as if you put: addr:suburb=A_suburb addr:city=A_city or B_city addr:state=state addr:country=country Then it's immediately apparent which is which. Just my thoughts. Cheers Ross On 19/01/14 13:00, Stéphane Guillou 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 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Address tagging guidelines for Australia
I came to this because I was asking myself: - Are we using QLD or Queensland for addr:state? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:state - What is our definition of suburb vs city for the tags? (e.g. The Gap vs Brisbane. Postal addresses only contain The Gap, and it is referred as a suburb of Brisbane in spoken language, but does the tagging scheme ask for The Gap as addr:city?) addr:state=Qld addr:city=Brisbane addr:suburb=The Gap I'd also suggest adding to all addr:postcode= addr:country=AU I know that nominatim can determine these but other data users may want this information for other purposes. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian Tagging Guidelines
On 08/01/14 10:26, Warin wrote: Hi, Some thoughts on Australian Tagging Guidelines - OpenStreetMap Wiki.htm First it is very good - covers most common issues. In fact I'd call it excellent. But .. there could be some additions? How do you tag a 'Gully'? .. I've used waterway=stream intermittent=yes, googled from an American post. Looks to work (I've used it on Gallipoli). +1 Changes? The default number of lanes. Currently 2 except for oneway, there it is 1. Change to Default number is 2 except for Motorways = 4? Would have thought 2 would be more likely, given that they tend to be two on each carriageway except in urban areas and where additional lanes may be required. Mind you it's a while since I drove on one as I tend to avoid them where possible, rather take the scenic route. 4WD difficult ratings .. well the Mountain Bikers have a system .. use that? While the difficulty levels change with the vehicle - deep sand springs to mind .. 4WDs float over it ... motorcycles have to speed over it, with mountain bikes sinking into it, but it might be a starting point? Look at a new key for this rather than modifying the 4wd_only key. Don't reinvent the wheel either there is a classification system for this: http://www.4wdqld.com.au/track-classification.html http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/iconic-four-wheel-drives/track-classification so something like: 4wd:scale=easy/medium/difficult/very-difficult when rendered next to the 4wd_only key use the appropriate icon from the above. Surfaces - we have paved/unpaved sand/dirt/wood etc .. but not corrugated(washboard American)[probably most significant], rocky nor ripio (South American). Mud? though that may be seasonal. :) corrugated is intermittent, depends on when the road/track was last graded and probably should be part of smoothness. The surface is still gravel/dirt/ground,etc. surface=mud is already in the wiki surface=rock is probably better than rocky Cheers Ross ___ 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 10:17, Warin wrote: Hi, I've noted that some (if not all) of the Australian Square Kilometer Telescope north east of Murchison WA is entered (and has been for some time) in OSM but it does not show up on my Garmin maps. 26.7S 116.7E entries are key man_made value radio telescope key website value http://www.atnf.csiro.au/projects/askap/ key name value Burara (etc - some 36 so far .. many more to come) etc. as the value radio telescope does not look to be official yet .. would a value of tower suit - and edit the names to inculse a prefix of radio telescope followed by the present name be an aproach that would see these things actually apear on the maps? This is Mapping for the renderer. If you want something mapped then get the renderer changed not the data What of Parks? Naribri? .. humm looking .. Ok Parks is a tower .. humm some of the other details .. well yes ok .. So it looks to me as if a value of tower would be best .. then add a prefix to the name Again mapping for the renderer. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sydney: Epping M2 + Devlins Creek - bridge + levels
On 19/12/13 11:07, Warin wrote: Hi, I though I changed this .. Where Devlins Creek goes under the M2 The creek is at 'gound level' - as are the path to the east and the 'cycleway' (actually cycle + foot + emergency vehicles) to the west. The M2 is on a small bridge at that point .. you may not see it from the M2 .. but it is obvious from the creek.. 1) I had inserted a bridge there, and set the levels .. I though correctly... any hints on how to ensure I don't 'break' the M2 when including a bridge? I simply use the JOSM function 'split way at selected node' - to seperate a section (actuall 3 - separte at that point) and then tag that section(s) bridge, level 1 ... and leave it at layer=1 not level ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Adding residential properties?
On 07/12/13 17:34, Will Rouesnel wrote: Ok this is what I got from a brief walk around the neighborhood with OSMPad on my phone: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2569340857#map=17/-33.82359/151.25009layers=ND The addresses line up to the post-box / domestic entrances where possible - my motivation here is to get places I travel to give accurate GPS coordinates from things like OSMAnd. I'm of the opinion that this is where the address node should be. The biggest problem at the moment seems to be the Bing imagery has a couple meter shift in this area, so things line up but the roads are offset a bit - I can't decide whether to recenter my points around the roads or not, since presumably if it's ever correct a big shift would then line everything up nicely. Read this in regards to bing imagery being offset http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing#Precision You need to reference the bing imagery to the gps traces or roads marked as source= survey or nearmap or agri. Cheers Ross On Sat 07 Dec 2013 15:29:54 EST, Ross Scanlon wrote: But where should the node go? Referring to here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_feature/associatedAddress it seems like the address node should be inside an area assocated with the object it assigns an address to, but in the case of parcels of land/buildings this wouldn't be the case At the entrance to the property where known. This would be just inside the boundary so matches what is above and the above is only a proposed feature. Try adding some addresses then link to them to show what you've done. Mind you there'll still be six different responses. Cheers Ross On 07/12/13 13:32, Will Rouesnel wrote: I'm still a little confused about the separate node model (which seems to make more sense to me, in so far as it resolves better for dealing with some large areas like farms). i.e. my house's address node should logically be at the entrance where you can enter it, but that's outside a building and if I don't map land parcels is outside an area). I'm thinking just don't worry about it I guess - i.e. presumably at some point someone will get all the zoning from the local council and somehow upload that, at which point the address assignments would make sense provided I stuck address points at all the entrances? On 05/12/13 21:07, Ross Scanlon wrote: I'd suggest you read these wiki pages: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Address My personal opinion is that the address should be on a separate node at the entrance to the property. This is preferred for disability access programs. It also takes into consideration that the address is unlikely to change but the building or landuse may. Cheers Ross On 05/12/13 19:34, Will Rouesnel wrote: A simple example starting with my own house - how should residential buildings be tagged? The block they sit on is more of a land use concern, but the specific buildings don't occupy the entire block - and seem like they should be tagged house. Is this a correct way to go about things? The goal here would be to get my local area updated with street numbers so generated addresses can provide navigation to specific locations. Would it be correct to trace the outline of the blocks, and label them with the address and tag the land as residential use? Would this be likely to accomplish the overall goal (provide street numbers for my area)? ___ 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] Adding residential properties?
On 07/12/13 17:34, Will Rouesnel wrote: Ok this is what I got from a brief walk around the neighborhood with OSMPad on my phone: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2569340857#map=17/-33.82359/151.25009layers=ND Looks pretty good. I'd add addr:suburb=Balmoral or where ever I also always add: addr:state=NSW or where ever Cheers Ross The addresses line up to the post-box / domestic entrances where possible - my motivation here is to get places I travel to give accurate GPS coordinates from things like OSMAnd. The biggest problem at the moment seems to be the Bing imagery has a couple meter shift in this area, so things line up but the roads are offset a bit - I can't decide whether to recenter my points around the roads or not, since presumably if it's ever correct a big shift would then line everything up nicely. On Sat 07 Dec 2013 15:29:54 EST, Ross Scanlon wrote: But where should the node go? Referring to here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_feature/associatedAddress it seems like the address node should be inside an area assocated with the object it assigns an address to, but in the case of parcels of land/buildings this wouldn't be the case At the entrance to the property where known. This would be just inside the boundary so matches what is above and the above is only a proposed feature. Try adding some addresses then link to them to show what you've done. Mind you there'll still be six different responses. Cheers Ross On 07/12/13 13:32, Will Rouesnel wrote: I'm still a little confused about the separate node model (which seems to make more sense to me, in so far as it resolves better for dealing with some large areas like farms). i.e. my house's address node should logically be at the entrance where you can enter it, but that's outside a building and if I don't map land parcels is outside an area). I'm thinking just don't worry about it I guess - i.e. presumably at some point someone will get all the zoning from the local council and somehow upload that, at which point the address assignments would make sense provided I stuck address points at all the entrances? On 05/12/13 21:07, Ross Scanlon wrote: I'd suggest you read these wiki pages: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Address My personal opinion is that the address should be on a separate node at the entrance to the property. This is preferred for disability access programs. It also takes into consideration that the address is unlikely to change but the building or landuse may. Cheers Ross On 05/12/13 19:34, Will Rouesnel wrote: A simple example starting with my own house - how should residential buildings be tagged? The block they sit on is more of a land use concern, but the specific buildings don't occupy the entire block - and seem like they should be tagged house. Is this a correct way to go about things? The goal here would be to get my local area updated with street numbers so generated addresses can provide navigation to specific locations. Would it be correct to trace the outline of the blocks, and label them with the address and tag the land as residential use? Would this be likely to accomplish the overall goal (provide street numbers for my area)? ___ 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] Adding residential properties?
But where should the node go? Referring to here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_feature/associatedAddress it seems like the address node should be inside an area assocated with the object it assigns an address to, but in the case of parcels of land/buildings this wouldn't be the case At the entrance to the property where known. This would be just inside the boundary so matches what is above and the above is only a proposed feature. Try adding some addresses then link to them to show what you've done. Mind you there'll still be six different responses. Cheers Ross On 07/12/13 13:32, Will Rouesnel wrote: I'm still a little confused about the separate node model (which seems to make more sense to me, in so far as it resolves better for dealing with some large areas like farms). i.e. my house's address node should logically be at the entrance where you can enter it, but that's outside a building and if I don't map land parcels is outside an area). I'm thinking just don't worry about it I guess - i.e. presumably at some point someone will get all the zoning from the local council and somehow upload that, at which point the address assignments would make sense provided I stuck address points at all the entrances? On 05/12/13 21:07, Ross Scanlon wrote: I'd suggest you read these wiki pages: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Address My personal opinion is that the address should be on a separate node at the entrance to the property. This is preferred for disability access programs. It also takes into consideration that the address is unlikely to change but the building or landuse may. Cheers Ross On 05/12/13 19:34, Will Rouesnel wrote: A simple example starting with my own house - how should residential buildings be tagged? The block they sit on is more of a land use concern, but the specific buildings don't occupy the entire block - and seem like they should be tagged house. Is this a correct way to go about things? The goal here would be to get my local area updated with street numbers so generated addresses can provide navigation to specific locations. Would it be correct to trace the outline of the blocks, and label them with the address and tag the land as residential use? Would this be likely to accomplish the overall goal (provide street numbers for my area)? ___ 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] Adding residential properties?
I'd suggest you read these wiki pages: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Address My personal opinion is that the address should be on a separate node at the entrance to the property. This is preferred for disability access programs. It also takes into consideration that the address is unlikely to change but the building or landuse may. Cheers Ross On 05/12/13 19:34, Will Rouesnel wrote: A simple example starting with my own house - how should residential buildings be tagged? The block they sit on is more of a land use concern, but the specific buildings don't occupy the entire block - and seem like they should be tagged house. Is this a correct way to go about things? The goal here would be to get my local area updated with street numbers so generated addresses can provide navigation to specific locations. Would it be correct to trace the outline of the blocks, and label them with the address and tag the land as residential use? Would this be likely to accomplish the overall goal (provide street numbers for my area)? ___ 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] South Australia - Public Transport / OSM data
The advantage of the Vicmap address data is that it's the entrance to the property for the address. Mostly, there are some that are center of the property where the entrance is not known. This is the preferred data for addresses. Cadastral data usually shows the boundary of the property but gives no clue to the entrance for the address. If SA published a georeferenced entrance node address data licenced appropriately it would give the address data but it also lets you determine the street names. Cheers Ross On 28/11/13 16:23, Daniel O'Connor wrote: Yeah, that'd be really, really great if SA could publish cadastre and other information openly. It'd be interesting to know what's already available via the land services group - I know for example that cadastre and address info is published and integrated by the PSMA to make GNAF/Cadlite information; but presumably that's not an easy process to open up to the public at the drop of a hat. That said, just last week I was speaking to a few commercial entities who were helping with the publication of vicmap data - taking the raw shapefiles and slicing/dicing/serving it up to business, to take away the integration pains - so there are clear examples of both the public and commercial sectors benefiting from this sort of open data. On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: ·Street Address Limitations ( missing streets and street numbers) Make a dataset like this available for inclusion in openstreetmap http://www.data.vic.gov.au/__raw_data/vicmap-address/4875 http://www.data.vic.gov.au/raw_data/vicmap-address/4875 Would resolve the above fairly rapidly. Cheers Ross ·walking paths data not included across many of the highways (North East and Main North Gepps cross) connected to transport infrastructure, such as railway stations, and bus interchanges. Grange is a hot spot, as has been Aldinga, Blackwood and Belair, Mclaren vale ( which looks like its improving) and some areas around ·Southern and Northern suburb areas not detailed ·Smaller Shopping Centres, Councils and other places of interest not named. I’d be very happy to help as I am also involved with the Government Open Data program at http://data.sa.gov.au/ I’m keen on building some good relationships with contributors and application developers so would like to gather some more support for OSM in South Australia. _ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.__org/listinfo/talk-au 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] South Australia - Public Transport / OSM data
·Street Address Limitations ( missing streets and street numbers) Make a dataset like this available for inclusion in openstreetmap http://www.data.vic.gov.au/raw_data/vicmap-address/4875 Would resolve the above fairly rapidly. Cheers Ross ·walking paths data not included across many of the highways (North East and Main North Gepps cross) connected to transport infrastructure, such as railway stations, and bus interchanges. Grange is a hot spot, as has been Aldinga, Blackwood and Belair, Mclaren vale ( which looks like its improving) and some areas around ·Southern and Northern suburb areas not detailed ·Smaller Shopping Centres, Councils and other places of interest not named. I’d be very happy to help as I am also involved with the Government Open Data program at http://data.sa.gov.au/ I’m keen on building some good relationships with contributors and application developers so would like to gather some more support for OSM in South Australia. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] loading JOSM
Revert to java 6 The message on the start up screen has been there for ages and it's sometime soon. I'm using ubuntu 12.04 as well and have no problems running josm with java 6. Cheers Ross On 27/10/13 11:27, Arthur Geeson wrote: Hi, 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 and get the following problems: arthur@arthur-Aspire-5750G:/usr/lib/jvm/java-7-openjdk-i386/bin$ java -version java version 1.7.0_25 OpenJDK Runtime Environment (IcedTea 2.3.10) (7u25-2.3.10-1ubuntu0.12.04.2) OpenJDK Server VM (build 23.7-b01, mixed mode) arthur@arthur-Aspire-5750G:/$ josm Using /usr/lib/jvm/java-7-openjdk-i386/bin/java to execute josm. java.awt.HeadlessException at java.awt.GraphicsEnvironment.checkHeadless(GraphicsEnvironment.java:207) at java.awt.Window.init(Window.java:535) at java.awt.Frame.init(Frame.java:420) at javax.swing.JFrame.init(JFrame.java:218) at org.openstreetmap.josm.gui.MainApplication.main(MainApplication.java:316) I have tried reloading JOSM and the plugins but it seems there maybe something wrong with java? Thanks - Arthur (geesona) ___ 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] Talk-au Digest, Vol 76, Issue 8
Hi Li, Yes. There is no automatic method to compare in josm. However you can set up a number of searches to make the job easier. eg (addr:housenumber=* | addr:street=*) -source=vicmap will find all address data not sourced from vicmap. Cheers Ross On 14/10/13 16:47, Li Xia wrote: Gday Ross, Great workflow suggestion mate. To clarify, when you say compare, you mean manually in JOSM right? Li. On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 5:27 PM, talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Talk-au digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: vicmap data licensing (Ross Scanlon) 2. Re: South Australia Suburb Boundries (Daniel O'Connor) -- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 08:57:13 +1000 From: Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] vicmap data licensing Message-ID: 525730c9.5070...@4x4falcon.com mailto:525730c9.5070...@4x4falcon.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Cut the data into small chunks (0.25 x 0.25 deg). Load each chunk it into josm. Download the relevant area to a separate layer. Compare with what is already there. Expect to spend a least 2 hours with each chunk depending on what data your adding. Cheers Ross On 11/10/13 06:37, Li wrote: Does anyone have experience on importing data? In particular avoiding duplicates? Li. On 10 Oct 2013, at 5:16 pm, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com mailto:ben.kel...@gmail.com mailto:ben.kel...@gmail.com mailto:ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote: Hi. I guess the thing to consider is how you would handle a second import if someone had edited the data in OSM in between. I think this kind of conflict would be very difficult to resolve. You could either plan to do a 1-off import, or maybe include a tag on the imported data matching a unique identifier for the same feature in the vicmap data. The US Tiger import did something like this. - Ben Kelley. On 10 Oct 2013 17:12, Li Xia m...@lixia.co mailto:m...@lixia.co mailto:m...@lixia.co mailto:m...@lixia.co wrote: Hi everyone, I'm meeting Vicmap and data.gov http://data.gov http://data.gov staff tomorrow to get their blessing on importing vicmap data into OSM. Once the licensing is squared away, we can move onto discussing techniques of importing the data. Snapshot data in shp format is available from data.vic.gov.au http://data.vic.gov.au http://data.vic.gov.au. Alternatively a vicmap provides a live feed to weekly data diffs directly. Any advice on how to import this data is much appreciated. Li ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au -- Message: 2 Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 02:41:02 +1030 From: Daniel O'Connor daniel.ocon...@gmail.com mailto:daniel.ocon...@gmail.com To: Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com Cc: OSM Australian Talk List talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] South Australia Suburb Boundries Message-ID: CAJsZyFCxk2C1s2YE8x9xwegQBe_p=guvq9k_npgjarefup3...@mail.gmail.com mailto:guvq9k_npgjarefup3...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Did the bits to produce .osm files (again on github); suitable to open up and view in JOSM. I spot checked two areas near me that I know well, and the accuracy is pretty high. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/241675341 http
Re: [talk-au] vicmap data licensing
Cut the data into small chunks (0.25 x 0.25 deg). Load each chunk it into josm. Download the relevant area to a separate layer. Compare with what is already there. Expect to spend a least 2 hours with each chunk depending on what data your adding. Cheers Ross On 11/10/13 06:37, Li wrote: Does anyone have experience on importing data? In particular avoiding duplicates? Li. On 10 Oct 2013, at 5:16 pm, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com mailto:ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote: Hi. I guess the thing to consider is how you would handle a second import if someone had edited the data in OSM in between. I think this kind of conflict would be very difficult to resolve. You could either plan to do a 1-off import, or maybe include a tag on the imported data matching a unique identifier for the same feature in the vicmap data. The US Tiger import did something like this. - Ben Kelley. On 10 Oct 2013 17:12, Li Xia m...@lixia.co mailto:m...@lixia.co wrote: Hi everyone, I'm meeting Vicmap and data.gov http://data.gov staff tomorrow to get their blessing on importing vicmap data into OSM. Once the licensing is squared away, we can move onto discussing techniques of importing the data. Snapshot data in shp format is available from data.vic.gov.au http://data.vic.gov.au. Alternatively a vicmap provides a live feed to weekly data diffs directly. Any advice on how to import this data is much appreciated. Li ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto: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] ISP caching problems with JOSM ?
Sounds more like the caching within JOSM. Cheers Ross On 12/09/13 23:15, Grant Slater wrote: Hi Ian, The api.openstreetmap.org map data servers send no-cache headers and proxy/caches should therefore NOT be caching the results... But some ISPs are too aggressive with their caching. Make sure JOSM is set to the default OSM server (there are 3rd party caching API servers available): JOSM - Edit - Preferences (shortcut: F12) - Connection Settings (World Icon) - make sure: User the default OSM server URL is checked. I am happy to help diagnose the error with you. Regards Grant On 12 September 2013 13:01, Steerist...@iinet.net.au wrote: I’m wondering if I’m striking caching problems with my ISP or my PC. I make changes and upload them with no error messages and close JOSM. I re-open the next day, and my changes aren’t there – but they are present in the “slippy map”. I re-do them and upload them and get a conflict saying the server version is newer than mine. I can close JOSM, re-open and re-download, and the server version and my version don’t change. I have googled this problem, but it was all a bit above my head. Does anyone have a solution for this problem they can describe in simple terms ? J thanks Ian ___ 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: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
On 24/08/13 17:46, Lester Caine wrote: Notice the broken casing on the sides of some of the roads. If what you are talking about is the change in style on the roads to the right, then how were they generated as they do not appear on the main database? It's nice to see I can just cut and paste the old style location urls and they will be recognised - hopefully no-one will remove that as redundant ;) Have a look at what layer is selected. You see that it's not osm. Cheers Ross I have an interest in this for showing what is to the side of roads. While on one hand macro mapping says add tags to a road to show things like footpaths and cycleways, micro mapping would show the all of the infrastructure actually as areas, but at least as separate identifiable ways which can be selected in preference to the road for planning waking and cycling activity. If the 'road' with no 'side furniture' is rendered with broken sides like this it makes sense. Africa has considerably more of the 'tracks' that I am talking about and there it is even more important to identify ones where the two ruts making up the track would make it dangerous for following on foot? While many parts of the world have different requirements, generally the same rules apply worldwide? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
On 24/08/13 19:39, Lester Caine wrote: Ross Scanlon wrote: Notice the broken casing on the sides of some of the roads. If what you are talking about is the change in style on the roads to the right, then how were they generated as they do not appear on the main database? It's nice to see I can just cut and paste the old style location urls and they will be recognised - hopefully no-one will remove that as redundant ;) Have a look at what layer is selected. You see that it's not osm. Hence the question! Ok. The roads in question are not in osm, they were pre redaction, they are still in another database. The rendering based on that database is the layer shown. Cheers Ross ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
I think this is the type of rendering that Darren is looking for: informationfreeway.org/?lat=-20.374lon=148.633zoom=15layers=00F000B0 You'll have to copy and paste the link. Notice the broken casing on the sides of some of the roads. Cheers Ross On 24/08/13 03:58, Darren Biggs wrote: That is what I am looking for with the default OSM render. I use OSM in aplications like www.ridewithgps.com http://www.ridewithgps.com. That use the default/OSM render. That way cyclist/motorcyclists can know if the road is dirt or not. On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Pierre Béland pierz...@yahoo.fr mailto:pierz...@yahoo.fr wrote: The HOT HDDM Mapcss style under development adresses the question of road surfaces and it is a very good progress to represent both road classification and surface conditions. However, I would like that the rendering of surface condition do not have preseance over the road classification. Below are two rendering examples with this style : 1. Residential roads see http://hotosm.github.io/HDM-CartoCSS/#19/19.67173/-72.12289 2. An unpaved segment of a primary road see http://hotosm.github.io/HDM-CartoCSS/#17/18.60331/-72.27918 Pierre *De :* Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com mailto:a...@mapbox.com *À :* Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com *Cc :* talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org; Darren Biggs ou98dtbi...@gmail.com mailto:ou98dtbi...@gmail.com *Envoyé le :* Vendredi 23 août 2013 10h16 *Objet :* Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM +1 The absence of a style for surface=unpaved leads to a very common misunderstanding and large amounts of roads mistagged: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/110 On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Il giorno 23/ago/2013, alle ore 15:44, Darren Biggs ou98dtbi...@gmail.com mailto:ou98dtbi...@gmail.com ha scritto: Specifically the Unsurfaced road dashed lines. I see many tracks, but not one Unsurfaced road any road can be unsurfaced http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Have Bike will Travel http://thebikeandmore.blogspot.com/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Incorporating public information into OSM - Legal situation
Did they confirm with Geoscience that the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia is compatible with ODBL? This is one of the reservations that some of us had with changing to ODBL. Also you will find it's not that easy. It takes a significant amount of time and effort to include this data from the downloaded shapefiles. They can not just be imported to osm. Cheers Ross On 19/08/13 19:19, Brett Russell wrote: Hi I have been working on OSM maps for bushwalking and this has generated a fair bit of interest. A few people have taken up mapping and one person approached me on lifting rivers and streams data from the 1:250,000 publicly available data. My response was no as it is likely copyrighted and OSM requires no restriction be placed on the data. Not to be defeated he wrote to A/g Manager, Information Product Management Policy Unit Information Management Corporate Services | GEOSCIENCE AUSTRALIA and received this reply. Thank you for your email enquiry in regards to copyright and Creative Commons. The material available as a free download under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence is still under copyright. We are releasing many of our products under the CC-BY licence which means that you may share (copy, distribute and transmit the work), remix and make adaption or even make commercial use of the work. The only condition for using the product under this licence is that you must attribute Geoscience Australia. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en If you have any further questions or would like me to send you the attribution statement we require please let me know. Regards Given that this data (rough as it might be) might be available what is the OSM community thoughts on an Australia wide approach? Basically has anyone been down this road. I would imagine the challenge would be to identify what data is available under what license. Anyway your thoughts please. 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] JOSM uploads past 2000 points
Hi I am all to aware of the 2000 node limit with OSM but when using JOSM to create lakes as multipolygons from multiple ways it is easier to create the ways, link them a multipolygon relationship, tag properties and upload. JOSM then creates a change set and gives five tries and fails so if you hit upload again it tries again. Strangely if I use Polatch 2 to check I nearly always find the lake is added to OSM. On at least one occasion JOSM uploaded the lake more than once. In fact five times. I have to exit JOSM and restart it to avoid the changeset wanting to endlessly upload, Rather than restarting josm: Upload-Changesets-Upload to a new Changeset The old changeset will time out and you can upload to new changeset(s) from there on. Has anyone else experienced this issue. Reading on the web suggests this is a common problem with some claiming a configuration setting in JOSM can eliminate this issue. Don't know about a config setting but if you have the Selection panel open on the right hand side of the window, then select the object it will tell you how many nodes are used by it. It is then a simple matter to split (Tools-Split Way) the way into two (or more) pieces. If its a loop way then select two (or more) nodes on opposite sides and then split it. If you do the split after adding all the tags or creating the multipolygon they are copied to the new way. Cheers Ross As usual any help would be appreciated as you can imagine it is frustrating when mapping large lakes. 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 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] JOSM uploads past 2000 points
Hi, When you click on Upload then there is an Advanced tab. Settings are in there. Cheers Ross On 25/06/13 17:56, Brett Russell wrote: Hi My menu is File, Edit, View, Tools, Presets, Imagery, Windows, Audio, Help. Were will I find the settings you mention? Cheers Brett Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:54:57 +1000 From: i...@4x4falcon.com To: brussell...@live.com.au; talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] JOSM uploads past 2000 points Hi, As Ian points out Upload-Advanced-Chunks or Upload-Advanced-Individually Cheers Ross On 25/06/13 15:44, Ian Sergeant wrote: Hi, I don't know quite what happened, but the relation and all the ways were duplicated four times. I deleted three of them. You can specify in the advanced settings of josm to upload the changeset in smaller chunks. I find this is useful. Ian. On 25 June 2013 13:43, Brett Russell brussell...@live.com.au mailto:brussell...@live.com.au wrote: Hi Ross Thanks for the info. I will give it a shot and look for the node count. I have when creating a way found hovering back over it down the bottom of the screen it will tell me the nodes used. What I have found if I create a way of say 1500 nodes and upload, then create another way of say the same number of nodes, and then upload and finally then create a multipolygon relationship and tag the properties and upload all works well. But if I do it in one step and then upload I strike the mentioned problem. My worry is multiple uploads as they are a pain to find, edit and or remove. Just want to keep OSM data a clean as possible and not corrupt the database. From memory moving a large multipolygon lake in JOSM creates a similar problem. So I align lakes in Polatch 2 and all works well. Finding JOSM very powerful but still very much a newbie with it. Cheers Brett Russell PO Box 94 Launceston Tas. 7250 Australia 0419 374 971 On 25/06/2013, at 1:25 PM, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: Hi I am all to aware of the 2000 node limit with OSM but when using JOSM to create lakes as multipolygons from multiple ways it is easier to create the ways, link them a multipolygon relationship, tag properties and upload. JOSM then creates a change set and gives five tries and fails so if you hit upload again it tries again. Strangely if I use Polatch 2 to check I nearly always find the lake is added to OSM. On at least one occasion JOSM uploaded the lake more than once. In fact five times. I have to exit JOSM and restart it to avoid the changeset wanting to endlessly upload, Rather than restarting josm: Upload-Changesets-Upload to a new Changeset The old changeset will time out and you can upload to new changeset(s) from there on. Has anyone else experienced this issue. Reading on the web suggests this is a common problem with some claiming a configuration setting in JOSM can eliminate this issue. Don't know about a config setting but if you have the Selection panel open on the right hand side of the window, then select the object it will tell you how many nodes are used by it. It is then a simple matter to split (Tools-Split Way) the way into two (or more) pieces. If its a loop way then select two (or more) nodes on opposite sides and then split it. If you do the split after adding all the tags or creating the multipolygon they are copied to the new way. Cheers Ross As usual any help would be appreciated as you can imagine it is frustrating when mapping large lakes. Cheers Brett ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto: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] JOSM uploads past 2000 points
Hi, As Ian points out Upload-Advanced-Chunks or Upload-Advanced-Individually Cheers Ross On 25/06/13 15:44, Ian Sergeant wrote: Hi, I don't know quite what happened, but the relation and all the ways were duplicated four times. I deleted three of them. You can specify in the advanced settings of josm to upload the changeset in smaller chunks. I find this is useful. Ian. On 25 June 2013 13:43, Brett Russell brussell...@live.com.au mailto:brussell...@live.com.au wrote: Hi Ross Thanks for the info. I will give it a shot and look for the node count. I have when creating a way found hovering back over it down the bottom of the screen it will tell me the nodes used. What I have found if I create a way of say 1500 nodes and upload, then create another way of say the same number of nodes, and then upload and finally then create a multipolygon relationship and tag the properties and upload all works well. But if I do it in one step and then upload I strike the mentioned problem. My worry is multiple uploads as they are a pain to find, edit and or remove. Just want to keep OSM data a clean as possible and not corrupt the database. From memory moving a large multipolygon lake in JOSM creates a similar problem. So I align lakes in Polatch 2 and all works well. Finding JOSM very powerful but still very much a newbie with it. Cheers Brett Russell PO Box 94 Launceston Tas. 7250 Australia 0419 374 971 On 25/06/2013, at 1:25 PM, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: Hi I am all to aware of the 2000 node limit with OSM but when using JOSM to create lakes as multipolygons from multiple ways it is easier to create the ways, link them a multipolygon relationship, tag properties and upload. JOSM then creates a change set and gives five tries and fails so if you hit upload again it tries again. Strangely if I use Polatch 2 to check I nearly always find the lake is added to OSM. On at least one occasion JOSM uploaded the lake more than once. In fact five times. I have to exit JOSM and restart it to avoid the changeset wanting to endlessly upload, Rather than restarting josm: Upload-Changesets-Upload to a new Changeset The old changeset will time out and you can upload to new changeset(s) from there on. Has anyone else experienced this issue. Reading on the web suggests this is a common problem with some claiming a configuration setting in JOSM can eliminate this issue. Don't know about a config setting but if you have the Selection panel open on the right hand side of the window, then select the object it will tell you how many nodes are used by it. It is then a simple matter to split (Tools-Split Way) the way into two (or more) pieces. If its a loop way then select two (or more) nodes on opposite sides and then split it. If you do the split after adding all the tags or creating the multipolygon they are copied to the new way. Cheers Ross As usual any help would be appreciated as you can imagine it is frustrating when mapping large lakes. Cheers Brett ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging dirt and 4x4 roads - new approach
On 16/12/12 16:50, Russell Edwards wrote: Could I ask a newbie question on this topic? I want to update some roads that are 4wd-only in certain sections. Any new approach aside, what is the best way to do this -- a) what tag do I use, and b) how do I handle the changing traversibility - separate ways linked as a route, or... ? Thanks in advance Russell ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au a) Well if you look at the wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Unsealed_and_4wd_Roads This will give you an idea of where to start. b) Realistically if the track is 4wd_only=yes;recommended for part of it, it should be 4wd_only=yes;recommended for it's entire length. Unless there is definitely a section that can be accessed by other vehicles without having to go through a 4wd_only=yes section. For example I'd tag a track as below in exactly the way the tags are on the appropriate sections this would show that all vehicles can acces the section up to the 4wd_only=yes but you need to have 4wd_only from there on. Start of track - 4wd_only=no - 4wd_only=recommended - 4wd_only=yes - 4wd_only=no - End of track This one there is really no point in tagging the center bit as 4wd_only=no (or no tag) as only 4wd's can access the track anyway. Start of track - 4wd_only=yes - 4wd_only=recommended - 4wd_only=no - 4wd_only=yes - End of track. No need to put it in a relation I'd just tag the individual sections of the way with the appropriate 4wd_only tag. A link to the way you are looking at editing would help us help you as well. Cheers Ross ___ 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.
For rendering, no surface= or surface=asphalt/concrete/paved would produce the current rendering. Any other surface= would produce a dashed line/casing. To me that's a relatively simple distinction that would be more appealing to those maintaining the renderers. I've been working on this rendering and I'd suggest the reverse of this for the condition as it is easier to implement in mapnik. It would produce the same result so I put it up as a tip for anyone wanting to implement this. Any thing that has surface=unpaved/dirt/sand/gravel/fine_gravel/earth/compacted/clay/grass/pebblestone/ground is rendered with the dashed line/casing and all others are rendered as normal. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] traffic lights on dual carriageway intersections
And the only area it's done like this is in Melbourne. Cheers Ross On 03/11/12 17:03, John Henderson wrote: 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 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [Imports] Importing locality names from GeoScience Australia dataset.
On 27/10/12 18:52, Chris Barham wrote: Hi, On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 6:48 AM, Li Xia lisxia1...@gmail.com mailto:lisxia1...@gmail.com wrote: SNIP 1. Can anyone suggest tags other than the following? name:different place:locality source: © Commonwealth of Australia (GeoScience Australia) 2006. 2. Using JOSM at the moment and uploads take a while, is there a better way of bulk uploading data? /SNIP Some questions for you: 1) Can you post a link to the source data and licence? 2) that copyright tag looks ominous, are you sure it's licenced appropriately for import to OSM? a) The site http://ga.gov.au has a footer that says: Unless otherwise noted, all Geoscience Australia material on this website is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence. I believe this may not compatible with OSM... CC-By-SA 3.0 Australia Licence is not automatic permission to use it in an ODBL database. Cheers Ross b) ...Unless you got the data from http://data.gov.au/ for which OSM has obtained rights to import ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] 4wd_only Tag - is it the right choice ?
You point out the problem with this: tracktype is ignored on everything except highway=track You would have to modify this in the rendering anyway. As 4wd_only can apply to any highway= tag it is more appropriate. From memory this was part of the original discussion when 4wd_only was proposed. Additionally my feeling is that because it's not rendered it's not used and Australian understanding of 4WD is definitely different to the European understanding. Have a look through the original proposal on the wiki and also the smoothness discussion Cheers Ross On 28/10/12 11:00, David Bannon wrote: Now, I am not suggesting that tracktype is a dropin replacement for 4wd_only, far from it, the definition I read says to me it stops before 4wd_only (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype ) but we might find getting a grade 6 and grade 7 (or better still, 4wdRecommended and 4wdOnly) added to tracktype easier than getting 4wd_only=recommended added to the list. And if we do, then with all those numbers, we may be able to get special rendering, and, importantly special routing rules apply to them. Indeed, seems that at present, all five grades of tracktype are rendered differently. Ranges from grade one as a thin but solid brown line to grade5's small dots. So, I know this is not what was discussed, but do people want to re think the agreed position ? 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] Dirt Roads
On 26/10/12 08:43, Andrew Harvey wrote: On 22/10/12 11:20, Ross Scanlon wrote: Mapnik 2 will allow tagging of 4wd_only=recommended and 4wd_only=yes. An example of 4wd_only=yes here: http://map.4x4falcon.com/?zoom=14lat=-20.73023lon=116.99701layers=B0F The 4wd_only=recommended is similar but shows 4WD Recommended. It is a trivial matter with Mapnik 2 to use text substitution for this and what you actually show on the map can easily be changed. That is neat. Using broken lines for the casing of classified roads which are unpaved, I think would be a huge improvement to the cartography. I agree. I'm still working on that one. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Dirt Roads
Mapnik 2 will allow tagging of 4wd_only=recommended and 4wd_only=yes. An example of 4wd_only=yes here: http://map.4x4falcon.com/?zoom=14lat=-20.73023lon=116.99701layers=B0F The 4wd_only=recommended is similar but shows 4WD Recommended. It is a trivial matter with Mapnik 2 to use text substitution for this and what you actually show on the map can easily be changed. Cheers Ross On 22/10/12 06:53, Nathan Van Der Meulen wrote: Hi David Tho I can't say much about it yet, the outcome is for public use (within a product). Once we have some details nutted out we hope to have some more detail. We can't define 4wd_only=yes from 4wd_only=recommended due to software restrictions and other difficulties. But we are certainly trying to get 4wd_only=yes defined, and surface=unpaved is already done. Like most things in OSM, the end result really relies on proper placement and tagging - not only roads but also places etc. Matt, the Peninsular Dev Rd is certainly another example. In fact there are heaps of Dev Rds that are state roads or major roads, but in quite poor condition. Go to the extreme - National Route 1 across the gulf. Nathan *From:* talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org *To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org *Sent:* Sunday, 21 October 2012 10:00 PM *Subject:* Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 18 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto: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 mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Talk-au digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: Lanes tag (John Henderson) 2. Re: dirt roads (John Henderson) 3. Re: dirt roads (Matt White) 4. Re: dirt roads (Ian Sergeant) 5. Re: dirt roads (Nathan Van Der Meulen) (dban...@internode.on.net mailto:dban...@internode.on.net) 6. Re: dirt roads (dban...@internode.on.net mailto:dban...@internode.on.net) 7. Re: dirt roads (Ian Sergeant) -- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:03:49 +1100 From: John Henderson snow...@gmx.com mailto:snow...@gmx.com To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Lanes tag Message-ID: 50836615.5000...@gmx.com mailto:50836615.5000...@gmx.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed 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 -- Message: 2 Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:12:04 +1100 From: John Henderson snow...@gmx.com mailto:snow...@gmx.com To: dban...@internode.on.net mailto:dban...@internode.on.net Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads Message-ID: 50836804.1010...@gmx.com mailto:50836804.1010...@gmx.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed On 21/10/12 13:28, dban...@internode.on.net mailto: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 -- Message: 3 Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:34:06 +1100 From: Matt White mattwh...@iinet.com.au mailto:mattwh...@iinet.com.au To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Dirt Roads
I'm happy for you to use that link as a reference. I'll refrain from commenting on the remainder of that para. When the 4wd_only tagging was introduced it was attempted to get this included in the mapping but there was reluctance to do so. Like most proposals it did not have a rendering proposal included and is something that should be mandatory for all proposals. Including mapnik xml at the very least. Cheers Ross On 24/10/12 08:48, David Bannon wrote: Ross, thats pretty cool. My plan at the moment is to document this discussion on the OSM wiki and then start lobbying the people who maintain the OSM website's slippery map to do just what you have done there. I guess we all expected it to be do-able but nice to have it confirmed. Would you mind if I used that link as a reference ? I must admit I don't know just how good the relationship between fosm and osm is ? David - Original Message - From: i...@4x4falcon.com To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Cc: Sent: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:20:56 +1000 Subject: Re: [talk-au] Dirt Roads Mapnik 2 will allow tagging of 4wd_only=recommended and 4wd_only=yes. An example of 4wd_only=yes here: http://map.4x4falcon.com/?zoom=14lat=-20.73023lon=116.99701layers=B0F The 4wd_only=recommended is similar but shows 4WD Recommended. It is a trivial matter with Mapnik 2 to use text substitution for this and what you actually show on the map can easily be changed. Cheers Ross On 22/10/12 06:53, Nathan Van Der Meulen wrote: Hi David Tho I can't say much about it yet, the outcome is for public use (within a product). Once we have some details nutted out we hope to have some more detail. We can't define 4wd_only=yes from 4wd_only=recommended due to software restrictions and other difficulties. But we are certainly trying to get 4wd_only=yes defined, and surface=unpaved is already done. Like most things in OSM, the end result really relies on proper placement and tagging - not only roads but also places etc. Matt, the Peninsular Dev Rd is certainly another example. In fact there are heaps of Dev Rds that are state roads or major roads, but in quite poor condition. Go to the extreme - National Route 1 across the gulf. Nathan *From:* talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org *To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org *Sent:* Sunday, 21 October 2012 10:00 PM *Subject:* Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 18 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto: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 mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Talk-au digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: Lanes tag (John Henderson) 2. Re: dirt roads (John Henderson) 3. Re: dirt roads (Matt White) 4. Re: dirt roads (Ian Sergeant) 5. Re: dirt roads (Nathan Van Der Meulen) (dban...@internode.on.net mailto:dban...@internode.on.net) 6. Re: dirt roads (dban...@internode.on.net mailto:dban...@internode.on.net) 7. Re: dirt roads (Ian Sergeant) -- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:03:49 +1100 From: John Henderson snow...@gmx.com mailto:snow...@gmx.com To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Lanes tag Message-ID: 50836615.5000...@gmx.com mailto:50836615.5000...@gmx.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed 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
Re: [talk-au] Aligning steets
On 20/09/12 22:30, Stephen Hope wrote: I'm not saying that a mini-roundabout isn't a roundabout, it is, and all the normal signs and laws apply. What it also is, however, is traversable. If you have a vehicle that cannot go around it, because it is too large, then you're allowed to go over it. 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. I'd be just a happy to use a normal roundabout way, and mark it as traversable with traversable=yes. Traversable could have values like yes/no/semi (for those ones that have a traversable skirt but a raised centre plinth). However, when I suggested that on the talk list a while Agree. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tasmanian Survey Marks
something that will enable me to check my Garmin 62s' accuracy and give the ability to align Bing when I find them on the ground providing that they can be seen from Bing. Be great if they are in nice circles of I doubt if you'll see them on bing as most survey points are way too small. You'd probably be better of using the agri control points http://agri.openstreetmap.org/download/AGRI_GCP/AGRI_GCP.gdb.csv As these are generally road intersections etc and include photos so can be easier to confirm with bing. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Aligning steets
On 19/09/12 19:28, Michael James wrote: On 09/19/2012 04:35 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote: They are not mini-roundabouts if you can not drive over them. Look here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmini_roundabout Also read the Australian Tagging Guidelines here: wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines mini_roundabout is not determined by size. Australia does not have mini roundabouts, road rules require you to drive around the center island unless it is impractical to do so, ie truck, bus. According to the tagging guidelines for mini roundabout this is one :- http://goo.gl/maps/8WAZ6 Are you saying it isn't? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au Yes it is a small roundabout as you can not legally drive over it unless it is impractical to do so. The vehicle in the street view is clearly about to drive around the center island. Whereas if it was a truck/bus/caravan it would be able to drive over it if necessary. Read through the mailing list archives all this discussion was thrashed out years ago and nothing has changed. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Introduction
On 29/07/12 00:58, Andrew Allison wrote: Hello: I'm doing some arm chair mapping of Broome and surrounding area from Canada. I'd appreciate a quick review from someone more familiar with the local area. I might be mistaking dirt tracks for dried creek beds. Any mentoring would be appreciated :-) From way up here, looks like a nice town to live in. Andrew aka PurpleMustang. Not dried creek beds but fencelines with firebreaks down each side, as here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/173207364 Normal for most armchair mappers to think it's a track. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Redaction progress
On 20/07/12 09:43, Simon Poole wrote: As all probably know we have two large areas where data had to be removed, Poland and Australia besides a number of smallish hotspots. I would think it would be a really good idea to set up a HOT tasking server (no idea about it inner workings and if it makes sense to do this all in one, or have two) for the coordination of our largish army of armchair mappers. Particularly in AUS were we have good quality imagery available this would seem to make a lot of sense. Any local takers? Or should I do it from here? What imagery? Bing is suitable in some areas but absolutely useless in others. And even where it is suitable it can be up to 100m out. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] map of impact of licence change on Australia and New Zealand
Why re-invent the wheel? http://cleanmap.poole.ch/?zoom=5lat=-25.69199lon=137.92578layers=B00 Shows good and bad map. Cheers Ross On 12/07/12 14:05, nicholas.g.lawre...@tmr.qld.gov.au wrote: Hello all, I would like to generate a map showing the impact of the license change on Australia and New Zealand. Any advice on how to generate such a map? Kind regards, * Nick Lawrence* Senior Spatial Science Officer | Geospatial, Road Assets Design *Engineering Technology* | Department of Transport and Main Roads Floor 6 | Spring Hill Office Complex | 477 Boundary Street | Spring Hill Qld 4000 GPO Box 1412 | Brisbane Qld 4001 P: (07) 38342477 | F: (07) 38342998 E: _nicholas.g.lawre...@tmr.qld.gov.au_ mailto:nicholas.g.lawre...@tmr.qld.gov.au W: _www.tmr.qld.gov.au_ http://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, Maritime Safety Queensland or endorsed organisations utilising the same infrastructure. *** ___ 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] User hardsoft's remapping attempts
Maybe you need to send them a message directly and point them to these pages: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice Cheers Ross On 08/04/12 07:01, Michael James wrote: I would have introduced myself normally but It would seem that use http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/hardsoft is on a campaign to remap everything, this would be ok except that most of his/her remapping attempts will require repair as the new ways rarely connect to other ways. Some examples (this is certainly not a complete list) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/156728997 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/156728991 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/156728986 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/40556031 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/156752098 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/154407242 Now this is going to create just as much work reconnecting ways as what there would be if the ways were just deleted in the great purge. So my message to hardsoft and anyone else contemplating mass remapping efforts is, slow down and check your work otherwise some else is going to have to come along and fix it all *again* ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] automated abbreviation changes?!
On 23/03/12 21:04, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: On 23/03/2012 13:47, Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) wrote: On 3/23/2012 8:36 AM, Mikel Maron wrote: User chdr (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/chdr) seems to be running a script to automatically replace street name abbreviations with the full word. so 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW becomes 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest. Which is not the way anyone ever writes street names here in DC. IMHO, here in the US we have the USPS which has published standardized street naming conventions specifically using the abbreviations. It would seem to me that these official street names are what should stick and the expansions of them should not be happening. Not to mention how much more crowded the map labels would become. I'm new to this problem, but those possible strategies spring to my mind: - Record only the abbreviated name and let the user expand it using his favourite rules if he wants. - Record only the canonical expanded name and let the user abbreviate it using his favourite rules if he wants. - Record both the canonical expanded name and the abbreviated name, let the user choose which one he wants. They are correct as per here: wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Abbreviation_.28don.27t_do_it.29 in that openstreetmap wiki has always had this. For the other questions it's easy to go from the full name to an abbreviated output but not always easy to go from abbreviated to full. For example is Ln Line or Lane as per here: wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Name_finder:Abbreviations This has been debated many times. I know the USPS has it's standard listing but the data input is more important to be the full name and then abbreviate if necessary when output. Cheers Ross ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Finding untagged dead-ends
/me is waiting for someone to make the obvious and completely useless suggestion of some bonkers noexit hierarchy. noexit=bus, noexit=mouse, noexit=elephant, noexit=blue_whale noexit=flying_pig ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] 1st few silly question
On 25/01/12 19:14, Don Thomas wrote: 1/ In our area there are a number of small sections of road subject to flooding, generally they are at small bridges/ causeways and the like. I can't work out how they should be marked, can some one advice me please? Are these fords or just sections of road subject to flooding. If fords then ford=yes on the road section, split it where it starts and ends, or water intersection node. 2/ I have seen in the guide about rural addressing but can't see any examples in the maps. Is no one bothering with setting up rural addressing? I actually can't work out about the tagging to set the start end, which is why I was looking for examples. I know what the guide says but any I've done have been from imagery and survey and added as all other addressing eg. addr:housenumber addr:street addr: ...etc See here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-20.29676lon=148.6707zoom=17 the 1681, 1697 and 1742 are all rural address. As the section on the wiki says the relation metho will not render. 3/ I saw stuff somewhere about gates etc, but now can't find it and I want to know how to tag stock grids, how? barrier=gate barrier=cattle_grid 4/ Is it correct that you have to 'trace' over your GPS trace in order to form a way in potlatch 1.4? Do you have to do that in other editors, potlatch2 ran so slow for me its use was not feasible, I notice there are other editors that can be downloaded and run locally, are they a better option? Not in josm as you can convert to data layer and then simplify. However don't forget that your gps trace may not signify the center of the way. Really need one each direction for each two way road or as I do. The gps aerial is at the very righthand side of the vehicle and I drive as close to the center of the road as practicable. If not able then use the trace to align imagery and then use that to trace. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] maxspeed removal
I've removed the maxspeed tags from about 1000 roads in Redcliffe (Brisbane) with changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10338587 Hi, Can you just explain this a little bit further? My understanding is it is a pretty specific set of these maxspeed changes we are currently targetting, all of which have maxspeed:source as it was added by the same bot. Ian As Ian suggested it was the maxspeed:source changes that are the problem not the ones with maxspeed=* only on them. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] maxspeed removal
On 09/01/12 11:51, Richard Weait wrote: On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Ian Sergeantinas66+...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 January 2012 13:12, Richard Weaitrich...@weait.com wrote: I've removed the maxspeed tags from about 1000 roads in Redcliffe (Brisbane) with changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10338587 Hi, Can you just explain this a little bit further? My understanding is it is a pretty specific set of these maxspeed changes we are currently targetting, all of which have maxspeed:source as it was added by the same bot. I thought it was said earlier that the bot did not add the source:maxspeed(etc) tags in all cases. Shall I revert? The bot added maxspeed:source=default residential speed limit in Australia not source:maxspeed. I've manually changed dozens (hundreds) to source:maxspeed. I think it would be best if you reverted. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] maxspeed removal
On 09/01/12 13:47, Richard Weait wrote: On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Ross Scanloni...@4x4falcon.com wrote: On 09/01/12 11:51, Richard Weait wrote: Shall I revert? I think it would be best if you reverted. Done. You want to take a go at clearing some of these up? Are they maxspeed:source? I just search for: maxspeed:source=* (quotes required) in josm and change it to source:maxspeed Or maybe do what you did before but instead of deleting the maxspeed=* change maxspeed:source to source:maxspeed Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Apology and Re: Mass revert now??
On 08/01/12 08:20, Nick Hocking wrote: David wrote I can always retag from my records after the split Hi David, It does seem that most of your work will survive. Those maxspeed edits done by bots (under the userid of JohnSmith or Rosscoe) will disappear without harm in April. A lot of them are incorrect so the accuracy of the OSM data will actually improve a bit. I have never run any maxspeed bot. In fact I actively started changing them manually to source:maxspeed which is what they should have been in the first place and where they were incorrect and I could apply correct data (from nearmap or survey) then I've changed that. I'm still manually changing maxspeed:source to source:maxspeed when ever I load a section of data into josm along with several other common errors like junction=roundabout oneway=yes but you'll never see it in osm. I also disagreed with what John did with this bot although I can see his logic in originally doing it and asked him via this list to re-run it so that it was source:maxspeed but he did not complete this. However some decliner edits will affect your work. If you look at the intersection of Leichardt Avenue and Amity Drive. It seems that you mapped this area well, in 2007. Then in 2009 the user JohnSmith and also Rosscoe have made minor improvements and tweaks. This has, in a lot of cases ended up with them being version1 owners of the roads you mapped. Impossible for either to be version one owners if we edited existing data. It could only be for new information added. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Apology and Re: Mass revert now??
On 08/01/12 11:11, Peter Watson wrote: If a way is cut to add a bridge or whatever the second part becomes yours as V1 but the nodes will still be the original contributors. Hence a seemingly good way with red nodes. This is outlined on the wiki under remapping. This is new information, ie the way that was originally here now has a bridge, roundabout, whatever, in the middle and is composed of the two ways either side of it. It's not as Nick suggest that the original information is changed in it's entirety only certain sections that are new info and hardly the fault of the person editing as it's part of the way osm works. I am actively remapping areas which I have surveyed previously. I am suprised some mappers are still adding data to ways that are red because these will go I am certain, and I don't want to wait till April and still have to remap these areas. Peter W Some people just don't subscribe to the mailing lists and so are unlikely to receive the information that these edits will be lost. Cheers Ross However some decliner edits will affect your work. If you look at the intersection of Leichardt Avenue and Amity Drive. It seems that you mapped this area well, in 2007. Then in 2009 the user JohnSmith and also Rosscoe have made minor improvements and tweaks. This has, in a lot of cases ended up with them being version1 owners of the roads you mapped. Impossible for either to be version one owners if we edited existing data. It could only be for new information added. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Back in editing - Tracks and 4wd areas
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Mark Pulleymrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote: How should I mark 4wd trails? Thanks, highway=track; surface=unpaved; if 4wd only then also add 4wd_only=yes From experience I've found this is really hard to determine. Often the road quality varies and I don't really want to subdivide 30km of track into 10m segments where some are 4wd_only and some aren't. I find it hard to subjectively decide how small a non-4wd only section is worth splitting up as a segment. To me this is really odd. If the track is 30km long and there is 1km of 4wd only then is not this track all 4wd_only. As without a 4wd you will not be able to go from one end to the other in a 2wd. Also any track sign posted as 4wd only should be marked in it's entirety as 4wd_only=yes. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Back in editing - Tracks and 4wd areas
But not what constitutes a 4WD-only track, or how to indicate the difference between 4WD-only signposted and I don't think a 2WD can drive here, which as I've pointed out isn't accurate, or how to indicate only modified vehicles with diff locks, upgraded suspension and winches are suitable, or how much driver skill is required. Read the wiki: Description: A road signed as only suitable for 4WD Only vehicles If it's not signposted as 4wd only and I don't think a 2WD can drive here then it's 4wd=recommended. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Indian Ocean Drive south of Cervantes
Hi, Although you are probably correct, I'd suggest you don't modify this until someone with local knowledge looks at it and/or confirms with you this is correct. It also looks that this may be some more vandalism by Q4004. Cheers Ross On 31/12/11 01:25, Michael wrote: Hi all, at present, the Indian Ocean Drive runs through here: -30.6720, 115.1453 On aerial images, there is no bigger road in the area. But there are a number of fairly straight GPX traces just a bit to the east of the current way, when you download the area in an editor. The traces go through here: -30.6713, 115.1490 Can anybody confirm that the GPX traces correspond to the the new routing of the Indian Ocean Drive? Michael ___ 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] Remapping Sydney's railways
The nodes would be fine if not from a ct-declining contributor. If not then they need to be replaced. Cheers Ross On 23/12/11 14:31, Ben Johnson wrote: Thanks Ben that's a great idea. I'll keep whatever nodes I can and extrapolate from there. I really didn't want this raising old wounds, nor do I want people dwelling on it. I was just letting the community know that someone (i.e. me) is working on this particular piece of infrastructure, so that hopefully others will start rebuilding other stuff. There are plenty of things needing attention. Does it make sense to come up with a priority list of targets to remap? I'm thinking coastlines, lakes, islands, waterways, major road, rail, etc.. I reckon most Joe-Blow contributors in Australia are blissfully unaware of the various license inspector tools available and the actions needed to be taken. How do we wake them up? BJ On 23/12/2011, at 9:56 AM, Ben Kelley wrote: Hi. Many rail lines in Sydney would be traced from nearmap. Unless you have a survey grade GPS the existing points are probably more accurate. We can keep points mapped from nearmap even if we recreate the ways. (I haven't checked to see if the nodes are CT-OK - hoping they are. ) - Ben. Ben Kelley ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I deleted a few locality boundaries...
On 18/12/11 16:43, Andrew Harvey wrote: Where do these official gazetted boundaries come from? On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Ross Scanloni...@4x4falcon.com wrote: Wait for an import of the oficial gazetted boundaries. Australian Bureau of Statistics Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I deleted a few locality boundaries...
On 18/12/11 17:07, Sam Wilson wrote: Yes, I've often wondered the same: if they're officially defined as following particular roads etc. and then those roads move, do the boundaries move also? No. Do a search through the archives of the list and you'll find this somewhere. Also, there seem to be some situations in which boundaries do not actually match the locations of the roads (etc.) that they're ostensibly following. I mean, not way off, but 10m or what have you, and not consistently either -- there's some (although, I can't find one this afternoon; I saw a couple last week out in the WA wheatbelt somewhere) that cross over the road and then back again (which matches aerial photography and GPS traces!). Do roads really move all that often, and by not much? Probably the original gazetted road could not be built where it was layed out on a blank sheet of paper and when it came to building the road they had to deviate around something. I always have all administrative boundaries turned off (greyed-out) in JOSM, because they're all a bit confusing. And not staying after the licence change, it would seem! That's correct as the original importer has declined the CT's. Which throws up the problem of if you attach it to a road, river, railway, etc then that road, river, railway is also going to be deleted. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I deleted a few locality boundaries...
Yep, quite true. That said, given the complete failure of the most other government agencies to release the real gazetted boundaries under a free license, having the ABS data I think is better than nothing, unless you can obtain more fine grain data from on the ground surveys. Licensing aside (as that has been discussed in length in other threads), is anyone planning to mass import the ABS 2011 suburb/postcode boundaries? Not that I'm aware of. I'd also suggest this needs to be done only after all current suburb/postcode boundaries have been removed. Something for after 1 April. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I deleted a few locality boundaries...
On 19/12/11 08:38, Ben Kelley wrote: What happens where the current boundaries have been edited since the initial import? e.g. Where the boundary follows some geographical feature that is difficult to survey, like a river. Often the river tags have been added to the ABS data way. Removing the boundary removes the river. I have seen rail lines like this as well. - Ben. Guess what. It's going to be deleted too. As I said and it's been said many times before other items should not be attached to boundaries. There is details on the wiki about separating the rivers etc from the boundaries. Look under Australian Tagging Guidelines. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
