Re: [talk-au] Track route names used to name paths

[forster]

Hi Warin

I would expect the highest order entity, the longest or biggest  
entity, to be the primary name. For example the Hume Highway will  
include a lot of High Streets, Station Streets or Main streets of  
country towns. In my mind its first the Hume Highway and secondly High  
Street wherever. I havent given it a lot of thought, its just how it  
feels.


Tony


HI,

On some paths route signs have been used to 'name' the path.


One example is the 'Great North Walk', a Sydney to Newcastle walking
route, where many of the paths existed before the route was created. I
think this is a combination of mistaking the route signage as the track
name and route relations not rendering.


In the Blue Mountains some paths have more than one OSM way - each with
different 'name', at least some of these are routes that may, I repeat
may, not be the true path name.


Example

Way 1199677262 - 'Grand Clifftop Walk'

Way 22761613 - 'Overcliff Track' Note NPWS route 'Overcliff-Undercliff
track' .. the over cliff track is mapped separately in OSM. A route
relation could be made with both these tracks and a website link..

--

In the Blue Mts where there are overlayed ways and one of them is a
route I think it would be best to remove that way and include the
remaining way in a route relation .. I think most of this is the 'Great
Cliff Top Walk' route and that would then remove the double overlayed
ways. .


Thoughts/comments ???



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

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning






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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[forster]

Hi Sebastian
Thanks for your input but I am not sure what you mean. Can you give a  
bit more detail please?

Tony

Please don?t use Strava as your reference as to whether access is   
permitted on a specific way as a lot of people do the wrong thing.






On 23 Apr 2024, at 4:25?PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

?Quoting Ben Ritter :

...

*Which publications are distributing maps of the areas in question that are
encouraging use of paths tagged with `access=no`?* I am interested in
collecting any and all examples.


Hi Ben
Strava seems to be not respecting private.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/413772229
Edited 5 months ago by DM9

It is private but shows the same colour as public use tracks. I   
expect the private tag is correct because its not national park   
between Lanes and Ryans Rd and there are no open gates. I expect   
its private land belonging to Lanes.


Tony



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


_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning







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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[forster]

Quoting Ben Ritter :


*Which publications are distributing maps of the areas in question that are
encouraging use of paths tagged with `access=no`?* I am interested in
collecting any and all examples.


Not sure about this one but
Way: Road 30 (569541638)
access=no
Edited 10 months ago by VicWM

In strava shows the same as road35 which is tagged without access= tag

The bit that I am not sure about is whether road 35 is wrongly tagged

Tony



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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[forster]

Quoting Ben Ritter :

...

*Which publications are distributing maps of the areas in question that are
encouraging use of paths tagged with `access=no`?* I am interested in
collecting any and all examples.


Hi Ben
Strava seems to be not respecting private.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/413772229
Edited 5 months ago by DM9

It is private but shows the same colour as public use tracks. I expect  
the private tag is correct because its not national park between Lanes  
and Ryans Rd and there are no open gates. I expect its private land  
belonging to Lanes.


Tony



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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[forster]

Thanks Adam, well put.

There are two groups, both trying to be of service to the wider  
community. The mappers trying to build better maps and land managers  
trying to protect and manage public land well.


If a land manager sees mappers not respecting their decisions about  
managing public land, they will see it as vandalism. If mappers see  
Parks deleting map data, they will see that as vandalism too.


The problem is that there is very little communication between the two  
groups. Partly because Parks people are overworked and time poor, at  
least in Victoria which I know best. Also because consensus management  
and public forums are an unfamiliar form of management for Parks. They  
are looking for the person in charge and confidential discussions.


The paths include high stakes stuff, some trivial, but also tracks  
that may lure people over cliffs and environmental damage that may  
last forever. We are doing better at communicating than the land  
managers are at the moment. That is good. I am glad to be part of this  
group which is so patient and so responsible. I want us to keep being  
responsible and keep listening.


And I again invite the land managers to engage with us in discussion,  
here or another place of their choice. It is a serious issue that will  
only be resolved through discussion.


Tony


Wait ... does the OSM community seriously want to call public land managers
vandals for attempting to manage access to parts of public land effectively?

This is a publicly archived forum, which land managers may read.

It's been raised a few times, and I have no problem raising this again:

- OSM have zero control over who renders what downstream, regardless of
tags.

- the existence of trails in a map infers useability at some point.

- continually reinstating trails to a database may incur real world
monetary, ecological, landscape and cultural costs, aside from time of
people engaging in slow edit wars. Who is OSM is then liable for those
costs?

- who in the land management community would now feel inclined to join this
discussion? It seems obvious the OSM community isn't prepared to listen,
only to talk...

This thread has been a bit mind numbing. I've tried hard to avoid writing
this post, and couldn't any more.

There are more important values than a database. Land managers have better
things to do that have edit wars.

And to repeat, OSM has no control over who renders what downstream. Please
respect a land managers decision, or at least ask about it respectfully and
wait as long as is needed for a response. They're busy..managing land.

With regards,

Adam







On Thu, Feb 29, 2024, 21:09 Andrew Welch via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:


As much as we want to wait on them and work with them, there?s probably a
point at which we should treat their edits like vandalism (and just revert
their deletions) until they actually work with us.

Thanks,
Andrew Welch
m...@andrewwelch.net


On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 8:13?pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:


I've yet had no response back from Stephen Stenberg re Slate Falls
Lookout, after I basically repeated what you all had already said   
to him :-(


Thanks

Graeme


On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 10:51, Andrew Welch via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:


The user who's edits were revered by Frederik has now tagged those ways
as access=no, hopefully that means the message is starting to get  
 across to

NPWS.

They did set some questionable names on those trails though, and haven't
replied to a changeset comment asking about those.

Thanks,
Andrew Welch
m...@andrewwelch.net


On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 23:12, Mark Pulley  wrote:


There?s probably going to be other examples of NPWS deleting paths.
I?ve just had a look at the Jungle Circuit in Blackheath. This   
was deleted

by NPWS https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144648041 - at least
most of it was, a small bridge was left behind near the creek, and the
first part from Rodriguez Pass was left alone. With Rodriguez Pass
currently closed, I?m not able to check it in-person. It was passable in
2017, with some indistinct sections, so it?s possible that the 2020 fires
and 2022 floods have finished it off. I?ve asked a clarifying question on
the changeset.

Mark P.

On 27 Feb 2024, at 8:53?pm, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

I haven't followed this thread and I don't know if this is relevant to
the discussion but I have just reverted the deletion of a bunch   
of paths in

Tweed Shire, NSW here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147956474
- the deleter claims to have ties to NPS.

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09"
E008°23'33"

___
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] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[forster]

Hi Mark

I would not offer Parks the option of a life cycle prefix until Parks  
recognizes that this comes with an obligation to maintain the ex-path  
in a disused, deconstructed or demolished state. I don't think that  
Parks has to be perfect in this, the the path might be illegally  
reopened from time to time  but the life cycle prefix should be  
representative of the path's average state.


Tony

I had suggested changing to access=no, or adding a disused: prefix   
(mainly to keep NPWS happy), but looking at this page, the   
recommendation seems to be to keep the tags as they are now   
(access=discouraged, informal=yes).


Mark P.


On 23 Feb 2024, at 7:29?pm, Tom Brennan  wrote:

Given this thread is still going, the US has a useful collaboration  
 resource between mappers and land managers


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project

cheers
Tom









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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[forster]

Hi

Its OK by me. The park ranger who appears to be most connected to this 
has been contacted and invited into our discussion. What more can we do? 
Its unfortunatee that a slow motion edit war will be the likely outcome.


Tony





In that case, should I go ahead now with the revert?

Mark P.


On 9 Feb 2024, at 6:23 am, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

No, nothing that I have heard.
Tony

Just following up on this - has there been any further input from
National Parks regarding these paths?

Mark P.

On 3 Jan 2024, at 3:28 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Hi

I was able to talk to the Parks ranger for this park. He identified
himself as Patrick and I have his calling phone number which I
would share off list.

He identified himself as having deleted trails from Open Street
Map. But that does not necessarily mean they are the same trails
that Mark is reverting.

He was definite that the trails that he deleted did not exist on
the ground, not  just that they were unauthorised or social or
illegal.

I encouraged him to join the discussion here.

Tony

I?ve prepared a partial revert for Apsley Falls, ready for upload.
(Keeping the trail near the cliff, leaving the eastern  non-visible
trail deleted)

Any objections / changes before I go ahead?

Mark P.


___
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] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[forster]

No, nothing that I have heard.
Tony


Just following up on this - has there been any further input from   
National Parks regarding these paths?


Mark P.


On 3 Jan 2024, at 3:28 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Hi

I was able to talk to the Parks ranger for this park. He identified  
 himself as Patrick and I have his calling phone number which I   
would share off list.


He identified himself as having deleted trails from Open Street   
Map. But that does not necessarily mean they are the same trails   
that Mark is reverting.


He was definite that the trails that he deleted did not exist on   
the ground, not  just that they were unauthorised or social or   
illegal.


I encouraged him to join the discussion here.

Tony

I?ve prepared a partial revert for Apsley Falls, ready for upload.  
  (Keeping the trail near the cliff, leaving the eastern   
non-visible  trail deleted)


Any objections / changes before I go ahead?

Mark P.









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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[forster]

Hi

I was able to talk to the Parks ranger for this park. He identified  
himself as Patrick and I have his calling phone number which I would  
share off list.


He identified himself as having deleted trails from Open Street Map.  
But that does not necessarily mean they are the same trails that Mark  
is reverting.


He was definite that the trails that he deleted did not exist on the  
ground, not  just that they were unauthorised or social or illegal.


I encouraged him to join the discussion here.

Tony

I?ve prepared a partial revert for Apsley Falls, ready for upload.   
(Keeping the trail near the cliff, leaving the eastern non-visible   
trail deleted)


The tags would return to what they were before NPWS deleted them.
highway=path
foot=yes
informal=yes
trail_visibilty=intermediate
surface=dirt

With additional tags:
hazard=cliff (not listed on the wiki, but there are 36 uses in Taginfo)
access=discouraged
note=access discouraged by NPWS

with a link in the changeset notes to   
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F +   
mention of this discussion.


Any objections / changes before I go ahead?

Mark P.

On 18 Dec 2023, at 8:22?am, Graeme Fitzpatrick   
 wrote:


So access=discouraged may be the best answer, possibly together   
with a hazard= tag?


Incidentally, I never heard back from the NPWS bloke who wanted to   
set-up an OSM liasion contact.


Thanks

Graeme


On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 at 20:02, Mark Pulley > wrote:
I?m not aware of any restriction regarding staying on marked   
tracks only. The map on the sign at the start of the walk doesn?t   
mention any restriction, and the National Parks web site doesn?t   
mention any restrictions.


Mark P.

On 16 Dec 2023, at 1:32?pm, Andrew Harvey   
mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> wrote:


If there is a general park notice "stay on marked tracks only"   
combined with the "End of track" I would say that's sufficient to  
 imply you can't continue further and therefore access=no.


Without the general park notice but simply "End of track", to me   
that just means it's the end of foot=designated, and further   
tracks would be foot=yes and informal=yes, without any access=no.

___
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 - NSW NPWS liaison

[forster]

Hi Graeme

I have been attempting to set up a dialogue between Parks Victoria and  
OSM, so far unsuccessfully. I think its a step forward if NWPS wants  
to liaise with a Liaison Officer. I would give them a Liaison Officer  
and at the same time encourage them into the community. The OSM  
Liaison Officer would explain to NWPS that OSM is a community and   
mentor them into the community.


Graeme, please find out whether their contact person is representing a  
region or all of NWPS. If appropriate, can you give me their contact  
info, either on or off list. I would like to talk to them and see if  
it helps get Parks Victoria to appoint a Liaison Officer.


Tony Forster
Friends of Lysterfield Park



Thanks everybody for your thoughts.

As per Steve's comment, here is probably the easiest contact point due to
not needing an account, but we'll see what other suggestions are made?

I was wondering if a general OSM-AU / OSM-Oceania e-mail address, probably
as part of OSGeo, would help with this sort of thing?

Anyway, my message back to him for further details came back with an OOO
till 21/11 (his query was from a few weeks ago) so we have some time to
discuss it!

His address also listed him being at Coffs Harbour, so I don't know if he's
asking on a regional basis onl, or if that may be a main office?

Thanks

Graeme


On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 14:48, Ben Kelley  wrote:


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

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

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

 - Ben.


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


DWG have received a
"*Request for a Liaison Officer*:
To enhance the accuracy of OpenStreetMap data pertaining to the NSW
National Parks and Wildlife Service"

This has come up in regard to tracks that they say they have previously
requested be deleted (I'm contacting them to confirm just which?)

What would be the easiest way for them to contact us with questions like
this - here / Forum / Discord?

Question posed in all three places

Thanks

Graeme

___

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









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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[forster]

Hi Graeme
I have not seen anything indicating Strava removes ways from heat  
maps. Way 1033069444 was removed by lifecycle prefix on 1 September.  
Its heat trace is still there. I expect it to fade as it is used less  
and finally disappear.

Tony

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1033069444/history

https://www.strava.com/heatmap#16.18/145.31833/-37.93630/hot/run



Quoting Graeme Fitzpatrick :


Made this, slightly tongue in cheek, comment t'other week.

Turns out that they possibly do!

Just clearing a Note & noticed that the traces of these paths,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?note=3942697#map=18/-32.95437/151.74519
which are tagged as disused, don't appear in Strava!
https://www.strava.com/heatmap#18.18/151.74460/-32.95468/hot/run

Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 10:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:


In regard to Strava, it would be very handy if they read OSM access data &
removed traces from their map when tracks are changed to access=no.

Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 09:47, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:




On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 14:19, Ben Ritter 
wrote:


I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something
should exist in OSM.

This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I
think it should be represented with:

   - highway=* because it is clearly a track to a surveyor
   - informal=yes because it is not maintained like the other paths
   - access=no because the relevant authority says so

I believe it's more nuanced than that.


If the point of the closure is to permanently remove the track and
restore it back to bush, and especially if there has been some work done
like placing branches or fallen tree trunks along the path, or if
vegetation is regrowing within the track, then it should use one of the
"stages of decay" lifecycle prefixes.

If the future status is unknown, but it's currently closed, then that's
where I'd leave the highway=* value intact and add access=no.



On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley  wrote:


A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this
particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):

1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
3. Leave the deletion as it is.

For this particular example, the results would be:
1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags
2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or
alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*
3. No reversion



I would opt for 2, leave the way in place, but with access=no, a
lifecycle prefix on the highway tag like abandoned:highway=*
or rehabilitated:highway=*.

If there is signage that says closed for rehabilitation, we should
capture the closure reason somewhere, so OSM data consumers can present
that reason for the closure to users, whether that be
via rehabilitated:highway=* or something like,   
access:reason=rehabilitation.




On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 13:55, Ewen Hill  wrote:


Hi all,
  A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those
protecting the environment over ground truth mapping.

 On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits for
an outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the
potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may alter
food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage values,". In
Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in the
Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human activity.
In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist
protection.

I feel the  lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances however
it might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to
protect fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps these.





On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 22:57, Ben Ritter 
wrote:


I think we can assist environmental maintenance without compromising the
ground truth value. They are not actually in conflict with each other.



Exactly this. If we map the closure including the reason for the closure,
we can help inform park users about which areas to avoid and why they are
asked to avoid those areas. People are going to still see the path on the
Strava heatmap or they are still going to find it on the ground anyway.




In fact, I think it is *more helpful* to keep the highway features with
the addition of the access tag and/or the lifecycle prefix.

Many OSM users are used to incomplete data, so if they saw an OSM map
which didn't include tracks that they observe in the wild, they would
likely assume the data is missing, not that there is a restriction on it.



Good point, we see this already with Overture maps which conflates OSM
buildings with AI generated buildings. I can see in the future map
providers might conflate OSM highway=* network with probe data like Strava,
I'm not saying we need to map all the 

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[forster]

Yes Ewen, I agree

The OSM mission statement is at  
https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement


I would like to see it also include something like Google's "don’t be evil"*
Or doctors' "first, do no harm" or "primum non nocere"

Tony Forster


* Google changed "don’t be evil" to “do the right thing” in 2015  
and finally dropped it in 2018  
https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393





Hi all,
  A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those protecting
the environment over ground truth mapping.

 On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits for an
outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the
potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may alter
food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage values,". In
Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in the
Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human activity.
In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist
protection.

I feel the  lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances however it
might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to protect
fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps these.

Ewen

On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley  wrote:


A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this
particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):

1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
3. Leave the deletion as it is.

For this particular example, the results would be:
1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags
2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or
alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*
3. No reversion

So far I count 5 people in favour of reversion, and 2 or 3 against (I
wasn?t sure about the third!)

Here?s my proposal:
Partial revert of ways
Way 29415025 - leave this deleted (as it was difficult to find at my
survey in early 2022)
Way 1052666246 - access to an informal lookout - leave this deleted
Other two ways 29415022 and 630040313 reverted with addition of access=no
(as NWPS don?t want people going there), and probably a note=* tag to
describe the reason for the access tag
(Possibly disused:highway=* as an alternative - this will prevent it
appearing on the map. Unfortunately we don?t have a new survey of this
area. The NPWS ranger doesn?t appear to want this showing on the map, but
hasn?t given any indication on the actual status of the path. Is it
officially closed? Other paths that have been closed in other locations
have previously been marked access=no e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/347707596/ )
Delete the viewpoint tags on the ways
Outline in the changes comments the reason for the reversion (i.e. the
mailing list discussion).

It would be nice to have a resurvey, but I wasn?t planning to go back to
this location any time soon to do one.

Mark P.

On 2 Oct 2023, at 2:12 pm, Ben Ritter  wrote:

(I'm a little late to this thread, but wanted to add my two cents.) I
agree with Tom's take and have commented below:

On Mon, 25 Sept 2023, 8:26 am Tom Brennan,  wrote:


Tricky one.

I have sympathy for Land Managers. There can be many reasons why they
don't want people visiting a place, and why they don't want tracks on a
map which might encourage it.

But simply deleting the tracks from OSM is not the best way to go about
it unless the "tracks" were simply bushbashing routes, and were never
real tracks in the first place.

As others have said, it just makes it likely that the track will be
added as a new track at a later date, assuming it does exist on the
ground.

Some basic signage at the trackhead, and formal closure (announcement on
the NPWS alerts page) would be enough to set the various tags so that it
shouldn't appear on downstream maps.



I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something
should exist in OSM.

This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I think
it should be represented with:

   - highway=* because it is clearly a track to a surveyor
   - informal=yes because it is not maintained like the other paths
   - access=no because the relevant authority says so

It sounds like the access=no tag is less clearly justified, but any
signage at the site is justification enough, even if it is poorly
maintained or vandalised: the access tag is describing policy, not
practical use. I would encourage the managers to ensure signage is
maintained, because many people won't be using OSM as their source of truth!

I think the OSM edits and email discussions also serve as justification
for the access=no tag. A publicly posted notice would be ideal, so that it
can be referenced as a source.

If there are downstream maps that

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[forster]

Thanks Phil
You put it well.

In my experience we demolish the illegal track making it impassable  
and get an undertaking from Parks Vic that they will endeavour to  
maintain it that way. We add a lifetime prefix and as a matter of   
courtesy contact the mapper . So far it works.


Tony Forster
Friends of Lysterfield Park


Hi Folks,



Personally, I believe if the managing agency requests that the   
tracks be removed from the map then as good corporate citizens we   
should do everything possible to lower the promotion of such tracks.  
 Track managers also have a responsibility to also actively advise   
people and if the area is high use then signage and rehabilitation   
at the locations will help.




Track rehabilitation, even when undertaken actively, can take many,   
many years and there will likely be remains of the   
closed/abandoned/rehabilitated tracks showing in some environments,   
on some imagery, for an extended period of time.




I don’t believe that the abandoned or disused tags adequately   
reflect the desire of the managers but it is supported by some. Some  
 users may see those tags as an ‘opportunity’ to reopen the  
track and  promote use back to previous levels and they may do this  
without the  backing of the agency.




In a nutshell, in this instance, they are asking for folks to stop   
going there. I also feel that if a track has active rehabilitation   
being undertaken then a better tag would be   
rehabilitated:highway=type along with access=no. Many such tracks   
will get limited rehabilitation at the ‘take off points’ only  
and  the rest of the track will be left to very slowly rehabilitate,  
 maybe with some occasional bars to impede water flow and allow   
buildup of debris. Again, it will take many years for full   
rehabilitation to take place.




So my view is…



*   If you cant see the track on the imagery – delete it.
*	If you can see the track in imagery – then tag it appropriately  
to  discourage use as per the managers desire. Also work with the   
managers to actively close the tracks if you desire. Obviously if   
you are concerned on the tagging then its also likely that the area   
is a favourite place for you. Work with the managers!
*	Work with and encourage app developers to ensure suitably tagged   
tracks do not appear on public maps




Cheers – Phil (aka tastracks)



Full disclosure – I ran Track Management for Tasmanian Parks and   
Wildlife for many years so I am slightly biased.




From: Sebastian S. 
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 7:32 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org; Andrew Harvey   
; Mark Pulley 

Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS



I recall these discussions vaguely.
Was not one of the reasons for removing them from the map as the   
rangers or gov wanted them to be renaturatin etc. So from that   
perspective I understand why not having them in a map is in their   
interests.




On 21 September 2023 11:25:02 pm AEST, Andrew Harvey   
mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> > wrote:






On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley <mailto:mrpul...@iinet.net.au> > wrote:


I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS   
has deleted some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers   
National Park).




These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion   
were reverted. I re-surveyed them later that year.


These paths have been recently deleted again, initially edited by a   
different NPWS employee. (Three different change sets, summarised   
below.)




I had thought the consensus last time was to leave the paths in,   
tagged as informal=yes (unless the path has been formally closed, in  
 which case access=no can be used). Is this still the case? Also, do  
 we need to add a policy to the wiki for similar situations?




We have   
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Path   
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths>




Informal Paths (informal=yes) - these would still show up as for   
use, but with the note that they may not be maintained, may not have  
 signage etc.




Closed Paths (abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* + access=no)   
- These should not show up as for use, but still be present in OSM   
data for users looking for closed paths.











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

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

[forster]

Hi

I am satisfied that it is a cache issue. The ways have not been edited  
for 3  days and bicycle (graphhopper) which was doing the little zig  
zag yesterday is now routing correctly.


I think just wait and let the data catch up.

Tony


Ben, thanks for the suggestions - I'll give them a go.

Ian


The intersection in question is quite new, so I am not surprised that

there are

cache issues as you guys have identified. Each routing engine will ingest

new

OSM data on its own schedule.

One thing that I noticed with the spurious "at the fork, turn right onto

Albany

Hwy" instructions in the original OSMR link
,
is the lack of `_link` roads. I would expect the on- and off-ramps to be

tagged

as `highway=trunk_link`. I suspect the routing engines are expecting the

same,

and therefore seeing the Menang Dr slip road
 as a legitimate fork in
the highway.

The latest incorrect directions with "turn sharp left" are probably the

result of

missing turn restriction relations
. I would expect
some "no_u_turn" restrictions where slip roads join the two-way hwy way.
For example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1077469012. Some
routing engines will infer this from the angle of the ways, but not all of

them.


Cheers,
Ben




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

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning







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

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

[forster]

Ian
Looking again at the routing:

1. Continue onto Menang Drive20m
2. Keep right onto Menang Drive130m
3. Turn sharp left onto Albany Highway20m
4. Turn sharp right onto Menang Drive160m
5. Arrive at destination

Its like its working partially off an old cache:

2. Keep right onto Menang Drive130m
It thinks it can get on to Menang Dve, it used to be able, now its  
130m further east


4. Turn sharp right onto Menang Drive160m
it used to be able, now its 160m of off road driving

The routing engines work off the ways not the tiles don't they? Can  
the router be working off a cached set of ways?


Tony


Yes Ian
I think you are right. It was showing the cached copy even now with the
kink. I just refreshed it. The routing is still wrong

1. Continue onto Menang Drive   20m
2. Keep right onto Menang Drive 130m
3. Turn sharp left onto Albany Highway  20m
4. Turn sharp right onto Menang Drive   160m
5. Arrive at destination

Tony


Do you mean where Menang Drv curls around and meets Albany Hwy at a
T-junction?  If so, I took the kink out yesterday (?) - maybe the renderer
hasn't caught-up with the change when you looked at it ??

Ian


Hi
Sorry if this is my misunderstanding but it seems that the same mistake

that is made by the routers is being made by some tile >rendering engines
too. The standard tile has a kink at the end of Menang Drive (1077469021)
which is not there. The >cycleOSM tile renderer does not do this. Likewise
the junction of Menang Drive

(1077469008) is shifted NW by the Standard tile renderer but not the

CycleOSM tile renderer.

Tony




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

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning







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

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning






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

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

[forster]

Yes Ian
I think you are right. It was showing the cached copy even now with  
the kink. I just refreshed it. The routing is still wrong


1. Continue onto Menang Drive   20m
2. Keep right onto Menang Drive 130m
3. Turn sharp left onto Albany Highway  20m
4. Turn sharp right onto Menang Drive   160m
5. Arrive at destination

Tony


Do you mean where Menang Drv curls around and meets Albany Hwy at a
T-junction?  If so, I took the kink out yesterday (?) - maybe the renderer
hasn't caught-up with the change when you looked at it ??

Ian


Hi
Sorry if this is my misunderstanding but it seems that the same mistake

that is made by the routers is being made by some tile >rendering engines
too. The standard tile has a kink at the end of Menang Drive (1077469021)
which is not there. The >cycleOSM tile renderer does not do this. Likewise
the junction of Menang Drive

(1077469008) is shifted NW by the Standard tile renderer but not the

CycleOSM tile renderer.

Tony




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

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning







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

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

[forster]

Hi
Sorry if this is my misunderstanding but it seems that the same  
mistake that is made by the routers is being made by some tile  
rendering engines too. The standard tile has a kink at the end of  
Menang Drive (1077469021) which is not there. The cycleOSM tile  
renderer does not do this. Likewise the junction of Menang Drive  
(1077469008) is shifted NW by the Standard tile renderer but not the  
CycleOSM tile renderer.

Tony


This end has an issue if you can legally go round the Menang Drive loop

https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car=-34.9
6706%2C117.81758%3B-34.96606%2C117.82303#map=18/-34.96639/117.82031

-Original Message-
From: Ian Steer 
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 7:44 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Routing problem near Albany, WA

Ah - thanks Ben.  I wasn't aware of that service, I'll give it a try.

Encouraging that it's not just Garmin's GPS algorithm.

It is a mystery what's happening.

Thanks

Ian


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

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

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

https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car=-34.

9226%2C117.7915%3B-34.9670%>2C117.8239#map=17/-34.96524/117.82097







___
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

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning







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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping tracks from Strava heatmap

[forster]

Hi

Am I missing something? I looked at way 952248376 and found a user  
Pieseczek with 2 changesets and 4 new ways over a year old. If there  
was any reference to Strava heat maps then I missed it. Is there any  
indication whether Pieseczek is resident in Australia apart from the  
likely origin of the name?


If the ways are solely based on heatmaps, they should be deleted  
because they can not be ground truthed. But they appear to map ridge  
lines. Were they made from the satellite photos or contours? Ridge  
lines can be ground truthed and belong on OSM.


I agree with Cleary on mapping of illegal trails but that may not be  
relevant in this case.


Tony


Do people have a view on the armchair mapping of tracks from Strava heatmaps?

I can see a bunch of tracks in Kanangra-Boyd NP that have been mapped
by an overseas mapper off Strava heatmap.

They almost certainly don't exist on the ground. They are known
bushwalking routes (off track), but would be very unlikely to have a
track even in good times, let along after the fires and 3 years of La
Nina!

Example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/952248376

cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

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

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning






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

Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] Adoption of OSM geometry as state mapping base

[forster]

Hi Rob

A warm welcome to you and the Department of Transport to OSM (just  
speaking for myself, one of over 8 million contributors.)


Its an exciting time for me to be an OSM contributor as OSM is  
becoming the preferred map for so many.


Sorry if I have missed something but this post confused me and may  
perplex many on this list.


You appear to be asking a legal question, is it allowed to use OSM  
data to "Operate dangerous businesses such as emergency services or  
air traffic control"

This text appears to be a quote from the https://wiki.osmfoundation.org.

You did the right thing approaching the community first but there may  
not be too many lawyers on this list. Maybe the osmfoundation will  
have to reply


Good luck, I hope that we can work together.

Tony
(One of 8 million volunteers)


Hi,

I am representing the state transport department Department of Transport
and Planning (Victoria, Australia) - OpenStreetMap Wiki

and
we are looking to consume the OSM road & rail networks for our operations.

*Lawyers have raised a concern about these conditions, as the road data use
is supplied to our emergency services fire and ambulance.  We have not
started using the information but we are implementing a system of
validation and change detection, then produce an authoritative version for
other agency consumption.*
*Unlawful and other unauthorized uses include a clause "Operate dangerous
businesses such as emergency services or air traffic control, where the use
or failure of the Services could lead to death, personal injury or
significant property damage;" and "Store data available through the
Services in order to evade these Terms (including aiding anyone else in
doing so); or"*

Please any advice would be greatly appreciated, ultimately we will enhance
the overall content of OSM in the Victoria, but really do not want to cause
problems later.

Thanks,

Rob







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

Re: [talk-au] Adoption of OSM geometry as state mapping base

[forster]

Hi Rob

A warm welcome to you and the Department of Transport to OSM (just  
speaking for myself, one of over 8 million contributors.)


Its an exciting time for me to be an OSM contributor as OSM is  
becoming the preferred map for so many.


Sorry if I have missed something but this post confused me and may  
perplex many on this list.


You appear to be asking a legal question, is it allowed to use OSM  
data to "Operate dangerous businesses such as emergency services or  
air traffic control"

This text appears to be a quote from the https://wiki.osmfoundation.org.

You did the right thing approaching the community first but there may  
not be too many lawyers on this list. Maybe the osmfoundation will  
have to reply


Good luck, I hope that we can work together.

Tony
(One of 8 million volunteers)


Hi,

I am representing the state transport department Department of Transport
and Planning (Victoria, Australia) - OpenStreetMap Wiki

and
we are looking to consume the OSM road & rail networks for our operations.

*Lawyers have raised a concern about these conditions, as the road data use
is supplied to our emergency services fire and ambulance.  We have not
started using the information but we are implementing a system of
validation and change detection, then produce an authoritative version for
other agency consumption.*
*Unlawful and other unauthorized uses include a clause "Operate dangerous
businesses such as emergency services or air traffic control, where the use
or failure of the Services could lead to death, personal injury or
significant property damage;" and "Store data available through the
Services in order to evade these Terms (including aiding anyone else in
doing so); or"*

Please any advice would be greatly appreciated, ultimately we will enhance
the overall content of OSM in the Victoria, but really do not want to cause
problems later.

Thanks,

Rob







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

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

[forster]

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


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


Tony


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


Hi all,

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

This data is focused on the city centre. Are there any recommendations on
how I should get about this, or if there are any best practices or guidance
when uploading datasets from official sources?







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

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning






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

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

[forster]

Hi
First check that its listed at  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources

If not ykou probably need to get them to sign a release
Tony


Hi all,

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

This data is focused on the city centre. Are there any recommendations on
how I should get about this, or if there are any best practices or guidance
when uploading datasets from official sources?







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

[talk-au] Gravel roads surface tagging

[forster]

Hi all

Gravel was discussed on talk_au back in March 2021. For anybody  
interested its back in discussion at  
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/surface-fine-gravel-is-it-for-loose-gravel-or-duplicate-of-surface-compacted/7533/3


Tony



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

Re: [talk-au] power=edge_server

[forster]

You could contact PhuLai's supervisor
Dr Qiang He
Associate Professor
q...@swin.edu.au
+61 3 9214 5431


As these tags are few in number and associated with research as   
mentioned on the github page I am happy to leave as is and move on.

The tag power=edge_server seems reasonable.



On 3 Nov 2022, at 12:24 am, Nev  wrote:


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


On 2 Nov 2022, at 10:43 pm, Nev  wrote:


Hi
Does anyone know what the tag power=edge_server refers to?

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

I initially thought they might be something to do with building   
power supply or electric vehicle chargers or a type of computer   
server in business premises.
Internet searches generally refer to computer servers and if that   
is what is being mapped, are these appropriate to map on osm?








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

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

[forster]

Hi Sebastian

It is both frustrating and disappointing to see that you continue to  
 argue your point of view that is incorrect.
It is clear that a local council who follows the Victorian road laws  
 has published the permissions of ways within their jurisdiction yet  
 you still try to argue that ways are incorrectly tagged.


No, I do not argue that the ways are incorrectly tagged. I argue that  
the consensus, the majority of OSM editors, believe that the ways are  
incorrectly tagged.




To the point I made in the previous thread, cycling is not permitted  
 on any way unless specifically signed. This is exemplified in  
change  set 127561873 where the permissions that Frankston council  
have  established in line with our road rules.


The consensus, not just me, reject your argument that cycling is not permitted
 on any way unless specifically signed



Regardless of copyright, I have personally verified all roads in the  
 Seaford wetlands via both foot and bike and tagged ways according  
to  what is on the ground and which is back to back with Frankston   
council (as per Victorian law) yet you still cannot provide any   
evidence that my tagging is incorrect.


I do not need to provide evidence that you are incorrect. The  
concensus believes that you are incorrect.


I ask that you conform to community expectations and not tag on the  
basis that cycling is not permitted  on any way unless specifically  
signed.


Thanks
Tony







On 23 Oct 2022, at 10:06 am, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Hi Sebastian

You sent me private message, 15/10/22 20:52:39 EST
In it you agreed that consensus had been achieved even though you   
thought it was wrong.


I was disappointed to then see further tagging changes which in my   
opinion go against community consensus.


Changeset: 127828054
172362952, v4 cycleway changed to footway
170529137, v5 cycleway changed to footway

Changeset: 127827849
995759320, v2 cycleway changed to footway
995753641, v3 cycleway changed to footway

Changeset: 127561873
15 Oct 9:28am (UTC?), I think this is after your mail to me.
It lists source:   
https://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/files/assets/public/things-to-do/parks-and-reserves/pdfs/seaford_wetlands_reserve_2018.pdf

This source may not be allowed because of copyright
1024370763, v2 bicycle=yes, foot=yes changed to bicycle=no foot=no
a highway=footway with foot=no makes little sense, if you are   
correct then its just an informal path with access=no?

827522368, v7 bicycle=yes changed to bicycle=no
Seaford Wetlands Trail (770944899) bicycle =yes changed to bicycle=no

Maybe I have misunderstood but it seems to me that you continue to   
act against community consensus though you agree that consensus had  
 been achieved. Your thoughts please.


Thanks
Tony




_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning







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

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

[forster]

Hi Sebastian

You sent me private message, 15/10/22 20:52:39 EST.
In it you agreed that consensus had been achieved even though you  
thought it was wrong.


I was disappointed to then see further tagging changes which in my  
opinion go against community consensus.


Changeset: 127828054
172362952, v4 cycleway changed to footway
170529137, v5 cycleway changed to footway

Changeset: 127827849
995759320, v2 cycleway changed to footway
995753641, v3 cycleway changed to footway

Changeset: 127561873
15 Oct 9:28am (UTC?), I think this is after your mail to me.
It lists source:  
https://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/files/assets/public/things-to-do/parks-and-reserves/pdfs/seaford_wetlands_reserve_2018.pdf

This source may not be allowed because of copyright
1024370763, v2 bicycle=yes, foot=yes changed to bicycle=no foot=no
a highway=footway with foot=no makes little sense, if you are correct  
then its just an informal path with access=no?

827522368, v7 bicycle=yes changed to bicycle=no
Seaford Wetlands Trail (770944899) bicycle =yes changed to bicycle=no

Maybe I have misunderstood but it seems to me that you continue to act  
against community consensus though you agree that consensus had been  
achieved. Your thoughts please.


Thanks
Tony



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

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

[forster]

Hi Sebastian

I thank you again for your many contributions to OSM.

I note your deeply held belief that your tagging is the correct  
interpretation of Victorian law, however for the purposes of OSM, its  
the community consensus that ultimately matters.


I undertook in Changeset: 126886850 to go back to the community to  
establish the
consensus that  "no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted"  
is, on its own, insufficient reason to remove bicycle=yes


I believe that consensus has been established. Do you agree that  
consensus has been established?


Thanks
Tony



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

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

[forster]

Hi
The Mapillary is partially processed, it may not appear on the  
worldmap yet but hopefully this link gives access to the sequence of  
photos


https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/tonyf1?lat=-38.150390215353=145.29166281667995=16.813496063643257=681595696442544=photo

Tony




Sebastian wrote
This was had no visible sign to indicate it was a shared way but it is
tagged as a shared way in OSM.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/903736648#map=17/-38.15145/145.29173

I replied
I would not change the tags till I had been out on site and I would
take Mapillary images.

Well I have been on site this afternoon and have uploaded Mapillary
images, they will take a day or two to process.

Way: 903736648 has 2 segments, Craig Rd and Hummingbird Dve, both have
visible shared path signage and there is also implicit evidence of a
cycleway:

Craig Rd has shared path signage painted on the path on the south side
of the Hummingbird Dve intersection.

Hummingbird Dve has a shared path sign on a pole at the Seasons Dve end.

The additional cues are:
The traffic light has a pedestrian and a cyclist,
Phil Wyatt's observation that the wide paths are shared and the narrow
ones foot
End shared path signs at the intersection of Saddleback and Craig
Bicycles painted both sides of the intersection of Craig with
Hummingbird and with Saddleback, ie further north than the segment of
Craig in question
There were also bike warning signs in 2 locations on Hummingbird

So the tagging looks fine to me.

Tony



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

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning






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

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

[forster]

Sebastian wrote
This was had no visible sign to indicate it was a shared way but it is  
tagged as a shared way in OSM.  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/903736648#map=17/-38.15145/145.29173


I replied
I would not change the tags till I had been out on site and I would
take Mapillary images.

Well I have been on site this afternoon and have uploaded Mapillary  
images, they will take a day or two to process.


Way: 903736648 has 2 segments, Craig Rd and Hummingbird Dve, both have  
visible shared path signage and there is also implicit evidence of a  
cycleway:


Craig Rd has shared path signage painted on the path on the south side  
of the Hummingbird Dve intersection.


Hummingbird Dve has a shared path sign on a pole at the Seasons Dve end.

The additional cues are:
The traffic light has a pedestrian and a cyclist,
Phil Wyatt's observation that the wide paths are shared and the narrow  
ones foot

End shared path signs at the intersection of Saddleback and Craig
Bicycles painted both sides of the intersection of Craig with  
Hummingbird and with Saddleback, ie further north than the segment of  
Craig in question

There were also bike warning signs in 2 locations on Hummingbird

So the tagging looks fine to me.

Tony



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

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

[forster]

Hi Sebastian

I want to draw you attention to an example I can across today. This   
was had no visible sign to indicate it was a shared way but it is   
tagged as a shared way in OSM.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/903736648#map=17/-38.15145/145.29173
Can I get peoples opinion when it is acceptable to change the way   
too something more appropriate such as a footpath or set permissions  
 to bicycle=no ?


My first reaction is that there was too much cycleway and the previous  
editor had made a mistake.


There is no Mapillary imagery of Hummingbird Dve or Craig Rd. There is  
a little Google Streetview but we cannot use it. If I went on site I  
might see traffic lights with pictures of bicycles, bicycles painted  
on the concrete and bicycle signs, maybe not.


I would not change the tags till I had been out on site and I would  
take Mapillary images.


If I was still unsure after a site visit I might ask philam48, the  
previous editor.


Tony




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

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

[forster]

Sebastian

Yes, 3b and 3c are actually signposted. They were intended as  
hypothetical examples. I asked the question of Ben to get a better  
undersranding of what he thought rather than to support any particular  
argument. I should have explained this in more detail and apologise  
for any confusion.


Re the suggestion of bicycle=undefined, I prefer just highway=path  
where theres no signage.


Tony

The example below under 3b is misleading, as the location or   
proximity to residential properties or freeway/arterial road has no   
bearing on the allowed permissions of that way. Assume NSW is   
similar in their approach and relies on sign posts being present to   
confirm permissions.


If you track a little further west along that street level imagery   
where it crosses Chapel Rd you will notice it is actually signed   
posted as being a shared way.
There is explicit signage that is required to indicate that cyclist   
are permitted.


https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.997275=145.1624139=16.86798684701922=1933421956805153=0.47345176124885663=0.627570043705694=0=photo   



I’ve seen motorbikes and council vehicles drive how that path,  
does  that mean that both motor bikes and cars are permitted ?



I think the question should be reversed as to why you believe   
cyclists are permitted to use a way in the absence to signage as   
stated under the law.


For the purposes of this conversation I think that   
bicycle=“undefined/not specified” is a better option that  
bicycle=no  where no signage is present as suggested by Graeme.  
Thoughts ?



regards,

Sebastian




On 8 Oct 2022, at 6:08 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Hi Sebastian Azagra,

Thank you for joining in the discussions. Michael Collinson wrote   
"I continue to welcome him (Sebastian) in our OSM community". I   
second that. Though I have some problems with your bicycle edits, I  
 am very appreciative of the hard work you do to support OSM.


I have feedback from Ewen Hill, Michael Collinson, Graeme   
Fitzpatrick, Ian Steer and Warin which appear to support my   
position. Only Ben Kelley might support Sebastian's position, he   
writes "In NSW by default it is not allowed (unless signpost as a   
shared path). I assume Victoria is the same".


Ben, I would like to ask you some additional questions to tease out  
 your opinions. You are more familiar with NSW law, I am happy for   
you to assume Victorian and NSW law to be the same for the purposes  
 of this discussion.


1) Was Sebastian justified in removing bicycle=yes from way 1008258040 ?
2) Are no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted sufficient  
 evidence that bicycles are disallowed?
3) For the following 3 examples assume there is no signage, would   
addition of bicycle=no or deletion of bicycle=yes be justified?


3a) A typical footpath in the sidewalk sense:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.89676470=145.28943507=17=428476962255750=photo

3b) A path with almost no access to residental properties, parallel  
 with a freeway or arterial road:


https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.9975583299=145.1662444005=17=469416987632807=photo

3c) A path not associated with a road:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.924151150055=145.32763449=17=494613405004623=photo

Thanks
Tony





_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning







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

[talk-au] Cycle permissions by a user

[forster]

Hi Sebastian Azagra,

Thank you for joining in the discussions. Michael Collinson wrote "I  
continue to welcome him (Sebastian) in our OSM community". I second  
that. Though I have some problems with your bicycle edits, I am very  
appreciative of the hard work you do to support OSM.


I have feedback from Ewen Hill, Michael Collinson, Graeme Fitzpatrick,  
Ian Steer and Warin which appear to support my position. Only Ben  
Kelley might support Sebastian's position, he writes "In NSW by  
default it is not allowed (unless signpost as a shared path). I assume  
Victoria is the same".


Ben, I would like to ask you some additional questions to tease out  
your opinions. You are more familiar with NSW law, I am happy for you  
to assume Victorian and NSW law to be the same for the purposes of  
this discussion.


1) Was Sebastian justified in removing bicycle=yes from way 1008258040 ?
2) Are no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted sufficient  
evidence that bicycles are disallowed?
3) For the following 3 examples assume there is no signage, would  
addition of bicycle=no or deletion of bicycle=yes be justified?


3a) A typical footpath in the sidewalk sense:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.89676470=145.28943507=17=428476962255750=photo

3b) A path with almost no access to residental properties, parallel  
with a freeway or arterial road:


https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.9975583299=145.1662444005=17=469416987632807=photo

3c) A path not associated with a road:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.924151150055=145.32763449=17=494613405004623=photo

Thanks
Tony



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

[talk-au] Cycle permissions by a user

[forster]

Hi
I have been monitoring the edits by a user who still "changes shared  
paths to footpaths as no signs present to indicated bikes are  
permitted" in Victoria Australia.


Most of these changes are small ways where there are unlikely to be  
serious consequences, its not worth the petrol (or electricity in this  
case for my Nissan Leaf) to go out and inspect the way and I have said  
nothing.


I have commented on way 1008258040 in Changeset: 126886850 where  
bicycle=yes by the previous editor has been removed because there were  
"no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted"


There is good street level imagery. It is not a footpath in the  
sidewalk sense. It looks OK for bicycles to me. Sorry to bother but I  
request a clear community consensus again on whether "no signs present  
to indicated bikes are permitted" is of itself  sufficient evidence  
that bicycles are disallowed.


Sorry to bother you all
Tony



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

Re: [talk-au] Parks Victoria - Volunteering Innovation Fund open till 3 October

[forster]

Hi Brendan

Firstly Background:
It took a while but I got the OSM attribution right at  
https://engage.vic.gov.au. In the process a representative of   
engage.vic said words to the effect that the state government was a  
strong supporter of open source and open data. I read that that the  
time is right to get OSM as the base map of choice for government maps.


Secondly, the idea. Parks Victoria has a lot of interpretive signage  
which they cannot afford to replace when it is graffiti'd or damaged.  
When everybody has a smart phone, virtual signage is far cheaper. It  
also leaves the natural environment uncluttered. Virtual signs could  
be marked by QR codes or marked in an app similar to geocaching and  
Pokemon Go.


If anybody can make that an Volunteering Innovation Fund project they  
are welcome to the idea.


Tony


Hi all,

The Volunteering Innovation Fund is a key new initiative under the
Victoria?s Great Outdoors Program, which seeks to get more Victorians, from
all walks of life outdoors enjoying nature.

Funding is available for a broad range of innovative volunteering projects
on Victorian Crown land that benefit heritage and cultural values and
improve the natural environment. Projects should:
* invite more Victorians to volunteer in and for the environment
* have the ability to leave a legacy (can be
continued/expanded/extended/re-invigorated in the future); and
* be a new method, idea, item, event or service.

If anyone is interested in putting together a proposal involving OSM
volunteers mapping Victorian crown land, or develop a new volunteer service
which leverages OSM data, please let me know.







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

[talk-au] Victorian Government and OSM Attribution

[forster]

Hi all

A good news story on OSM attribution. The map at  
https://engage.vic.gov.au/CardiniaCkParklands now shows copyright  
OpenStreetMap. They say it will be right on all maps displayed on  
Engage Victoria. They were glacially slow but we got the results in  
the end.


They stressed the Victorian Government's desire to support open data.

I have contact information for the Department of Premier and Cabinet  
which I am happy to share off list.


Tony



Hi
A related case, the Victorian government seems to be using OSM without
attribution. Again it is Mapbox. I have written to the government a
couple of times, the replies have been polite but no result, i think
its just too hard for them. If talking to Mapbox, please mention this
one.

Tony





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

Re: [talk-au] OSM Attribution Q

[forster]

And I also reported another attribution error:

From:   Mapbox Support 
To: Forster 
Reply-To:   Mapbox Support 
Subject:Mapbox Support - we received your message

Thanks for contacting Mapbox Support! We've received your message. If  
you have an emergency or see a disruption in service, please see  
http://status.mapbox.com/ for critical updates. If you haven't  
already, check out our great documentation and guides for more  
resources (like our https://docs.mapbox.com/api/;>API  
Documentation and https://docs.mapbox.com/help/;>Help  
pages) -- the answer to your question might just be there!


If you are a Premium, Business, or Essential support plan customer,  
please disregard the following and expect a reply from our team within  
the agreed upon SLAs for your plan.


We are experiencing a high volume of tickets coming in. If you  
haven't purchased one of our href="https://www.mapbox.com/support#support-plans;>support plans,  
we may not be able to respond to your question. For faster help,  
get advice from the larger community of developers building with  
Mapbox by https://stackoverflow.com/questions/ask;>submitting  
your question on Stack Overflow using the href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/mapbox;>Mapbox tag.


With our href="https://account.mapbox.com/subscriptions/;>Essential,  
Business or Premium support plans, we guarantee engagement with our  
team within a certain time window - check out our href="https://www.mapbox.com/support#support-plans;>Mapbox Support  
Plans page to learn more.


When contacting the Mapbox Support team directly, href="https://support.mapbox.com/;>tickets opened via our contact  
form will be prioritized over tickets submitted via email.


To ensure the best support experience, we highly recommend using one  
of the above approaches.


Happy mapping!

The Mapbox team


On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 at 07:42, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:



Hi Sergey

Thanks for that!

I reported it online & received an acknowledgement,



& it was reported via this form:
https://support.mapbox.com/hc/en-us/requests/new?ticket_form_id=36308212

Hope that helps?

Thanks

Graeme







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

Re: [talk-au] OSM Attribution Q

[forster]

Oops mapbox not matchbox


Hi
A related case, the Victorian government seems to be using OSM without
attribution. Again it is Matchbox. I have written to the government a
couple of times, the replies have been polite but no result, i think
its just too hard for them. If talking to Matchbox, please mention this
one.

Tony


Department of Premier and Cabinet

Hi
I have written to you once already, I think by the Contact us web form
around June 4th.

The map at
https://engage.vic.gov.au/CardiniaCkParklands
is in breach of copyright. Matchbox copyright is acknowledged by you
but though they may
hold the rights to the satellite image they are not the owner of the
text labels. The
text labels are copyright Open Street Map.

See https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright for instructions

I ask that you immediately either remove the map or credit the
copyright holder in the
specified manner.

Thanks


On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 at 20:28, Bob Cameron  wrote:



Looking at petrolspy.com.au website for Theodore Qld and note that the
sport and rec ground shows a remarkable similarity to the
changes/updates I did 10 months ago,



I spotted exactly the same thing locally, with a bushland track that I
added also appearing on their map.

PetrolSpy apparently uses MapBox, so I've sent a message to MB asking them
to please look into it.

That was last week, but nothing so far other than an automatic
acknowledgement.

Thanks

Graeme



r









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

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning






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

Re: [talk-au] OSM Attribution Q

[forster]

Hi
A related case, the Victorian government seems to be using OSM without  
attribution. Again it is Matchbox. I have written to the government a  
couple of times, the replies have been polite but no result, i think  
its just too hard for them. If talking to Matchbox, please mention  
this one.


Tony


Department of Premier and Cabinet

Hi
I have written to you once already, I think by the Contact us web form  
around June 4th.


The map at
https://engage.vic.gov.au/CardiniaCkParklands
is in breach of copyright. Matchbox copyright is acknowledged by you  
but though they may
hold the rights to the satellite image they are not the owner of the  
text labels. The

text labels are copyright Open Street Map.

See https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright for instructions

I ask that you immediately either remove the map or credit the  
copyright holder in the

specified manner.

Thanks


On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 at 20:28, Bob Cameron  wrote:



Looking at petrolspy.com.au website for Theodore Qld and note that the
sport and rec ground shows a remarkable similarity to the
changes/updates I did 10 months ago,



I spotted exactly the same thing locally, with a bushland track that I
added also appearing on their map.

PetrolSpy apparently uses MapBox, so I've sent a message to MB asking them
to please look into it.

That was last week, but nothing so far other than an automatic
acknowledgement.

Thanks

Graeme



r









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

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

[forster]

Hi list
the discussions around the correct modeling of a motorway/divided  
highway intersection continue at  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120498123

If you can offer suggestions, your help is welcome
Tony


Using the tag the tag highway = cycleway indicates that the route is  
 designated for bicycles only.
In Victoria, this is hardly the case as most paths are generally   
signed as shared paths. I?ve yet to come across a dedicated cycle   
path during my riding.


regards,

Sebastian


On 17 May 2022, at 6:15 pm, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

?On 16/5/22 23:38, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote:

Can I please clarify "using highway=cycleway should only be used   
where there are signs allowing"?

That is how I've always used it in urban areas.


This would only apply in NSW/VIC. In other jurisdictions putting up  
 signs has become pointless because you can ride anywhere. In   
Canberra almost none of the shared path system has explicit   
signage. I use cycleway to tag "primary" routes and footway for   
"secondary" routes.


So this would be a cycleway:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Bike_path_in_Dickson%2C_Canberra%2C_Australia.jpg/576px-Bike_path_in_Dickson%2C_Canberra%2C_Australia.jpg

and this is a footway:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Footpath_in_Hackett%2C_Canberra%2C_Australia.jpg/576px-Footpath_in_Hackett%2C_Canberra%2C_Australia.jpg


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








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

Re: [talk-au] Australian Tagging Guidelines Footpath Cycling

[forster]

Hi Ian
I did not edit Bush Walking and Cycling Tracks
only Footpath Cycling

Bush Walking and Cycling Tracks
contains ... controversial information. See the talk page. This page  
has been archived as part of the Australian wiki cleanup

I wonder where that controversial material has gone?

Yes adding foot=yes to highway=path seems strange to me.

Tony


Tony,



I'm wondering about the usefulness of adding foot=yes to highway=path and
highway=track.



I have never done this because I thought it would be assumed that
pedestrians (and cyclists) can use paths and tracks ?



In WA, where people have (in my opinion) wrongly classified a path as a
footpath (and hence excluded bicycles), I have often changed it to a path,
but never tagged foot=yes and/or bicycle=yes.



Ian




Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 16:55:42 +1000



From: fors...@ozonline.com.au 



To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 



Subject: [talk-au] Australian Tagging Guidelines Footpath Cycling





Hi





I have edited



https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Footpath_

Cycling




(1) to record the different international English uses of footpath,

pavement and sidewalk


(2) to give photographic examples as a base for discussion.





Not intending to redefine anything, sorry if anything is controversial.





Tony











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

[talk-au] Australian Tagging Guidelines Footpath Cycling

[forster]

Hi

I have edited  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Footpath_Cycling


(1) to record the different international English uses of footpath,  
pavement and sidewalk

(2) to give photographic examples as a base for discussion.

Not intending to redefine anything, sorry if anything is controversial.

Tony



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

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

[forster]

Hi all
I flagged the list of changes below that Sebastian may still dispute,  
mostly I have reverted his changes without reaching an agreement.


Changeset 120382941 MacRobertson bridge is definitely disputed by him.

Can I add changeset/120498123, it is early days on this one and  
Sebastian and I may still come to an agreement.


Thanks Tony


120963296 what is the information source?
120621671 changes as no signs present but signage exists
120382941 MacRobertson bridge approach - changes as no signs present
120382605 changes as no signs present - Survey Paddock Trail
120140719 changes as no signs present but signage exists
119224223 changes as no signs present but signage exists
119224055 question but no answer 2 April 2022
119223528 changes as no signs present but signage exists





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

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

[forster]

Hi Kim

Can I please clarify "using highway=cycleway should only be used where  
there are signs allowing"?


Does this apply to just sidewalks (US sidewalk, UK pavement, AU  
footpath) or all paths including paths through parkland, beside  
freeways, rivers and railway lines?


Thanks
Tony




bikes.



Responses below.

On 15/5/22 13:56, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Hi Sebastian and list

Today I did a number of edits relating to whether a lack of bicycle  
 signage, on its own, is sufficient grounds to remove   
bicycle=yes/designated or cycleway. Most of my edits though relate   
to cases where there is signage that had not been noticed by an   
editor.


I invite anybody with an opinion on this to discuss here (talk-au).  
 So far I have two, reproduced below:


_
This is one of two cases of questions that had been asked but not   
answered, I don't have an opinion on this one. Changeset:   
115626232, Sebastian's answer below


Bob42nd we shouldn?t be mapping based on a Strava heat map as it   
doesn?t not determine that transiting in permissible. The heat map   
indicates that people have used it but we should be mapping on the   
ground with what form of transport is permitted.


Strava heatmap by itself is not a reason to map a path. Strava heatmap
is useful to align a known path to an accurate location based on lots
of Strava users' GPS traces.

Mapping a path over a grass area with surface=grass is reasonable, and
often the best way of indicating in OSM that it is possible to navigate
between nearby ways. When using OSM for navigation it is often unclear
if you can travel directly between 2 close ways - there may be a fence
or house in the way (which you can't walk through), or it may be an
unrestricted grass area which can easily be walked across. Adding a
grass way makes it obvious that you can travel directly between the
points, while surface=grass and informal=yes indicates that there is
not a high quality path.


_
changeset/120382941 This one had been changed from a cycleway to a   
footway on the basis of no signage indicating that bicycles were   
allowed. Lots of paths have been changed to foot on the basis of no  
 signage and I have let many go uncommented because I am not   
familiar with them.


If the path is signposted as "cyclists dismount" then
bicycle=designated is wrong. bicycle=dismount is the most appropriate
tag, though bicycle=no is often used interchangeably with
bicycle=dismount.

While many cyclists would consider "Cyclists dismount" to be
inappropriate, it is not OSM's role re-interpret what is appropriate,
rather, it is to document what is legally allowed.

As cycling on footpaths is not generally allowed in Victoria, using
highway=cycleway should only be used where there are signs allowing
bikes.

IMHO adding foot= and bicycle= tags is usually a waste of effort as in
Victoria highway=footway implies foot=yes and bicycle=no, while
highway=cycleway implies foot=yes and bicycle=yes. Adding these tags
can make things worse as it is unclear if children under 13 can ride on
a path tagged with bicycle=no. Did the person who added the tag do it
because all cyclists are banned, or were they just duplicating the
implied cyclists limitations for footpaths while ignoring the effect
the age of the cyclist has on what is allowed?

I know  this one well. My understanding is that you have to wheel   
your bike across Macrobertson Bridge but otherwise its OK to ride.   
I signaled my intent to edit 2 weeks ago and got no reply so I made  
 the changes. Sebastian's reply below:


The Mapillary link you provided included a big picture of a bike   
with a cross through it painted on the ground indicating that bikes  
 are not permitted. Not sure how you have have come to the   
conclusion that bikes are permitted.


 The bridge way that diverts north and follows Yarra Boulevard is   
not part of the Main Yarra Trail.


Please revert the change.
__




___
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

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning






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

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

[forster]

Hi all

I was hoping that Sebastian would post to this list but so far, no.  
The following may still be disputed by Sebastian.


120963296 what is the information source?
120621671 changes as no signs present but signage exists
120382941 MacRobertson bridge approach - changes as no signs present
120382605 changes as no signs present - Survey Paddock Trail
120140719 changes as no signs present but signage exists
119224223 changes as no signs present but signage exists
119224055 question but no answer 2 April 2022
119223528 changes as no signs present but signage exists

That is, two requests for more information, four changes as no signs  
exist but signage exists and two changes as no signs exist.


Re Changeset: 115626232. I suspect Bob42nd may not be happy with the  
answer, I would not be. Sebastian originally deleted the track because  
it did not exist. He is now arguing that access on it is not  
permitted. I'll leave Bob42nd to take this forward if he wishes.  
Personally I am no great fan of informal tracks.


Re 120382941 MacRobertson bridge Yarra Boulevard approach - changes as  
there are no signs present permitting bicycles. There is no dispute  
that cyclists must dismount on the MacRobertson Bridge. Yes, there is  
a no bike symbol on the ground. This refers to the bridge ahead, not  
the path behind. The MacRobertson bridge and its approaches are part  
of the Yarra Trail Relation: Yarra Trail (20138)


Sebastian, you ask me "Please revert the change." yes I will do this  
and with sincere apologies if the consensus here finds me wrong.


Tony


Hi Sebastian and list

Today I did a number of edits relating to whether a lack of bicycle
signage, on its own, is sufficient grounds to remove
bicycle=yes/designated or cycleway. Most of my edits though relate to
cases where there is signage that had not been noticed by an editor.

I invite anybody with an opinion on this to discuss here (talk-au). So
far I have two, reproduced below:

_
This is one of two cases of questions that had been asked but not
answered, I don't have an opinion on this one. Changeset: 115626232,
Sebastian's answer below

Bob42nd we shouldn?t be mapping based on a Strava heat map as it
doesn?t not determine that transiting in permissible. The heat map
indicates that people have used it but we should be mapping on the
ground with what form of transport is permitted.
_
changeset/120382941 This one had been changed from a cycleway to a
footway on the basis of no signage indicating that bicycles were
allowed. Lots of paths have been changed to foot on the basis of no
signage and I have let many go uncommented because I am not familiar
with them.

I know  this one well. My understanding is that you have to wheel your
bike across Macrobertson Bridge but otherwise its OK to ride. I
signaled my intent to edit 2 weeks ago and got no reply so I made the
changes. Sebastian's reply below:

The Mapillary link you provided included a big picture of a bike with a
cross through it painted on the ground indicating that bikes are not
permitted. Not sure how you have have come to the conclusion that bikes
are permitted.

 The bridge way that diverts north and follows Yarra Boulevard is not
part of the Main Yarra Trail. Please revert the change.
__




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

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning






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

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

[forster]

Hi Sebastian and list

Today I did a number of edits relating to whether a lack of bicycle  
signage, on its own, is sufficient grounds to remove  
bicycle=yes/designated or cycleway. Most of my edits though relate to  
cases where there is signage that had not been noticed by an editor.


I invite anybody with an opinion on this to discuss here (talk-au). So  
far I have two, reproduced below:


_
This is one of two cases of questions that had been asked but not  
answered, I don't have an opinion on this one. Changeset: 115626232,  
Sebastian's answer below


Bob42nd we shouldn?t be mapping based on a Strava heat map as it  
doesn?t not determine that transiting in permissible. The heat map  
indicates that people have used it but we should be mapping on the  
ground with what form of transport is permitted.

_
changeset/120382941 This one had been changed from a cycleway to a  
footway on the basis of no signage indicating that bicycles were  
allowed. Lots of paths have been changed to foot on the basis of no  
signage and I have let many go uncommented because I am not familiar  
with them.


I know  this one well. My understanding is that you have to wheel your  
bike across Macrobertson Bridge but otherwise its OK to ride. I  
signaled my intent to edit 2 weeks ago and got no reply so I made the  
changes. Sebastian's reply below:


The Mapillary link you provided included a big picture of a bike with  
a cross through it painted on the ground indicating that bikes are not  
permitted. Not sure how you have have come to the conclusion that  
bikes are permitted.


 The bridge way that diverts north and follows Yarra Boulevard is not  
part of the Main Yarra Trail.


Please revert the change.
__




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

Re: [talk-au] Bicycle access tags in Victoria Was: Re: HighRouleur edits

[forster]

Hi Sebastian,

You say "The re-tagging of ways I have been undertaking aligns with  
the  Australian Tagging guidelines". I think you are referring to the  
words "Cycling is not permitted on footpaths in NSW or Vic.,  
and highway=footway should be used in general circumstances."


I think you have misinterpreted this. I believe that is referring to  
footpaths aka sidewalks, the path between the property line and the  
kerb. There has been no dispute about these paths from me. I agree,  
sidewalks are best tagged as highway=footway.


Thanks
Tony


Thanks Andrew. It does appear we are both looking at the same thing   
through different lenses.


The re-tagging of ways I have been undertaking aligns with the   
Australian Tagging guidelines, hence I’m not exactly clear on the   
objection as the guidelines say that highway=footway should   
generally be used,  which i agree with as it is the correct legal   
interpretation.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines



Trying to get a consensus on something that is wrong does not make   
it fact or legal.
Hypothetically, if we all agreed that we could tag one-way roads as   
bi-directional it does not change the permission status of the road.


I visited a friend across town this passed weekend and came across   
numerous instances where footpaths were tagged as shared paths   
without any signs or line marking. I made comments on the previous   
change set and the Mapper had agreed that the paths should be   
reverted to footway.


There seems to be varied use of shared paths and footways across the  
 metropolitan melbourne which is all over the place and really needs  
 to be looked at and corrected.



regards,

Sebastian


On 7 Apr 2022, at 5:21 pm, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

I should have done this for my last message, but let's not and make  
 this directed against any particular mapper, I've updated the   
thread subject accordingly.


On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 17:14, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

Hi Tony and Sebastian,

There's a lot to take in here, but it does look like both of you   
care deeply about cycle mapping in Melbourne and working with the   
best intentions to make OSM data as accurate and complete as   
possible. You're both engaging in discussion of the actual changes  
 so to me everything I see is happening in good faith. From a DWG   
perspective it doesn't appear there is any malice here.


Though there is clearly some disagreement about how certain things  
 should be mapped even when you both have a common agreement of   
what's on the ground.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions   
provides some useful definitions of bicycle access tags,   
personally in my view we should be using
bicycle=designated where clearly signposted for bicycles weather   
that is by paint or signage

bicycle=no where there is clear no bicycles signage

In the case of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/671174716 it does  
 appear to me to be ambiguous, so perhaps the best is exactly how   
it's currently mapped without a bicycle tag at all? That said, if   
there is a signposted bicycle route which takes you through that   
way I think that should be enough to give it implied bicycle   
access, therefore bicycle=yes.


Is there a wider community view about this?

On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 16:20,  wrote:

Hi Sebastian

Thanks for participating in this discussion.

You say "Hence by definition in Victoria, bikes aren't explicitly
permitted without signage".

This is the area where we disagree and I believe you are out of step
with the consensus. There are many places where bikes are implicitly
permitted without signage.

I believe that your retagging, just on the absence of signage is
unjustified. The DWG position is that the result could be right or
wrong because of other indications which one would need a site
inspection to find.

You say "Your approach doesn't  follow the on the ground rule, as you
insist on disputing map updates that are based what's on the ground or
lack there of. Any other mapper can visit and verify that there is no
signage and SHOULD come to the same conclusion".

Again, we disagree and I believe my position is the consensus view, if
there is no signage other mappers might come to the same conclusion or
to the opposite.
I disagree with your reasoning. I think it is a misinterpretation of
what is on the ground, that doesn't mean that my approach doesn't
follow the on the ground rule.

Thanks
Tony

> Tony
>
> I don?t understand why you have taken it upon yourself to have to
> verify other edits.
>
> OSM data relies on being verifiable.
> You and I recently both visited the same area / way, as I made a
> correction to incorrect data from a previous mapper. The Mapillary
> data you provided as part of the visit did not provide conclusive
> evidence that the way is a cycle/shared path due to a lack of
> signage. Hence by definition in Victoria, bikes aren?t explicitly
> permitted without 

[talk-au] Bicycle access tags in Victoria was HighRouleur edits

[forster]

Thanks Warin, pedantic mode is appreciated, but what position do you  
support? Presumably leave a path as a path and do not change it to a  
footway?

Tony




Bicycles are allowed on footpaths in Victoria   .  .  .

if rider has a medical or other exemption allowing them to ride on the
footpath

if the rider is 12 or under

if the rider is accompanying a rider entitled too as above

if the rider has a child in a child bike seat, or pedaling on a hitch bike

https://www.racv.com.au/on-the-road/driving-maintenance/road-safety/road-rules/bicycle-riders.html


Anyone want to tag all that?


On 7/4/22 17:14, Andrew Harvey wrote:

Hi Tony and Sebastian,

There's a lot to take in here, but it does look like both of you   
care deeply about cycle mapping in Melbourne and working with the   
best intentions to make OSM data as accurate and complete as   
possible. You're both engaging in discussion of the actual changes   
so to me everything I see is happening in good faith. From a DWG   
perspective it doesn't appear there is any malice here.


Though there is clearly some disagreement about how certain things   
should be mapped even when you both have a common agreement of   
what's on the ground.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions   
provides some useful definitions of bicycle access tags, personally  
 in my view we should be using
bicycle=designated where clearly signposted for bicycles weather   
that is by paint or signage

bicycle=no where there is clear no bicycles signage

In the case of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/671174716 it does   
appear to me to be ambiguous, so perhaps the best is exactly how   
it's currently mapped without a bicycle tag at all? That said, if   
there is a signposted bicycle route which takes you through that   
way I think that should be enough to give it implied bicycle   
access, therefore bicycle=yes.


Is there a wider community view about this?

On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 16:20,  wrote:

   Hi Sebastian

   Thanks for participating in this discussion.

   You say "Hence by definition in Victoria, bikes aren't explicitly
   permitted without signage".

   This is the area where we disagree and I believe you are out of step
   with the consensus. There are many places where bikes are implicitly
   permitted without signage.

   I believe that your retagging, just on the absence of signage is
   unjustified. The DWG position is that the result could be right or
   wrong because of other indications which one would need a site
   inspection to find.

   You say "Your approach doesn't  follow the on the ground rule, as you
   insist on disputing map updates that are based what's on the
   ground or
   lack there of. Any other mapper can visit and verify that there is no
   signage and SHOULD come to the same conclusion".

   Again, we disagree and I believe my position is the consensus
   view, if
   there is no signage other mappers might come to the same
   conclusion or
   to the opposite.
   I disagree with your reasoning. I think it is a misinterpretation of
   what is on the ground, that doesn't mean that my approach doesn't
   follow the on the ground rule.

   Thanks
   Tony

   > Tony
   >
   > I don?t understand why you have taken it upon yourself to have to
   > verify other edits.
   >
   > OSM data relies on being verifiable.
   > You and I recently both visited the same area / way, as I made a
   > correction to incorrect data from a previous mapper. The Mapillary
   > data you provided as part of the visit did not provide conclusive
   > evidence that the way is a cycle/shared path due to a lack of
   > signage. Hence by definition in Victoria, bikes aren?t explicitly
   > permitted without signage.
   > Your approach doesn?t  follow the on the ground rule, as you insist
   > on disputing map updates  that are based what?s on the ground or
   > lack there of.
   > Any other mapper can visit and verify that there is no signage and
   > SHOULD come to the you f same conclusion.
   >
   > It not clear why existing data in OSM hasn?t be verified for
   accuracy?
   > When I?m out riding I use it an opportunity to check and verify
   > data. There are a lot of footways with bicycle=yes and/or ways
   > assigned as sharedpaths however upon visiting the area it is
   > apparent that bike are not permitted.
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > regards,
   >
   > Sebastian
   >
   >> On 6 Apr 2022, at 10:29 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
   >> ?Hi Sebastian and list
   >>
   >> I went out to Changeset: 118627943 and took photos. It is my
   belief
   >>  that a short section of bike route through park should be
   >> cycleway.  Sebastian disagrees, his changeset comment follows.
   >>
   >> Comment from HighRouleur about 5 hours ago
   >> From the Mapillary info provided, there doesn?t appear to be any
   >> signage permitting bicycles on said road.
   >> Given it forms part of a designated bike route perhaps bicycle =
   >> dismount 

Re: [talk-au] HighRouleur edits

[forster]

Hi Sebastian

Thanks for participating in this discussion.

You say "Hence by definition in Victoria, bikes aren't explicitly  
permitted without signage".


This is the area where we disagree and I believe you are out of step  
with the consensus. There are many places where bikes are implicitly  
permitted without signage.


I believe that your retagging, just on the absence of signage is  
unjustified. The DWG position is that the result could be right or  
wrong because of other indications which one would need a site  
inspection to find.


You say "Your approach doesn't  follow the on the ground rule, as you  
insist on disputing map updates that are based what's on the ground or  
lack there of. Any other mapper can visit and verify that there is no  
signage and SHOULD come to the same conclusion".


Again, we disagree and I believe my position is the consensus view, if  
there is no signage other mappers might come to the same conclusion or  
to the opposite.
I disagree with your reasoning. I think it is a misinterpretation of  
what is on the ground, that doesn't mean that my approach doesn't  
follow the on the ground rule.


Thanks
Tony


Tony

I don?t understand why you have taken it upon yourself to have to   
verify other edits.


OSM data relies on being verifiable.
You and I recently both visited the same area / way, as I made a   
correction to incorrect data from a previous mapper. The Mapillary   
data you provided as part of the visit did not provide conclusive   
evidence that the way is a cycle/shared path due to a lack of   
signage. Hence by definition in Victoria, bikes aren?t explicitly   
permitted without signage.
Your approach doesn?t  follow the on the ground rule, as you insist   
on disputing map updates  that are based what?s on the ground or   
lack there of.
Any other mapper can visit and verify that there is no signage and   
SHOULD come to the you f same conclusion.


It not clear why existing data in OSM hasn?t be verified for accuracy?
When I?m out riding I use it an opportunity to check and verify   
data. There are a lot of footways with bicycle=yes and/or ways   
assigned as sharedpaths however upon visiting the area it is   
apparent that bike are not permitted.





regards,

Sebastian


On 6 Apr 2022, at 10:29 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
?Hi Sebastian and list

I went out to Changeset: 118627943 and took photos. It is my belief  
 that a short section of bike route through park should be  
cycleway.  Sebastian disagrees, his changeset comment follows.


Comment from HighRouleur about 5 hours ago
From the Mapillary info provided, there doesn?t appear to be any   
signage permitting bicycles on said road.
Given it forms part of a designated bike route perhaps bicycle =   
dismount might be the most appropriate.


Sebastian was previously blocked by the DWG with an estimated   
14,731 bicycle paths changed to bicycle=no  in 636 changesets. He   
no longer adds bicycle=no but still changes paths to footways.


Sebastian continues to change shared paths and cycleways to   
footpaths and removes bicycle=yes solely on the basis of there not   
being explicit signage that bicycles are allowed. He has done 9   
such edits in the last 4 days.


The DWG declines to act on the logic that without a site visit to   
check, the path might or might not be better described as a   
footway. I do not have the time to individually visit each of   
Sebastian's edits. I have had enough.


So mapping community, its your choice, do nothing and Sebastian   
will continue to change cycleways and shared paths into footways OR  
 let Sebastian and the DWG know that this retagging is not   
acceptable to the community. Please let them both know in clear and  
 unambiguous terms what you think, don't expect others to speak for  
 you.


Thanks
Tony



Sun, 27 Mar 2022 Quoting fors...@ozonline.com.au:


Hi Sebastian and list,

2) are cycle routes cycleways or footways, specifically Changeset:  
 118627943


I have provided a link to my photos and labeled the main ones at
Changeset: 118627943

I believe that way 671174716 should be split in 2, the eastern part
appears to be the footpath, there is only one side with a footpath, the
bicycle route is intended for the road, St Andrews Ct, not the footpath

The west section through the parkland is a cycleway, photos 22 and 23
show a bicycle route with green circle below. Its unclear what used to
be in the circle before it faded.

Photo 21 end of McKay shows no signage. I looked.

18 and 19 are a bit confusing, they show a route coming out of   
Tricks Reserve


18 partly obscured shows a route east along McKay
51 shows this sign more clearly

Tony


_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning







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

Re: [talk-au] HighRouleur edits

[forster]

Hi Sebastian and list

I went out to Changeset: 118627943 and took photos. It is my belief  
that a short section of bike route through park should be cycleway.  
Sebastian disagrees, his changeset comment follows.


Comment from HighRouleur about 5 hours ago
From the Mapillary info provided, there doesn’t appear to be any  
signage permitting bicycles on said road.
Given it forms part of a designated bike route perhaps bicycle =  
dismount might be the most appropriate.


Sebastian was previously blocked by the DWG with an estimated 14,731  
bicycle paths changed to bicycle=no  in 636 changesets. He no longer  
adds bicycle=no but still changes paths to footways.


Sebastian continues to change shared paths and cycleways to footpaths  
and removes bicycle=yes solely on the basis of there not being  
explicit signage that bicycles are allowed. He has done 9 such edits  
in the last 4 days.


The DWG declines to act on the logic that without a site visit to  
check, the path might or might not be better described as a footway. I  
do not have the time to individually visit each of Sebastian's edits.  
I have had enough.


So mapping community, its your choice, do nothing and Sebastian will  
continue to change cycleways and shared paths into footways OR let  
Sebastian and the DWG know that this retagging is not acceptable to  
the community. Please let them both know in clear and unambiguous  
terms what you think, don't expect others to speak for you.


Thanks
Tony



Sun, 27 Mar 2022 Quoting fors...@ozonline.com.au:


Hi Sebastian and list,

2) are cycle routes cycleways or footways, specifically Changeset: 118627943

I have provided a link to my photos and labeled the main ones at
Changeset: 118627943

I believe that way 671174716 should be split in 2, the eastern part
appears to be the footpath, there is only one side with a footpath, the
bicycle route is intended for the road, St Andrews Ct, not the footpath

The west section through the parkland is a cycleway, photos 22 and 23
show a bicycle route with green circle below. Its unclear what used to
be in the circle before it faded.

Photo 21 end of McKay shows no signage. I looked.

18 and 19 are a bit confusing, they show a route coming out of Tricks Reserve

18 partly obscured shows a route east along McKay
51 shows this sign more clearly

Tony






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

Re: [talk-au] HighRouleur edits

[forster]

Hi Sebastian and list,

2) are cycle routes cycleways or footways, specifically Changeset: 118627943

I have provided a link to my photos and labeled the main ones at  
Changeset: 118627943


I believe that way 671174716 should be split in 2, the eastern part  
appears to be the footpath, there is only one side with a footpath,  
the bicycle route is intended for the road, St Andrews Ct, not the  
footpath


The west section through the parkland is a cycleway, photos 22 and 23  
show a bicycle route with green circle below. Its unclear what used to  
be in the circle before it faded.


Photo 21 end of McKay shows no signage. I looked.

18 and 19 are a bit confusing, they show a route coming out of Tricks Reserve

18 partly obscured shows a route east along McKay
51 shows this sign more clearly

Tony



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

[talk-au] HighRouleur edits

[forster]

Hi Sebastian

There are 4 issues in play

1) changing to footway when not signed otherwise
2) are cycle routes cycleways or footways, specifically Changeset: 118627943
3) access=destination
4) Way: 679145843

1) Sebastian, your changing shared ways and cycleways to footways when  
there are no signs does not meet community consensus. If you have  
other reasons for changing to a footway, for example the Botanical  
Gardens document, then retagging is OK. I know you believe you are  
right and the community consensus is wrong but I ask you to cease  
retagging when there is no sign and go with community consensus. Can  
you make that undertaking?


2) Changeset: 118627943, I have taken Mapillary photos, best left till  
they are available


3) Are you OK with the access=destination being removed for networks  
with 0 or 1 outside connections and from 2 or more outside connections  
when there is no signage?


4 Way: 679145843 has been opened up for discussion on the list.

Thanks
Tony



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

Re: [talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur

[forster]

Dear list Im tired and muddled. I think Sebastian posted swapped the 2  
issues when he posted, sorry if its my mistake


Quoting fors...@ozonline.com.au:


Hi Sebastian
A quick reply now, its late, and maybe more considered tomorrow

its tagged highway=track
I can see no "access all=yes" so nothing is being asserted about the access
that suits me for now as I know nothing about the track

I think I can see a gate or fence, not sure,
38°11′52″S, 145°8′22″E
-38.1976644, 145.1393379

and maybe the other end
38°12′12″S, 145°8′3″E
-38.2032271, 145.1342893


When I load a map file on my gps unit it will show this way as
accessible for me to ride based on the OSM tagging. Unless there is  
  an explicitly tag bike=no, private or similar then it?s will  
still   think that I can legally ride on it.


I don't know if you can legally ride on it or not. I doubt that through
traffic is treated differently to local, you are probably either
allowed in or not. I doubt bikes are treated differently

I have replied privately because you have asked privately, this stuff
is OK for the list and you would get some more and probably  better
ideas.

in summary
If there are gates then your gps problem is solved
no bike= tag is called for, bikes are probably the same as cars
tag it private if you know it is private, don't guess
If your GPS wants to send you that way its not necessarily a fault with
the map

Are you happy to put this on the list?

Tony






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

Re: [talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur

[forster]

Hi all, I see Sebastian has posted to the list now
background to this: Way History: 679145843
about a year ago Sebastian had bicycle=no, highway=track
as part of the DWG sanctioned revert I deleted the bicycle=no

Hi Sebastian

a bit more,
If I wanted to add tags I would go on site have a look and do  
Mapillary photos. Unless there were already good photos. What I see  
now is a construction site at the south end with gates I think. Its a  
temporary construction track maybe and closed off now? No good photos  
at the north end.


Going out on site and taking photos is time consuming but I think the  
map is maturing, its moved to needing quality rather than quantity.


Also I want to back off slightly on my previous "tag it private if you  
know it is private, don't guess" You can guess a little bit but you  
still need to be fairly sure.


Tony


Yep no problem. I hadn?t realised I had replied privately. Will   
reply to the list.


regards,
Sebastian


On 26 Mar 2022, at 9:39 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

?Hi
A quick reply now, its late, and maybe more considered tomorrow

its tagged highway=track
I can see no "access all=yes" so nothing is being asserted about the access
that suits me for now as I know nothing about the track

I think I can see a gate or fence, not sure,
38°11?52?S, 145°8?22?E
-38.1976644, 145.1393379

and maybe the other end
38°12?12?S, 145°8?3?E
-38.2032271, 145.1342893


When I load a map file on my gps unit it will show this way as
accessible for me to ride based on the OSM tagging. Unless there   
is  an explicitly tag bike=no, private or similar then it?s will   
still  think that I can legally ride on it.


I don't know if you can legally ride on it or not. I doubt that   
through traffic is treated differently to local, you are probably   
either allowed in or not. I doubt bikes are treated differently


I have replied privately because you have asked privately, this   
stuff is OK for the list and you would get some more and probably
better ideas.


in summary
If there are gates then your gps problem is solved
no bike= tag is called for, bikes are probably the same as cars
tag it private if you know it is private, don't guess
If your GPS wants to send you that way its not necessarily a fault   
with the map


Are you happy to put this on the list?

Tony





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

Re: [talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur

[forster]

Hi Sebastian

access=privateAccess is only with permission on an individual basis
access=destinationTransit traffic forbidden
access=permissive open to general traffic until such time as the  
owner revoke the permission


My inclination is that if you are not sure, don't use the tag. Its OK  
to use less tags.


It would be good to know which village you are referring to. In the  
case of Penguin Resort changeset#118193819 where I have just taken  
mapillary images, I think I would leave it at just highway=service and  
not use any of permissive, destination or private unless I had good  
evidence.


Tony



In using the tag access=permissive, how does one verify that access   
has not been revoked by the owner?
In one of the changesets in question, the site clearly private   
property (as it is a retirement village)
I would have thought that access=private would have been a better   
tag to use in lieu of destination.





regards,

Sebastian


On 21 Mar 2022, at 1:44 pm, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
?



On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 10:22,  wrote:

Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit
traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the
access=destination tag.

Have I got it right? Right enough to revert any tagging that does   
not conform?


See also   
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Local_Traffic_Only and the linked discussion   
thread.


Those example changesets look questionable to me, but I don't have   
the local knowledge. Private property open to the public is more   
"access=permissive". access=destination really should only be for   
something signed as not allowing through traffic. I'd suggest   
adding a changeset comment to invite them here to discuss further,   
if you don't hear back then I think it's reasonable to revert.

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


_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning







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

Re: [talk-au] "Road names" around airports

[forster]

Hi
Sound like destinations, not road names. Is destination=* suitable?

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

Tony


Have spotted 2 notes concerning what names should be added to functional
roads around airports (& other places would have similar).

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3100210, the OP is saying that the names
(Arrival, Departure etc) are made up so shouldn't be there, while

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3064660, seems to be suggesting that
they be named as Rental Car Return & so on!

So, should they be named, or just tagged with access=no + taxi=yes etc?

Thanks

Graeme







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

Re: [talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur

[forster]

Hi
I have left a changeset comment alerting him to the talk-au discussion.
Tony



On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 10:22,  wrote:


Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit
traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the
access=destination tag.

Have I got it right? Right enough to revert any tagging that does not
conform?



See also
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Local_Traffic_Only
and the linked discussion thread.

Those example changesets look questionable to me, but I don't have the
local knowledge. Private property open to the public is more
"access=permissive". access=destination really should only be for something
signed as not allowing through traffic. I'd suggest adding a changeset
comment to invite them here to discuss further, if you don't hear back then
I think it's reasonable to revert.

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning







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

Re: [talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur

[forster]

oops, forgot to add these

Multiple entrances with restricting signage
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-37.83471/145.03179  (Scotch College)

Multiple entrances gated and signed (Museum, Carlton Gardens)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/209893402

Multiple entrances gatedand signed
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/753594786 (Selandra Rise Retirement Village)



Hi all

Up to now I have only questioned Sebastian (HighRouleur) on his
information sources and reasoning on the use of access=destination

First going to the wiki: "Transit traffic forbidden, all non-transit
traffic to a given element allowed."

But I am aware that the wiki does not trump common OSM usage so I would
like to check with the community.

It seems that its a nonsense to use access=destination on roads that
have no connection to the rest of the world, how can you forbid what is
impossible. Likewise its a nonsense for where there is one point of
connection. Should the destination tag be removed from all these?

Zero connections to the world
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/164040247
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/164040219
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/148171270

one entrance
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/632504904
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/551195212
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/563380640
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48162492
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/176876122
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117893671

Then there are networks that connect at two or more places to the world
but there is no restrictive signage. I would remove the destination tag.

Two entrances and no signs
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-37.99231/145.14903
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118193819

Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit
traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the
access=destination tag.

Have I got it right? Right enough to revert any tagging that does   
not conform?


Thanks Tony





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

[talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur

[forster]

Hi all

Up to now I have only questioned Sebastian (HighRouleur) on his  
information sources and reasoning on the use of access=destination


First going to the wiki: "Transit traffic forbidden, all non-transit  
traffic to a given element allowed."


But I am aware that the wiki does not trump common OSM usage so I  
would like to check with the community.


It seems that its a nonsense to use access=destination on roads that  
have no connection to the rest of the world, how can you forbid what  
is impossible. Likewise its a nonsense for where there is one point of  
connection. Should the destination tag be removed from all these?


Zero connections to the world
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/164040247
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/164040219
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/148171270

one entrance
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/632504904
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/551195212
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/563380640
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48162492
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/176876122
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117893671

Then there are networks that connect at two or more places to the  
world but there is no restrictive signage. I would remove the  
destination tag.


Two entrances and no signs
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-37.99231/145.14903
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118193819

Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit  
traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the  
access=destination tag.


Have I got it right? Right enough to revert any tagging that does not conform?

Thanks Tony



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

[talk-au] [Ticket#2021093010000048] [OpenStreetMap] HighRouleur

[forster]

Hi Andrew. Here is a summary of HighRouleur's edits since your DWG  
ruling of Mon Oct 4.
Can you, representing the DWG, please persuade HighRouleur to conform  
to community mapping practices.

Thanks Tony

Changeset: 112406847 12 October. Footpath incorrectly identified as  
shared path. Changed to footpath as no signage was present to indicate  
that it was a shared bicycle and footpath
HighRouleur was asked by both me and  Marc Zoutendijk of the DWG  to  
revert  this edit, there was no reply or reversion.


In Changeset: 112480318 and other communications HighRouleur was  
offered the opportunity to assist with the clean up of his edits. He  
declined to assist in the reversions.


Changeset: 113319147 3 Nov. Changed to footpath as no signage was  
present to indicate that it was a shared bicycle and footpath. His  
retagging of footpaths, shared paths and cycleways starts again one  
month after the DWG ruling.


Changeset: 115461885 access changed to private as it is located on  
private property and matches adjacent ways. A changeset comment from  
Diacritic remains unreplied.


Changeset: 115626232 no path present
A comment from Bob42nd remains unreplied

Changeset: 115868863 7 January
My comment was Please stop undoing the reversions of your work. Please  
comply with community tagging standards.


HighRouleur replied
Last year the DWG, made a decision, albeit an incorrect one in  
relation to foothpaths
where I had set bicycle=no. I have abided by their decision and now  
use footpaths with the default value as this does not permit bicycles.  
In the end this yields the same result that I wanted.


28 Jan 21:31 (can't locate original)
I point out "your edits were referred to the DWG and they made a  
ruling that did not support your position"


Changeset: 115869147 31 January
MatthewSeale commented : As noted on talk-au discussion on this topic  
last year, the absence of cycling signs is not sufficient to confirm  
that cycling is prohibited.
HighRouleur replied: The absence of a way being designated a shared  
path means under Victorian law that it is only a footway.


Changeset: 116495624 (a quarry)
I comment can you please remove unnecessary bicycle=no
HighRouleur changes it to bicycle=private. This is not a good edit.  
Its a quarry, its private to everything, the bicycle= tag should only  
be used if bicycles are treated differently


Changeset: 116495708 private roads set to private
unreplied comment

Changeset: 116611891 26 Jan Changed to footpath as no signage was  
present to indicate that it was a shared bicycle and footpath

Andrew Harvey representing the DWG comments
Hi Tony, HighRouleur, I'm investigating the dispute here with a fresh  
set of eyes.


31 January Andrew Harvey (may be private message, I can't find the original)
Hi Tony,
I'm looking into the situation with a fresh set of eyes and trying to  
remain neutral. In some instances it's not clear from available  
sources, so I'm needing to ask for more information both from  
HighRouler and from previous editors. While I understand your concern  
around these changes I need to assess them on their own merits.


I (Tony) refrain from public commenting or posting to a large degree  
to give Andrew time to consider. 31 January to 20 March.


Changeset: 117383192, 14 February. Road deleted as it appears to have  
been dragged across the runway.
It would be better if HighRouleur was more respectful of others  
mapping work. I mention this changeset because a comment to the  
previous editor would have been more appropriate than a deletion.


Changeset: 117873889 26 February. private roads set to destination
dragged node, unreplied comment

Changeset 117935297 28 Feb shared paths changed to footpaths as no  
signs present to indicated bikes are permitted.

highway=cycleway changed to fooway

Changeset: 117935483 28 Feb
shared path deleted as it doesn't join the roadway

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.87748611=145.0739722=17=1430247097325568=photo
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.8775305603=145.0742472004=19.336078076486757=1295636494166189=photo

This edit is at best marginal
You can legally cycle between Camino Terrace and Scotchmans Creek Trail
You can physically cycle between Camino Terrace and Scotchmans Creek Trail
but because of a kerb and a lack of 10cm of bitumen, he has deleted  
the connection between these 2 ways.


Changeset: 118121820 5 March shared paths changed to footpaths as no  
signs present to indicated bikes are permitted.

Way History: 680243305
In my opinion its just a path that could be equally used by cyclists  
or pedestrians. It was fine as highway=path as mapped by timetotom 3  
years ago. I think HighRouleur needs a better justification to change  
the tagging.


Changeset: 118193819 7 march. private roads set to destination
Me: it is a gated community. The wiki says "Transit traffic forbidden"  
for destination, I can't see any signage prohibiting transiting. What  
did 

Re: [talk-au] "Illegal", & "asked to be closed" tracks?

[forster]

Hi Graeme

"Illegally constructed trail bike tracks", so
 possibly just tagging it as motor_vehicles=private, foot & bikes=yes, would
 solve it?

No, I don't think so.
Its a trail bike track so its probably too narrow for cars,  
motor_vehicles=private seems irrelevant
foot & bikes=yes, It sounds like the landowner didn't want the track  
constructed and most likely doesn't want any traffic at all. access=no  
is probably the most accurate.


Strava, glowing dull red cuts out the lifecycle prefixes.

I would probably tag it access=no and close it with a comment that  
removing it from the map is not a simple process and that the creator,  
Cormacticii probably should ask on talk-au


Tony



On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 17:34,  wrote:



   https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2788602#map=15/-33.7227/150.6317
Contact the land manager, if the land manager can make a serious job
of closing the track to traffic then it might be OK to use a lifecycle
prefix, there are a few to choose from.



Thanks - now who to ask?

The Note's OP says that it's "Deerubbin LALC land", which I'm thinking is
Local Aboriginal Land Council?, while we show that it comes under Blue
Mountains City Council. Which of the two would have the say? Or is it State
Govt?

Also thought to have a look on Strava, which shows this looped track as
glowing dull red, so a reasonable number of people are certainly using it!

Complaint was that it was "Illegally constructed trail bike tracks", so
possibly just tagging it as motor_vehicles=private, foot & bikes=yes, would
solve it?

Thanks

Graeme

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning







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

Re: [talk-au] "Illegal", & "asked to be closed" tracks?

[forster]

Graeme

  https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2788602#map=15/-33.7227/150.6317
Contact the land manager, if the land manager can make a serious job  
of closing the track to traffic then it might be OK to use a lifecycle  
prefix, there are a few to choose from.


  https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2348884#map=15/-34.6020/150.6799
I think this one can't work out if its  public or private land, often  
the private party is bluffing and its public land.


Tony




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

Re: [talk-au] Anyone mind if I tidy the wiki a bit?

[forster]

Hi OSM community

Regarding the case of Aaronsta's edits.
I have been unsuccessful for the last week in contacting Aaron.
The DWG has placed a zero hour block on Aaron's account
Aaron has not accessed his account for the last two days and has not  
read the block information.


Thorsten, for the community's benefit, can you please detail your  
planned roll back of Aaron's wiki edits. I presume the community will  
support your plans, if they do please action them.


Thanks
Tony

__

Hi Aaron

My sincere thanks on behalf of the Australian Open Street Map community
for your many contributions to the map.

Unfortunately, there is some dissatisfaction in the Australian Open
Street Map community with some of your larger edits including wiki
changes on bikes and paths and the deletion of the Perth bike route
network.

We ask you to seek consensus from the community before making large
changes, particularly changes which reverse prior understandings and
are large in scope.

Your changes to the wiki on bikes and paths are a particular issue in
this letter. We propose a six step process in reverting the Australian
Tagging Guidelines to community understandings of tagging practice.

 1 get community support from talk-au for this process
 2 Contact Aaron and get his agreement
 3 Thorsten rolls back the wiki to an agreed state
 4 Dian tidies up the wiki
 5 Aaron does not edit the wiki until Dian has finished
 6 we do not call for DWG intervention unless a party will not follow
the agreed process

We are at step 2. It is important that we know you have read this
letter. Please reply by changeset comment or better by a post to
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/

This is your opportunity to put your case. There is a lot of discussion
on talk-au regarding your edits. I suggest you read it and respond.
Please let us know whether you agree with the 6 step process and if you
do not agree, your reasons.

Thanks
Tony Forster

__

Yep, great plan.

Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 05:28,  wrote:


Hi all
Can I suggest the following

1 get community support from talk au for this process
2 Contact Aaron and get his agreement
3 Thorsten rolls back the wiki to an agreed state
4 Dian tidys up the wiki
5 Aaron does not edit the wiki until Dian has finished
6 we do not call for DWG intervention unless a party will not follow
the agreed process

Tony








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

Re: [talk-au] Anyone mind if I tidy the wiki a bit?

[forster]

Hi community
I have written to Aaron by changeset comment, wiki user_talk page and  
through this list. I am awaiting his reply.



1 get community support from talk au for this process
2 Contact Aaron and get his agreement
3 Thorsten rolls back the wiki to an agreed state
4 Dian tidies up the wiki
5 Aaron does not edit the wiki until Dian has finished
6 we do not call for DWG intervention unless a party will not follow  
 the agreed process


 Tony




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

Re: [talk-au] Anyone mind if I tidy the wiki a bit?

[forster]

Thanks OSM community

Here is a draft of a letter to Aaron. He may be listening to this list  
and will read it. I also will post it as a changeset comment. The  
letter is a bit rough, edits are welcome.


Tony

___
Hi Aaron

My sincere thanks on behalf of the Australian Open Street Map  
community for your many contributions to the map.


Unfortunately, there is some dissatisfaction in the Australian Open  
Street Map community with some of your larger edits including wiki  
changes on bikes and paths and the deletion of the Perth bike route  
network.


We ask you to seek consensus from the community before making large  
changes, particularly changes which reverse prior understandings and  
are large in scope.


Your changes to the wiki on bikes and paths are a particular issue in  
this letter. We propose a six step process in reverting the Australian  
Tagging Guidelines to community understandings of tagging practice.


 1 get community support from talk-au for this process
 2 Contact Aaron and get his agreement
 3 Thorsten rolls back the wiki to an agreed state
 4 Dian tidies up the wiki
 5 Aaron does not edit the wiki until Dian has finished
 6 we do not call for DWG intervention unless a party will not follow  
the agreed process


We are at step 2. It is important that we know you have read this  
letter. Please reply by changeset comment or better by a post to  
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/


This is your opportunity to put your case. There is a lot of  
discussion on talk-au regarding your edits. I suggest you read it and  
respond. Please let us know whether you agree with the 6 step process  
and if you do not agree, your reasons.


Thanks
Tony Forster

__

Yep, great plan.

Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 05:28,  wrote:


Hi all
Can I suggest the following

1 get community support from talk au for this process
2 Contact Aaron and get his agreement
3 Thorsten rolls back the wiki to an agreed state
4 Dian tidys up the wiki
5 Aaron does not edit the wiki until Dian has finished
6 we do not call for DWG intervention unless a party will not follow
the agreed process

Tony






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

Re: [talk-au] Anyone mind if I tidy the wiki a bit?

[forster]

Hi all
Can I suggest the following

1 get community support from talk au for this process
2 Contact Aaron and get his agreement
3 Thorsten rolls back the wiki to an agreed state
4 Dian tidys up the wiki
5 Aaron does not edit the wiki until Dian has finished
6 we do not call for DWG intervention unless a party will not follow  
the agreed process


Tony
Quoting osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au:

Well, rearranging and editing, on top of the questionable edits that  
 are currently on top of the stack of revisions, will cement these   
changes and make it harder to revert them.




Some of the changes have completely replaced what previously was   
listed as correct tagging practice with something totally different.




From: Dian Ågesson 
Sent: Wednesday, 23 February 2022 03:04
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Cc: 'OSM Australian Talk List' 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Anyone mind if I tidy the wiki a bit?



Hey Thorsten,

While I don’t intend to simply rearrange sections verbatim, I want  
 to focus on tidying, copy editing for spelling/grammar, and   
consolidating rather than making editorial decisions.


As Andrew suggested, I will reach out if there is something   
egregiously incorrect or contradictory, but I’m not intending to   
validate the entire wiki for correctness: I feel as though that   
would be beyond the remit of “tidying”.


More than happy to work with simultaneous updates and additions   
though—I don’t think it’s a task that can be done in one edit!


Dian

On 2022-02-22 18:54, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au   
  wrote:


If you do, please make sure to not just incorporate the recent   
undiscussed, subjective, if not outright wrong changes by Aaronsta.




From: Dian Ågesson mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz> >
Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2022 17:00
To: OSM Australian Talk List  >

Subject: [talk-au] Anyone mind if I tidy the wiki a bit?



Hello,

The wiki contains loads of really good information, but it's a   
little bit hard to navigate: the Australian Tagging Guidelines page   
seems to contain the most current information but is getting very   
long. There are a lot of state-specific articles that don't seem to   
have been updated since 2009.


I'd like to do a bit of housekeeping: tidy up some of the sections,   
mark some of the pages as archived, etc, to try and make it more   
approachable for newbies and more maintainable. Nothing substantive   
would change, nothing would be deleted. Does anyone have any   
objections, thoughts or concerns with regard to this?




dian



___
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] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta

[forster]

Thanks Phil, speaking for myself, I am very happy for you to take the  
lead. The reason I suggest writing aaronsta a letter is that the DWG  
would prefer us to exhaust all avenues of engagement before calling  
them in.


I don't think we (the OSM community) have been particularly good at  
telling him how he has been going.


We tell him that he is a "Great Mapper (Regularly Active)"
And that he is #14 in Australia.  Hdyc

Any criticism he ignores as a few disgruntled people, he gets no  
feedback from the community as a whole.


I have contacted Pascal Neis about hdyc. I think he rejigged hdyc a  
few months ago to an emphasis on quality not quantity,  maybe it could  
go further.


Tony

I am happy to send an email to DWG with an overview of concerns.   
Maybe other folks can gather a listing of any desired changesets for  
 reversion and if all or just some wiki edits should be reverted.


-Original Message-
From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
Sent: Sunday, 13 February 2022 2:19 PM
To: 'OSM-Au' 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging   
Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta


There is also that he seems to be deleting all source tags on any   
loaded objects with many of his changesets.


I wrote a changeset comment on one of the changesets that do that,   
to which he has simply not replied. (My changeset comments about   
that and the PBN have been made at the same time, he replied to the   
later, not the former).


This is exactly the behaviour that earned him a block and a mass   
revert of scores of changesets 5 years ago. (See my link to the   
talk-au archive with posts about that earlier in this discussion).


-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au 
Sent: Sunday, 13 February 2022 10:37
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging   
Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta


Graeme

Yes, he has made big changes to the documentation and the map. The   
same 2 issues apply to both, some of the changes are contrary to   
community expectations and changes of such scale should be made   
after consultation. I believe he is acting in good faith but his   
balance between contribution and consultation is badly out.


The issue for us is to explain to him what the expectations are for   
consultation without alienating him.


Tony

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 at 09:55, Sam Wilson  wrote:



The other thing that occurs to me about this discussion is that
aaronsta is not actually subscribed to this list — does anyone
know? I might leave a comment on the changeset instead...



Not having a go at you blokes interested in the bike routes :-), but
the whole conversation started because Aaronsta made massive changes
to how bikeways etc are written up on the Guidelines!

I don't know about anywhere else, but he has changed them to say that
cycling on footpaths is illegal in Qld, which is totally wrong!

 Thanks

Graeme

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line see
http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning







___
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

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning







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

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta

[forster]

Hi

I'm riding my bike in country Vic  and can't do it but
Can someone please write him a polite letter outlining our concerns  
and requesting that he agree to a revert and undertake to provide  
adequate changeset descriptions and to reply to comments and consult  
before large edits.


If we do not get a response then an option would be to refer to the DWG

Tony

There is also that he seems to be deleting all source tags on any   
loaded objects with many of his changesets.


I wrote a changeset comment on one of the changesets that do that,   
to which he has simply not replied. (My changeset comments about   
that and the PBN have been made at the same time, he replied to the   
later, not the former).


This is exactly the behaviour that earned him a block and a mass   
revert of scores of changesets 5 years ago. (See my link to the   
talk-au archive with posts about that earlier in this discussion).


-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au 
Sent: Sunday, 13 February 2022 10:37
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging   
Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta


Graeme

Yes, he has made big changes to the documentation and the map. The   
same 2 issues apply to both, some of the changes are contrary to   
community expectations and changes of such scale should be made   
after consultation. I believe he is acting in good faith but his   
balance between contribution and consultation is badly out.


The issue for us is to explain to him what the expectations are for   
consultation without alienating him.


Tony

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 at 09:55, Sam Wilson  wrote:



The other thing that occurs to me about this discussion is that
aaronsta is not actually subscribed to this list — does anyone
know? I might leave a comment on the changeset instead...



Not having a go at you blokes interested in the bike routes :-), but
the whole conversation started because Aaronsta made massive changes
to how bikeways etc are written up on the Guidelines!

I don't know about anywhere else, but he has changed them to say that
cycling on footpaths is illegal in Qld, which is totally wrong!

 Thanks

Graeme

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line see
http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning







___
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

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning







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

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta

[forster]

Graeme

Yes, he has made big changes to the documentation and the map. The  
same 2 issues apply to both, some of the changes are contrary to  
community expectations and changes of such scale should be made after  
consultation. I believe he is acting in good faith but his balance  
between contribution and consultation is badly out.


The issue for us is to explain to him what the expectations are for  
consultation without alienating him.


Tony

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 at 09:55, Sam Wilson  wrote:



The other thing that occurs to me about this discussion is that aaronsta
is not actually subscribed to this list — does anyone know? I might
leave a comment on the changeset instead...



Not having a go at you blokes interested in the bike routes :-), but the
whole conversation started because Aaronsta made massive changes to how
bikeways etc are written up on the Guidelines!

I don't know about anywhere else, but he has changed them to say that
cycling on footpaths is illegal in Qld, which is totally wrong!

 Thanks

Graeme

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning







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

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta

[forster]

Sorry,
The 2 examples I mentioned, river side and on ramps were not deleted.
Tony


Hi

I am looking at the map as if a cyclist visitor to Perth. I am using
Osmand with the bike routes highlighted feature turned on. I presume
the highlighted routes are the same ones that are being talked about. I
can't be sure. The highlights look useful and I would use them. They
pick out the paths on either side of the river and the ramps onto
bridges. Routes that I would naturally gravitate towards. I can easily
turn off the highlights. I definitely want these routes, assuming the
highlights are the same thing as being discussed  here.

Tony


I'm also a Perth cyclist, and I think I pretty much agree with what
others have said. These routes should stay on the map if they're
signposted on the ground, but other than that I think they're often not
particularly great routes. I must admit that the cyclemap render now
(since the removal of these routes) actually looks a lot more like my
intuitive idea of what cycling looks like in Perth — i.e. there are
some good purpose-made paths along the freeways, and other than that
there's not much. With the official routes, it always looked like there
was this amazing cross-cutting network of cycleways, and actually
that's not really the case.

—Sam


On 11/2/22 13:44, ianst...@iinet.net.au wrote:

Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 01:11:54 +1000
From: 
To: 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging
Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta
Message-ID: <045901d81e90$8c77e060$a567a120$@thorsten.engler.id.au>
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="UTF-8"

Well, he has answered a changeset comment:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116656873

I'll leave it to the WA OSM community if that's a valid reason to simply

delete

a whole bunch of routes for which there definitely are signs on the

ground,

and what to do about it.


I am from Perth, and am a cyclist.  I agree with aaronsta that these routes
are pretty useless.  I have often looked at the signage and wondered about
OSM & the usefulness of the routes.  I might not have gone to the extent of
deleting them, but it is probably the right thing to do (they are
pretty-much obsolete and I doubt if anyone uses them)

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

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning






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

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning






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

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta

[forster]

Hi

I am looking at the map as if a cyclist visitor to Perth. I am using  
Osmand with the bike routes highlighted feature turned on. I presume  
the highlighted routes are the same ones that are being talked about.  
I can't be sure. The highlights look useful and I would use them. They  
pick out the paths on either side of the river and the ramps onto  
bridges. Routes that I would naturally gravitate towards. I can easily  
turn off the highlights. I definitely want these routes, assuming the  
highlights are the same thing as being discussed  here.


Tony


I'm also a Perth cyclist, and I think I pretty much agree with what
others have said. These routes should stay on the map if they're
signposted on the ground, but other than that I think they're often not
particularly great routes. I must admit that the cyclemap render now
(since the removal of these routes) actually looks a lot more like my
intuitive idea of what cycling looks like in Perth — i.e. there are
some good purpose-made paths along the freeways, and other than that
there's not much. With the official routes, it always looked like there
was this amazing cross-cutting network of cycleways, and actually
that's not really the case.

—Sam


On 11/2/22 13:44, ianst...@iinet.net.au wrote:

Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 01:11:54 +1000
From: 
To: 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging
Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta
Message-ID: <045901d81e90$8c77e060$a567a120$@thorsten.engler.id.au>
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="UTF-8"

Well, he has answered a changeset comment:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116656873

I'll leave it to the WA OSM community if that's a valid reason to simply

delete

a whole bunch of routes for which there definitely are signs on the

ground,

and what to do about it.


I am from Perth, and am a cyclist.  I agree with aaronsta that these routes
are pretty useless.  I have often looked at the signage and wondered about
OSM & the usefulness of the routes.  I might not have gone to the extent of
deleting them, but it is probably the right thing to do (they are
pretty-much obsolete and I doubt if anyone uses them)

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

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning






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

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta

[forster]

Probably

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/aaronsta


 Who is Aaronsta?







Is it anyone participating in this mailing list?



Have any of these changes been discussed somewhere?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Tagging_Guidelines  =revision=2262794=2250661 (ignore the street cabinet stuff at the bottom, that’s from someone   
else)




Cheers,

Thorsten



From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Sent: Thursday, 10 February 2022 08:41
To: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging   
Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta













On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 at 22:35, OpenStreetMap Wiki   
 > wrote:



The OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been
changed on 9 February 2022 by Aaronsta, see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines for
the current revision.

Editor's summary: Fix undiscussed changes



Sorry but that's a bit ironic, or did I miss the discussion about   
these changes?




One I noticed is that you've taken it upon yourself to include:

"Cycling is not permitted on footpaths in NSW, QLD, or Vic."



Would you like to share this with Qld Transport?

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/wheeled-devices/bicycle


Riding on a footpath or shared path


On footpaths and shared paths, you share the space with pedestrians.

You must:

*   keep left and give way to all pedestrians
*   always ride to the left of bicycle riders coming toward you.

Looks like we may need a major reversion done here?



Thanks



Graeme










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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[forster]

Overpass query for Cradle Mountain National Park

It all just appears to show orange path, with no red footway?


No, Phil's query works for me, there is very little footway so its  
hard to see at low zoom. I changed the colours from red and orange to  
blue and green and its a bit better


Tony



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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[forster]

Mmm, certainly bikes are banned on walking tracks (they are classified as
vehicles in tas and need to stick to 'roads')


Hi
This sounds a bit like the issue a couple of months ago with the User  
who wanted to tag all footpaths in Victoria with bicycle=no and the  
community consensus was that it wasn't OSM's role to document  
legislation, the data consumers could worry about what to do with  
cyclists and footpaths and OSM would concentrate on ground truth.


Tony



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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[forster]

Hi

Out in the middle of nowhere I would use path unless there was an  
explicit prohibition of bicycles.


But I could be wrong

Tony


Thanks folks,



OK ? It would be good to clarify that as the vast majority of the   
?bushwalking? track network in Tasmania is path but I am also seeing  
 strange footway out the middle of nowhere (ie Eastern Arthurs,  
Hartz  Mountains). I did suspect that footway is being used more  
where  there is infrastructure but that will also be an issue as  
something  like the Overland Track or the Southcoast will get split  
from path  to footway everywhere there is some infrastructure.




I might even start compiling some images of track infrastructure so   
it can be nailed down before I start a QA across the network.




I will also do a scan across other bushwalking areas around the country.



Cheers - Phil



From: Andrew Harvey 
Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 9:54 PM
To: talk OSM Australian List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths





On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 17:56, Phil Wyatt  > wrote:


Just a quick thing I noticed ? the main tagging page says not to use  
 do not use     
highway=   
 footway and the preference is
 highway=   
 path, but   
the walking track page mentions that tag regularly ? what is the   
differentiation?




That part may be controversial, but I've documented it based on my   
view which is highway=footway is for paths built for/intended for   
use mostly by people on foot and highway=path is a generic path with  
 no clear intended mode, but not wide enough for cars.




So a hiking track is specifically for walking so highway=footway   
with this view.




An alternative view is that highway=footway is for urban paths, and   
remote bushwalking tracks should be highway=path, but I think that   
view is outdated now.




On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 21:32,  > wrote:


Hi

I assumed that
highway=footway is a path mainly for pedestrians that may or may not
allow bicycles

highway=cycleway is a path mainly for cyclists that may or may not
allow pedestrians

and highway=path is not saying anything about allowed transport modes



For me it's not really about the allowed transport modes, that still  
 remains best tagged explicitly with foot=*, bicycle=*, etc. but   
which is the main mode it was built for/designed for/actively in use  
 for.




At the end of the day, it's probably all for nothing, do data   
consumers really distinguish highway=footway from highway=path?









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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[forster]

Hi

I assumed that
highway=footway is a path mainly for pedestrians that may or may not  
allow bicycles


highway=cycleway is a path mainly for cyclists that may or may not  
allow pedestrians


and highway=path is not saying anything about allowed transport modes

but maybe I am wrong.

Tony


Just a quick thing I noticed ? the main tagging page says not to use  
 do not use  <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>   
highway= <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway>  
 footway and the preference is
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> highway=   
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath> path, but   
the walking track page mentions that tag regularly ? what is the   
differentiation?






From: Andrew Harvey 
Sent: Monday, 24 January 2022 10:54 PM
To: talk OSM Australian List 
Cc: Tony Forster ; nwastra nwastra   
; Phil Wyatt 

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths







On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 17:26, Phil Wyatt <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:


Hi Folks,

I agree that a good discussion is useful but at the same time the OSM
community needs to understand what a hassle it can be to have these tracks
in OSM and having no, or little, control on how any other app/web interface
may show them.

I actually favour deletion as well but understand that is not the 'OSM way
of doing things'. A full discussion may help the agency, and OSM
contributors understand the issues on both sides.

I also think it would be useful for others to join in the US trails group so
that a more international perspective can be applied to this issue. The
situation can be very different across countries (especially legally).



Inspired by the US trails group work, I thought maybe we can attempt  
 something localised for Australia.




I started sketching something out at   
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australia/Walking_Tracks. If   
anyone thinks this is a good idea, please feel free to contribute to  
 that page.



_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning







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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[forster]

thanks for compiling the walking tracks page ...
It would be good to extend this later on to have separate pages
for walking tracks, vehicle tracks and MTB paths, since these issues keep
coming up on the forum.



Good idea, ...
Vehicle tracks should be less controversial and easier. MTB paths is a can
of worms


Are the issues any different for motor vehicles and cyclists? The  
frequency and severity are different, the  reference photos are  
different but I would expect the issues and principles to be the same.  
Maybe just have a single page about tracks?


Tony



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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[forster]

Hi Nev

I am encouraged by Guy's response. If Parks NSW can be persuaded to  
funnel all/most such map changes through one person like Guy it could  
be good.


Invite him to join talk-au so he can understand why illegal tracks are  
such a difficult problem for Parks and OSM.


Eventually it would be good to get the tracks undeleted and modified  
with a lifecycle prefix but the discussion is more important at this  
stage than the outcome.


Thanks
Tony


For info and with some regard to recent discussion of US Trails   
Working Group?


I noticed a lot of paths being deleted by this user as requested by   
a National Park Ranger.


I commented with some suggestions and received the following reply   
in comments...


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116520175

https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=116519029
https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=116520175

I am inclined to leave to others to consider.
I would rather they be left in the OSM and tagged in a different way  
 for various reasons but I expect we have little choice but to  
accept  the NPWS decision.


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

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning







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

Re: [talk-au] New blogs on unsealed roads in Victoria

[forster]

Ian

I showed my friends, their response was: "when do we start?"

Tony


 Hi folks, for everyone interested in OpenStreetMap's fantastic road data…
I've just posted a series of blogs about unsealed roads in Victoria. I've
pitched it at cyclists rather than mappers to widen the audience, but you
should still find lots of interest I hope.

https://little-maps.com/2022/01/12/the-great-vic-gravel-route-exploring-victoria-on-unsealed-roads/

It starts with the question, how far can you ride across Victoria without
hitting a paved road? Then displays Victoria's major 'gravel zones', and
plots the route that crosses Victoria from west to east which contains the
shortest possible distance of paved roads. It's very circuitous.

A series of supplementary posts expand on the main theme and describe how
the maps and routes were made. I hope you find it interesting. Best wishes
Ian







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

[talk-au] Wanderer.Earth

[forster]

Hi all

You may recall our discussions with HighRouleur and tagging bicycle=no.
I have noticed another user flushmainac with a similar editing  
pattern. flushmainac is quite open that they are editing as part of a  
quest, Wanderer.Earth


I checked 3 of flushmainac's edits this afternoon that were bicycle=no  
and I found, a construction site, a track which did not exist and a  
road on hospital grounds but without any gate or signage to indicate  
an access restriction.


I fear that there are many more bad edits out there and that it might  
be a big problem.


The good news is that I have made contact with Craig Durkin of wandrer.earth
Craig seems very helpful and was quick to reply to my inquiry.

Tony



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

Re: [talk-au] Unconnected ways

[forster]

Hi all

A similar problem with a nature walk,  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/360672204 it appears to be  
unconnected to anything.


In reality it is leading off a mown  picnic area. What is rendering  
green there is the natural=wood. Maybe that wood should be converted  
to a relation with the picnic area as inner. Interestingly the nearby  
Lysterfeld Lake picnic area is landuse=forest. Maybe they both should  
be leisure=park.


If routing to the nature walk was an issue, the picnic area could then  
be foot=yes


All too hard for the moment. I have never found the vegetation tagging  
and the green bits on the map particularly accurate or useful anyway.


Tony



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

[talk-au] Emergency markers licence?

[forster]

Hi

If you have rights to that photo and you are going to tag  
highway=emergency_access_point its worth putting the photo on the wiki

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Demergency_access_point

As you say with a 3 letter prefix PBM010 it looks like it was intended  
at some stage for the ESTA data set though it is only recognisable to  
PBR staff and presumably the point of the ESTA markers is that they  
are uniform and recognisable by the public.


Tony



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

Re: [talk-au] Importing 200 emergency markers?

[forster]

Phil

Good idea, totally off topic but, go to  
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.9088066=145.3647858=17=246259583949249=photo and press  
play


you get an animation of Puffing Billy crossing the historic trestle  
bridge at Selby. Sorry I didn't see any markers but someone with more  
download MB might.


Tony


Maybe a slow train ride will capture them on Mapillary?

https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/tastrax?lat=-37.93374758=145.43984216
=17=135923665213980=photo

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au 
Sent: Friday, 26 November 2021 5:26 PM
To: Adam Horan 
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Importing 200 emergency markers?

Hi

This subject was discussed in October.
The dataset they are sharing is likely to be
https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/esta-emergency-markers/resource/44add10f-a4
78-4ab0-a6fa-227493663b28

and it was determined that we do not have the right licence to use this
data.

I say likely to be the same dataset, I am fairly sure but no guarantee.

Tony


Are these emergency markers created and maintained by the Puffing
Billy Railway?

If not they might be sharing a dataset with you that they don't have
permission to share for this purpose?

Adam

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 16:24,  wrote:


Maybe just create a simple page on the wiki describing what you
intent to do along with a link to information about the received
permission? Just to make it easier to find in the future if there are any

concerns.




*From:* Andrew Harvey 
*Sent:* Friday, 26 November 2021 13:46
*To:* Kim Oldfield 
*Cc:* OSM-Au 
*Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Importing 200 emergency markers?



That sounds fine to me, this email consulting with the community,
informing of your plan and what steps you've taken is enough in my

opinion.




I would ask if you could share more information about the permission
you obtained? So long as you have sufficient rights to submit the
data under the OSM contributor terms.



On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 04:56, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

Hi,

I have a list of 200 emergency marker locations along 22km of the
Puffing Billy Railway which were provided to me by the railway with
permission to include them in OSM.

I've been reading through https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import
- most of which appears to be geared toward larger imports and using
publicly available data with various licenses. The data for my import
is not publicly available, and was provided to me when I asked to
import it into OSM.

I've searched overpass-turbo and there are no
highway=emergency_access_points, name~"PBM", or ref~"PBM" near the
list of nodes I have to import. This indicates that none of the nodes
are already mapped.

Based on the example file on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM_file_format I've converted
the emergency marker list into xml, the start of which looks like:

  
   
 ...

In JOSM I can import this file and merge the layer. I'm intending to
then upload this with appropriate an comment noting that the data was
provided by Puffing Billy Railway with permission to include it in OSM.

I'm proposing to import this as a one off, single change set under my
existing OSM username.

Is this a reasonable way to do this import? Is there anything else I
should do?

Regards,
Kim





___
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

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning







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

Re: [talk-au] Importing 200 emergency markers?

[forster]

Further
If the marker looks the same as the bottom photo of  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Demergency_access_point
then the dataset is  
https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/esta-emergency-markers/resource/44add10f-a478-4ab0-a6fa-227493663b28

Tony


Hi

This subject was discussed in October.
The dataset they are sharing is likely to be
https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/esta-emergency-markers/resource/44add10f-a478-4ab0-a6fa-227493663b28

and it was determined that we do not have the right licence to use this data.

I say likely to be the same dataset, I am fairly sure but no guarantee.

Tony


Are these emergency markers created and maintained by the Puffing Billy
Railway?

If not they might be sharing a dataset with you that they don't have
permission to share for this purpose?

Adam

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 16:24,  wrote:


Maybe just create a simple page on the wiki describing what you intent to
do along with a link to information about the received permission? Just to
make it easier to find in the future if there are any concerns.



*From:* Andrew Harvey 
*Sent:* Friday, 26 November 2021 13:46
*To:* Kim Oldfield 
*Cc:* OSM-Au 
*Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Importing 200 emergency markers?



That sounds fine to me, this email consulting with the community,
informing of your plan and what steps you've taken is enough in my opinion.



I would ask if you could share more information about the permission you
obtained? So long as you have sufficient rights to submit the data under
the OSM contributor terms.



On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 04:56, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

Hi,

I have a list of 200 emergency marker locations along 22km of the
Puffing Billy Railway which were provided to me by the railway with
permission to include them in OSM.

I've been reading through https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import -
most of which appears to be geared toward larger imports and using
publicly available data with various licenses. The data for my import is
not publicly available, and was provided to me when I asked to import it
into OSM.

I've searched overpass-turbo and there are no
highway=emergency_access_points, name~"PBM", or ref~"PBM" near the list
of nodes I have to import. This indicates that none of the nodes are
already mapped.

Based on the example file on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM_file_format I've converted the
emergency marker list into xml, the start of which looks like:




  
  

...

In JOSM I can import this file and merge the layer. I'm intending to
then upload this with appropriate an comment noting that the data was
provided by Puffing Billy Railway with permission to include it in OSM.

I'm proposing to import this as a one off, single change set under my
existing OSM username.

Is this a reasonable way to do this import? Is there anything else I
should do?

Regards,
Kim





___
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

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning






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

Re: [talk-au] Importing 200 emergency markers?

[forster]

Hi

This subject was discussed in October.
The dataset they are sharing is likely to be
https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/esta-emergency-markers/resource/44add10f-a478-4ab0-a6fa-227493663b28

and it was determined that we do not have the right licence to use this data.

I say likely to be the same dataset, I am fairly sure but no guarantee.

Tony


Are these emergency markers created and maintained by the Puffing Billy
Railway?

If not they might be sharing a dataset with you that they don't have
permission to share for this purpose?

Adam

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 16:24,  wrote:


Maybe just create a simple page on the wiki describing what you intent to
do along with a link to information about the received permission? Just to
make it easier to find in the future if there are any concerns.



*From:* Andrew Harvey 
*Sent:* Friday, 26 November 2021 13:46
*To:* Kim Oldfield 
*Cc:* OSM-Au 
*Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Importing 200 emergency markers?



That sounds fine to me, this email consulting with the community,
informing of your plan and what steps you've taken is enough in my opinion.



I would ask if you could share more information about the permission you
obtained? So long as you have sufficient rights to submit the data under
the OSM contributor terms.



On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 04:56, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

Hi,

I have a list of 200 emergency marker locations along 22km of the
Puffing Billy Railway which were provided to me by the railway with
permission to include them in OSM.

I've been reading through https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import -
most of which appears to be geared toward larger imports and using
publicly available data with various licenses. The data for my import is
not publicly available, and was provided to me when I asked to import it
into OSM.

I've searched overpass-turbo and there are no
highway=emergency_access_points, name~"PBM", or ref~"PBM" near the list
of nodes I have to import. This indicates that none of the nodes are
already mapped.

Based on the example file on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM_file_format I've converted the
emergency marker list into xml, the start of which looks like:




   
   

...

In JOSM I can import this file and merge the layer. I'm intending to
then upload this with appropriate an comment noting that the data was
provided by Puffing Billy Railway with permission to include it in OSM.

I'm proposing to import this as a one off, single change set under my
existing OSM username.

Is this a reasonable way to do this import? Is there anything else I
should do?

Regards,
Kim





___
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] Proposed features/Snow chains

[forster]

Hi
My impression in Victoria is that the chain fitting and chains  
required locations move up and down the mountain with the weather and  
that there's very little that can be mapped.

Tony


Hi all,

For the NSW and Victorian snowfield mappers, user Trapicki has submitted a
comprehensive snow chains proposal:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Snow_chains

A lot of Aussie chain bays are (incorrectly) tagged as parking lots, so
proposed tags may be useful.

..Brendan







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

Re: [talk-au] Suburbs: Nodes, Areas, or both?

[forster]

Quoting Simon Poole :

PS: wondering why Gruyere has that name.


Good question.
The town is named for a variety of cheese, as the area's history is in  
the dairy industry. Cahillton Post Office first opened on 20 August  
1892. It was renamed Gruyere in 1950 and closed in 1960

Wikipedia

Tony



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

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: : Re: "Removing closed or illegal trails."

[forster]

Displaying a closed trail on a map (like OSM) does NOT cause people  
 to navigate that trail.  Such behavior is completely up to the   
individual who "concludes" from reading said map "hey, I'm going to  
 hike that closed trail anyway."  (Bzzzt; fail, human logic).


OSM is not responsible for human foolishness, scofflaws or illegal   
(stupid, dangerous...) behavior.  You simply can't say "the map   
made me do it."


On the other hand, I do hear loud and clear the "natural preserve"   
areas which ARE open to human recreation, DO have "closed trails"   
(often with fragile and easily-human-damaged natural resources) and  
 people, stupidly and ignorantly I might say by way of being  
candid,  decide to hike (or bike, or motorbike...) there anyway.   
This is  not the fault of a map, any map, including OSM.


OSM does its best to map "what is."  Period.  It doesn't "make   
people" engage in activities people shouldn't engage in.  Anybody   
who says so hasn't got it right, but MIGHT be worth listening to at  
 how the map can be improved.  This includes better instructions to  
 end-users ("downstream apps...") when warranted.


Steve, this is a restatement of the "guns don't kill people people do"  
argument.
Guns and maps are not morally responsible for what people do, they are  
inanimate objects. They can never be guilty.


But the issue is not whether the guns and maps are morally  
responsible, the issue is what kind of world we want to live in. If we  
can't control what some people will do with guns and maps and we  
can't, we have the choice of making guns less available and maps not  
render tracks into vulnerable ecosystems.


Its not a moral decision, its a utilitarian decision. I am very happy  
to live where guns are strictly controlled. I would rather maps be  
more nuanced on the implementation of the "if it exists map it" rule  
which does us very well 99.999% of the time.


Tony



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

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

[forster]

Thanks Dian

Your tagging suggestion might work, I'll suggest it to Parks Vic,  
Lysterfield next week.


Tony


I think you've struck the central issue here: if it is on the ground,
it will get mapped again, and again and again by editors who think that
the path is merely missing, not consciously removed.

It should be recorded, in some way, so that the illegality of the path
is stored. I can imagine a use case where a hiker sees a path, checks
the map and sees that it is an illegal path and therefore shouldn't be
used.

I would be in favour of a tagging system that accurately reflects the
status of the path, even if it is not supported by renderers. It's
primary use is land being rehabilitated, secondary to its illegitimate
use.

something like:

access=no

informal=yes

rehabilitation:highway=path

source:access=parks agency name

Dian

On 2021-10-29 22:11, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:


OSM is the database.

If there are things incorrectly tagged in the database, they should be
fixed. Nobody is saying otherwise.

So yes, if in the example you gave below the legal authority has specified
that you are only allowed to use specific marked trails with specified modes
of transport, then the tags should reflect that and need to be fixed if they
don't.

Simply completely deleting features clearly visible on the ground does not
do that, and just invites the next person who comes past to map them again,
possibly with wrong tags once more.

OSM is NOT how any particular consumer decides to use and present the
information from the database. That includes Carto.

I don't think it's acceptable to compromise the database because you don't
like how a particular data consumer uses it.

If you are unhappy about how something is being presented:

a) ensure that the database correctly reflects reality
b) engage with the data consumer (be it Carto or any of the countless other
consumers of OSM data) to convince them to represent the data the way you
want.

This is the nature of an open database like OSM, you don't control how data
consumers use the data.

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au 
Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 20:34
To: Frederik Ramm 
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang
National Park)

Hi Frederik, Thorsten

1. "a park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track
in order to keep people from exercising their rights".

Does this happen, has it ever happened? I would be surprised if it happened
here. Anyway its not what I thought we were talking about, illegal trails.

2. 3. and 4. "knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be
helpful, might even save lives" possible but very unlikely. I could equally
argue that the types of illegal trails that I am seeing, the "I rode my
mountain bike down this way" type of trail (see #951362516
later) can reduce map utility, they are often barely visible but are
rendered the same as the type of trail a lost person would follow.
Neither Frederik's nor my argument is particularly strong.

I mentioned women's refuges earlier. Its irrelevant that we map the polygon
but not the label. Its not because they are not verifiable, I could ground
truth them by knocking on the front door and asking. We do not map women's
refuges because that is the right thing to do. We search for justifications
later.

Finally Frederik and Thorsten stress the importance of lifecycle tagging,
access tagging and rendering by the data users. I agree with them.

We at OSM are not doing a great job of rendering. Go to
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93168/145.30667
There are 3 trails,
Way: 476219417 which is access=no
Way: Granite Track (56176535) which is legal These 2 tracks are rendered
similarly, very few map users would notice that one of them was closed

We are not doing a great job on tagging either The third track Path
#951362516 is illegal but not tagged as such. The editor should know that it
is illegal they say "Probably unofficial but reasonably well used" there is
a good chance they knew. It was clearly signed at every entrance to "stay on
formed trails" and there are lots of maps on sign boards showing all the
legal trails.

Now this trail is mapped, it is going to attract lots of traffic. Its never
going to save a lost walker's life. Its going to take many many hours of
volunteer labour to keep it closed for long enough to revegetate and get
deleted from the map. That's the consequence of the Parks Service respecting
OSM's consensus policy.

I support OSM's consensus form of government and as a consequence support
the consensus position on illegal tracks. But it causes others a lot of
problems and I think we can be more responsible and nuanced within the
consensus position.

Tony

Hi,

On 29.10.21 09:08, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: You could map a   
track under the "if it exists then map it" rule but

you don't have to. We do not map women's refuges 

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

[forster]

Hi Frederik, Thorsten

1. "a park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the  
track in order to keep people from exercising their rights".


Does this happen, has it ever happened? I would be surprised if it  
happened here. Anyway its not what I thought we were talking about,  
illegal trails.


2. 3. and 4. "knowing which informal trails they might have taken can  
be helpful, might even save lives" possible but very unlikely. I could  
equally argue that the types of illegal trails that I am seeing, the  
"I rode my mountain bike down this way" type of trail (see #951362516  
later) can reduce map utility, they are often barely visible but are  
rendered the same as the type of trail a lost person would follow.  
Neither Frederik's nor my argument is particularly strong.


I mentioned women's refuges earlier. Its irrelevant that we map the  
polygon but not the label. Its not because they are not verifiable, I  
could ground truth them by knocking on the front door and asking. We  
do not map women's refuges because that is the right thing to do. We  
search for justifications later.


Finally Frederik and Thorsten stress the importance of lifecycle  
tagging, access tagging and rendering by the data users. I agree with  
them.


We at OSM are not doing a great job of rendering. Go to  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93168/145.30667

There are 3 trails,
Way: 476219417 which is access=no
Way: Granite Track (56176535) which is legal
These 2 tracks are rendered similarly, very few map users would notice  
that one of them was closed


We are not doing a great job on tagging either
The third track Path #951362516
is illegal but not tagged as such. The editor should know that it is illegal
they say "Probably unofficial but reasonably well used" there is a  
good chance they knew. It was clearly signed at every entrance to  
"stay on formed trails" and there are lots of maps on sign boards  
showing all the legal trails.


Now this trail is mapped, it is going to attract lots of traffic. Its  
never going to save a lost walker's life. Its going to take many many  
hours of volunteer labour to keep it closed for long enough to  
revegetate and get deleted from the map. That's the consequence of the  
Parks Service respecting OSM's consensus policy.


I support OSM's consensus form of government and as a consequence  
support the consensus position on illegal tracks. But it causes others  
a lot of problems and I think we can be more responsible and nuanced  
within the consensus position.


Tony


Hi,

On 29.10.21 09:08, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

You could map a track under the "if it exists then map it" rule but you
don't have to. We do not map women's refuges and they exist. We don't
have to map every informal trail.


This is true, and we shouldn't go out of our way to thwart the efforts
of park managers. Having said that,

1. Sometimes the matter can be a civil rights issue - depending on the
legal situation, people might have the *right* to use a path but a park
manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track in
order to keep people from exercising their rights. In that situation,
while the park manager might want the best for the environment, the park
manager would have to work to change the legal situation instead of
trying to mislead people about what they are allowed to do.

2. In similar discussions we had people working with search and rescue
teams say that they prefer to use OSM maps because those show the
informal trails, and if you're searching for someone who got lost,
knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be helpful -
might even save lives.

3. If you have an emergency out in the wild, knowledge about informal or
even prohibited/closed tracks can be helpful and again, might even save
lives.

4. If you are navigating without a GPS, you might use trails for
orientation ("take the second left after entering the forest" or
whatever). In these cases if there's a trail that exists and is visible
but is not shown on the map, you will mis-count.

Therefore I would like to agree with Paul and Thorsten, and stress that
we should (a) map access tags properly, and (b) lobby web sites and apps
using OSM data to properly process these access tags, by not including
access-restricted trails in routing or route suggestions, and by clearly
marking these restrictions on maps.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning







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

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

[forster]

Hi all

This also came up in 2015,  
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2015-July/010619.html

The consensus, which I was not happy with, was "if it exists then map it".

I volunteer with a park Friends Group and see things more from a Parks  
Service perspective. There are usually good environmental reasons for  
closing informal tracks. Unfortunately there is a loop, if it exists  
then map it, if its mapped it gets used and becomes more distinct. It  
takes an enormous amount of work by volunteers like me to close a  
track and keep it closed till it can revegetate sufficiently to remove  
it from the map under the "if it exists then map it" rule.


So I support what Phil Wyatt is saying. Act cautiously and  
responsibly. You could map a track under the "if it exists then map  
it" rule but you don't have to. We do not map women's refuges and they  
exist. We don't have to map every informal trail.


Tony


HI Folks



My opinion on the topic (as a past track/trail manager) is that if you are
not a local actively involved with the trail managers then you need to be
very careful. There can often be rehabilitation at the start and end of
closed/illegal tracks and no active rehabilitation on other parts. Despite
the fact that they 'appear on the ground' they may be part of a larger plan
for removal or rehabilitation.



Best to contact the managers of the area and see what their preferences are
for illegal tracks. In general, areas actively used by walkers and bikers
will have some connection with the trail manager and are likely working to
some agreed plan. Its clear this area is an active location for bikers so I
would defer to them.



Biking and walking groups often go to a lot of trouble to get the managers
on side and in agreement with development of trails.



By 2 bobs worth



Cheers - Phil







From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 2:05 PM
To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' 
Subject: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National
Park)



https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/112722497



"Removing closed or illegal trails. Tidy up of Fire Roads and places"



My opinion on the topic is:



If it exists on the ground, it gets mapped. If there is no legal access,
that's access=no or access=private. If it's a path that has been created by
traffic where it's not officially meant to go, it's informal=yes.



That seems to be in line with the previously established consensus on the
list here:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-September/012863.html



I have no local knowledge of the area and am not really invested in this one
way or another, but I feel that paths that verifiably physically exist on
the ground (which I assume these are) shouldn't be simply deleted. If access
is legally prohibited in some way, then the tags should reflect that, not
the way simply being deleted.



What's the general opinion about this?



Cheers,

Thorsten








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

Re: [talk-au] Vic State Forest Boundary Files

[forster]

Hi
Is there any chance, or point, of including  
https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/esta-emergency-markers in an ambit  
request?

Tony

Hi Andrew, yes, happy to take it on. Is there a template for data   
requests online somewhere that explains why the waiver is needed,   
that I can use as an example?


Do you think we should try an ambit request for all DELWP CC   
datasets that are available online, on sites like Data Vic and   
MapShare, or should we be a bit more restrictive? Given your   
comments it seems worthwhile trying for the lot, it might just take   
a bit longer to get a reply. Cheers Ian

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

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning







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

Re: [talk-au] Emergency markers licence?

[forster]

Not sure how much we can trust any of these. I assume these markers are
visible signs/posts at the roadside and can be surveyed?
Adam


Adam
Sorry for the delay.
Yes, they are visible signs/posts at the roadside and can be surveyed.
I have put a photo of one in Victoria Australia at  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Demergency_access_point#Examples


Tony



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

Re: [talk-au] Emergency markers licence?

[forster]

Hi
I think that, because its a emergency marker, its important to get it right.

Its a HighRouler edit so we will have to decide what, if anything, to  
do with it.  Its been at London Bridge for 12 years, recently moved to  
a point 100m north. But I am not allowed to "know" that the two  
locations are 30km from the  location according to the Emergency  
Services Telecommunications Authority.


Thanks
Tony


I don't think that's a compatible source, for starters that page lists it
as Creative Commons Non-Commercial.

On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 10:22,  wrote:


Hi

I want to put the emergency marker MOR507 where I think it belongs

MOR507 node=429407299

not London Bridge (in either of its two recent locations)but
LATITUDE-38.473502 LONGITUDE 144.92752 Bushrangers Bay car park

Is

https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/esta-emergency-markers/resource/44add10f-a478-4ab0-a6fa-227493663b28
an allowable
source?

Tony



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



_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning







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

[talk-au] Emergency markers licence?

[forster]

Hi

I want to put the emergency marker MOR507 where I think it belongs

MOR507 node=429407299

not London Bridge (in either of its two recent locations)but  
LATITUDE-38.473502 LONGITUDE 144.92752 Bushrangers Bay car park


Is  
https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/esta-emergency-markers/resource/44add10f-a478-4ab0-a6fa-227493663b28 an allowable  
source?


Tony



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

Re: [talk-au] Source material.

[forster]

PS
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue


Thanks Ben
Where can we get source material for Victorian State Forests,   
National Parks etc?

Regards
Andrew Parker


?Get BlueMail for Android ?

On 18 Oct 2021, 09:23, at 09:23, Ben Kelley  wrote:

Hi.

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

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

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

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

- Ben Kelley.

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

wrote:


Good afternoon

I emailed the group for the first time recently:

*?I am a basic OSM editor. I usually just correct obvious map errors

I

find while hiking/cycling. I have tried to be a little more ambitious

every

now and then, but I have found it can be quite difficult to keep

other

editors happy with what I do.?*

I am writing to get some feedback from other members regarding an

issue

with another editor regarding  Changeset: 112406297 | OpenStreetMap





I used MapShareVic as my source, but was told that this is not

allowed. I

am surprised by this as MapshareVic is the official Victorian

Government

land software.

The background to this is that Fryers Ridge State Forest as depicted

on

the map was completely incorrect, and I was attempting to correct it.

Using

iD, I decided it was better to delete it and start again.

I am trying to edit the map in good faith using iD. I have tried

using

JOSM in the past, but found it to be too daunting and have been

unable to

find any good tutorials on YouTube.

As far as I can tell Warin61 has deleted all the editing I spent many
hours on

Maybe there is someone here who can help me get back to using JOSM?

It would be good to see what others think about this.

Kind Regards

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




--
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
This message was sent on my Atari 400




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








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

Re: [talk-au] Source material.

[forster]

Hi

"Where can we get source material for Victorian State Forests"

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Resources
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Imports

Tony



Thanks Ben
Where can we get source material for Victorian State Forests,   
National Parks etc?

Regards
Andrew Parker


?Get BlueMail for Android ?

On 18 Oct 2021, 09:23, at 09:23, Ben Kelley  wrote:

Hi.

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

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

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

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

- Ben Kelley.

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

wrote:


Good afternoon

I emailed the group for the first time recently:

*?I am a basic OSM editor. I usually just correct obvious map errors

I

find while hiking/cycling. I have tried to be a little more ambitious

every

now and then, but I have found it can be quite difficult to keep

other

editors happy with what I do.?*

I am writing to get some feedback from other members regarding an

issue

with another editor regarding  Changeset: 112406297 | OpenStreetMap





I used MapShareVic as my source, but was told that this is not

allowed. I

am surprised by this as MapshareVic is the official Victorian

Government

land software.

The background to this is that Fryers Ridge State Forest as depicted

on

the map was completely incorrect, and I was attempting to correct it.

Using

iD, I decided it was better to delete it and start again.

I am trying to edit the map in good faith using iD. I have tried

using

JOSM in the past, but found it to be too daunting and have been

unable to

find any good tutorials on YouTube.

As far as I can tell Warin61 has deleted all the editing I spent many
hours on

Maybe there is someone here who can help me get back to using JOSM?

It would be good to see what others think about this.

Kind Regards

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




--
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
This message was sent on my Atari 400




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








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

Re: [talk-au] Source material.

[forster]

Hi Andrew

Speaking as another relatively inexperienced editor, don't be too  
disheartened.


"I used MapShareVic" It takes a bit of getting used to but OSM is very  
fussy about allowable sources. There are good arguments for why. It  
can be frustrating when you have a perfectly good source that has  
given permission but you can't use it. Safest to only use what you  
have seen on the ground.


"I decided it was better to delete it and start again" The problem  
with this is that you loose the history of the object, I try to  
repurpose all the nodes if I can.


"has deleted all the editing I spent many hours on" deleted but not  
lost, the record remains, you might be able to use it somehow,  
probably not.


Anything that has anything to do with a relation I leave to more  
experienced mappers. Start small, leave the big stuff for experienced  
mappers.


Keep contributing.

Tony


Good afternoon

I emailed the group for the first time recently:

*?I am a basic OSM editor. I usually just correct obvious map errors I find
while hiking/cycling. I have tried to be a little more ambitious every now
and then, but I have found it can be quite difficult to keep other editors
happy with what I do.?*

I am writing to get some feedback from other members regarding an issue
with another editor regarding  Changeset: 112406297 | OpenStreetMap


I used MapShareVic as my source, but was told that this is not allowed. I
am surprised by this as MapshareVic is the official Victorian Government
land software.

The background to this is that Fryers Ridge State Forest as depicted on the
map was completely incorrect, and I was attempting to correct it. Using iD,
I decided it was better to delete it and start again.

I am trying to edit the map in good faith using iD. I have tried using JOSM
in the past, but found it to be too daunting and have been unable to find
any good tutorials on YouTube.

As far as I can tell Warin61 has deleted all the editing I spent many hours
on

Maybe there is someone here who can help me get back to using JOSM?

It would be good to see what others think about this.

Kind Regards

Andrew Parker







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

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[forster]

Yes Andrew
I would be happy to work with you. We are still under a 15km limit,  
probably going to a 25km limit in 2 weeks. I can get to maybe half of  
the area now for ground truthing and probably 90% in 2 weeks.

Tony


I guess there would be nearly 0% chance that you would be able to cleanly
revert without dealing with conflicts. It can get complicated when
conflicts are detected by the JOSM reverter, you need to both know about
the OSM data model well (nodes, ways, relations, tags), know about the data
you're reverting and an understanding of the area you're working in so you
can decide how to handle the conflict and what final state you like.

Tony since you know the data and area well, did you want to work on this
together with me? I can help out with any technical roadblocks, maybe on a
screen share?

On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 16:32,  wrote:


While I'm normally all for "you made the mess, you clean it up", this might
be something better tackled by someone with extensive experience in
reverting multiple changesets?

Have we got any experts in that?

-Original Message-
From: stevea 
Sent: Wednesday, 13 October 2021 14:13
To: fors...@ozonline.com.au
Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

I did my best to help Sebastian, but near the point where we got the first
launch of JOSM (he DID install Java, he DID have to move the .jar file to
his Applications folder, he apparently was NOT using a capital A in
Applications...) he suddenly went "radio silent" on me and didn't answer
any
more email ping-pongs.

I had all primed my next email how to install a reverter, but didn't send
that because it seems he remained in a low gear, and running a JOSM
reverter
is for those who are, um, "in a higher gear."

Good luck getting your data in shape, there, mates.

SteveA
(where it is getting to be bedtime Tuesday night)

> On Oct 12, 2021, at 9:06 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
>
> Adam
>
>> Spotting these
>> and knowing how far back to revert to might be tricky I guess?
>> eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/47771844/history
>
> Yes. I have never been involved in a reversion so complex and it worries
me too. I presume they should be reverted in reverse date order, ie most
recent first. And acting in a timely manner is important, before others do
edits on the same objects.
>
> Taking your example, the first reversion is important and the following
two swapping between path and footway make little difference.
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Cycling on Victorian paths

[forster]

Hi all
There are 15,000 changes to consider over 651 changesets
Does this sound OK? Start reversions at his #641
Revert in this order:

Sebastian's  Changeset  #comment
  641  112030682#Changing shared paths to foothpaths
  640  111889860#updates to cycling permission
  639  111889673#updates to cycling permission
  638  111703043#updates to cycling permission
  637  111702799#updates to cycling permission

continue reverting in reverse time order till there is not a clear  
improvement from each reversion.

Tony






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

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[forster]

Adam


Spotting these
and knowing how far back to revert to might be tricky I guess?
eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/47771844/history


Yes. I have never been involved in a reversion so complex and it  
worries me too. I presume they should be reverted in reverse date  
order, ie most recent first. And acting in a timely manner is  
important, before others do edits on the same objects.


Taking your example, the first reversion is important and the  
following two swapping between path and footway make little difference.


Tony



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