Re: [talk-au] NSW Fire stations

The tag suggestion is done by iD from the entry in the name suggestion index (NSI) at https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/blob/3563775a990e3bc4e57d1656c87807124e39c3bc/data/operators/amenity/fire_station.json#L555-L568 On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 at 13:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Just

Re: [talk-au] Aust. Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)

I think either awtgs= or hiking_scale:awtgs= are fine, I'd say just pick one and start a wiki page describing the tag and how it's used. As I raised before I'm still not sure about how it would apply to individual ways vs route relations and if it's only tagged based on officially assigned values

Re: [talk-au] Tagging a house name

On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 9:55 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Interesting photo of one house in that article: > https://www.houzz.com.au/photos/summerlees-a-living-piece-of-australian-history-traditional-garden-sydney-phvw-vp~7570749 > > Address out the front is 219 over 7207? > > Never seen an

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Sydney bus stops

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1128912626 is an okay example, with ref being the Stop ID, and name being the stop name with the stand number appended to the end. So in your case, ref=20 name=Kings Cross Station Darlinghurst Rd, Stand A I don't think this is perfect but probably the best

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 15:27, stevea wrote: > But to conflate two wholly different semantics into one key, mmm, not > generally a good idea. > But that's exactly what the AWTGS does, it conflates a bunch of independent variables together, it generally works where the harder trails are longer

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

The awtgs= tag looks fine on it's own, a simple wiki page with basic info about the tag would help people know how to use it and less likely someone will misunderstand it like your German friend. 1. Would the tag be reserved for tagging officially assigned AWTGS values? Or when not officially

Re: [talk-au] Address corrections

I would be fine with this kind of bulk edit, so long as you confirm each value and you're sure it's really a suburb and not a city (you can just select all with the same value, then check that). As far as I'm aware Australia only uses suburb / locality for addressing and not the city. On Mon, 31

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 09:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > & to clarify, we only need to include the street address for anything, & > not the suburb / town / city? > Assuming the suburb / locality boundaries have been mapped (which they should not be Australia wide from an import), then data

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 16:53, tabjsina wrote: > In this case I intend to specifically only update tags that already have > a state field defined, rather than populating the empty ones. Andrew, do > you think that adjusting the existing tag values to match the VIC > majority woul

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

Many people would be mapping because iD has a template which includes state, so people see an empty field and try to enter more complete information. Many people new to OSM don't know that addresses inherit state and suburb from the existing boundaries. >From the VIC address import work there was

Re: [talk-au] Water tanks as buildings?

In JOSM you can select by tag using Search, and then update tags bulk accordingly (after checking to make sure you're only modifying those intended), not sure if you can do this in iD. On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 15:48, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Just working on notes & one of them took me here: >

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

erpass query for Cradle Mountain National Park - maybe > try > it o your local parks > > https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1fus > > Cheers - Phil > > -Original Message- > From: fors...@ozonline.com.au > Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 10:22 PM > To: Phil Wyatt >

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

Re: [talk-au] Am I using addr:unit correctly?

Your use of addr:unit looks correct here, I don't believe it needs to be subdivisions of a single building. You could have villa style townhouses where each dwelling is a separate building on a single site, where each building has it's own addr:unit and they all share the same addr:housenumber.

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 at 10:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 19:39, Andrew Harvey > wrote: > >> >> If I were to design the ideal tag for Australia, it would be something >> like: >> >> technicality=0-3 >> >> 0. Well for

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 21:34, Tom Brennan wrote: > > If you have better ideas the beauty of OSM is you can tag both, so > > keep using sac_scale for it's wide support but have a new tag better > > suited to Australia which data consumers can start opting into. > It's probably easier, if less

[talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 18:32, Tom Brennan wrote: > On a related (track-y), but slightly tangential note... > > Is there any consensus on the use of sac_scale as the measure for trail > difficulty in an Australian context? > > Personally, I hate the idea, because: > - Australia has little in the

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 19:22, Little Maps wrote: > Hi Andrew, thanks for compiling the walking tracks page, it’s a great > resource. 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 &g

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 16:08, wrote: > “off-track” here implies trail_visibility=no. > > > > If it’s NOT visible on the ground. And it’s NOT part of any signed route. > Then it doesn’t meet the verifiability criteria and shouldn’t be mapped. > Exactly, I've just added the term bush-bashing to

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 12:59, Tom Brennan wrote: > I was somewhat bemused by the comment: > "As Ranger of Macquarie Pass National Park (New South Wales, Australia) > I am writing to advise that these tracks either do not exist or are > illegal tracks, which have been closed based on a risk

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 00:11, Josh Marshall wrote: > There were also some trails earlier in my ride that were closed, and in > the interest of not-self-incriminating I would certainly not admit to > attempting to traverse them or getting somewhat lost and trekking through > swamp in the

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 13:48, Dian Ågesson wrote: > Hi all, > > When this issue was last raised on the mailing list, I suggested the > following tagging schema. > >- highway=rehabilitation >- access=no >- informal=yes >- rehabilitation:highway=path >- source:access=parks

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 17:26, Phil Wyatt 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

Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed, undocumented mass edit across all of Australia.

/413070382636072960/471231032645910529/931056454230745158. Happy to continue the community discussion on the merits of the change. on behalf of the DWG, Andrew Harvey On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 17:53, wrote: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116091398 > > To quote my changeset comment: > > T

Re: [talk-au] New blogs on unsealed roads in Victoria

Neat, thanks for sharing. On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 at 15:59, Little Maps wrote: > 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,

Re: [talk-au] US Trails Working Group

On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 at 13:39, Tom Brennan wrote: > This is certainly a problem, and having walked in Utah, there are > certainly some specific problems with walking off track there. However, > it seems that land managers are looking at the threat without seeing the > opportunity. > > Yes,

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

follows a road it is in the > centre of the gap between the properties that are either side of the road > and that centre line is not always the paved road that you see on the > ground. > > > > Michael > > > > > > *From:* Dian Ågesson > *Sent:* Friday, 7 Janua

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

Hi All, Since I am only trying to define those that cannot be determined spatially, this sounds correct to me: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:is_in Explanation: Yes, they do say that the use is discouraged, but that is purely on the basis of boundaries being used as spatial

[Talk-lb] MapRoulette challenges for road issues in Lebanon

Hi everyone, This is Andrew from the Apple team. I recently created MapRoulette challenges for the road network in Lebanon, such as looking for overlapping roads, disconnected roads and other similar issues. All of the challenges are all posted here in this project: https://maproulette.org

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

On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 1:42 PM Andrew Hughes wrote: > In the interest of stirring up a hornets nest (jokes). I'd like to know what > could be said for tagging ways (streets/roads) with add:suburb (or > addr:county...) where the suburb (or other region/area) the road "belo

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

Hi All, In the interest of stirring up a hornets nest (jokes). I'd like to know what could be said for tagging ways (streets/roads) with add:suburb (or addr:county...) where the suburb (or other region/area) the road "belongs" to can NOT be spatially determined (i.e. typically runs along or forms

Re: [talk-au] boundary=aboriginal_lands ( Was Re: admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?)

On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 2:03 PM Andrew Harvey wrote: > > If this is not disputed, it would be nice to update > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Australia.E2.80.99s_First_People > with this information otherwise it'll get lost over time in the archives

Re: [talk-au] boundary=aboriginal_lands ( Was Re: admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?)

If this is not disputed, it would be nice to update https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Australia.E2.80.99s_First_People with this information otherwise it'll get lost over time in the archives here. On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 at 19:58, Andrew Davidson wrote: > On 30

Re: [talk-au] The ACT Place Names Advisory Committee has a sense of humour

On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 9:05 AM Michael Collinson wrote: > > Phew, Coombs must have been a ruthless place previously. > Nice. Did not occurred to me that the ruthfulness had gone up. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

Re: [talk-au] admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 at 20:26, Andrew Davidson wrote: > > I checked via the overpass wizard query "admin_level=8 in AU" and there > > are no results, so no australia post borders are mapped that way, and > > I'm not aware of any. > > I think that was an acciden

[talk-au] The ACT Place Names Advisory Committee has a sense of humour

So we have a new park in Coombs that needs a name. A name based on the suburb's theme of notable public service: https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/View/di/2021-260/current/html/2021-260.html ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

Re: [talk-au] admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?

On 30/11/21 09:55, Andrew Harvey wrote: Since we don't have formally defined boundaries for place=region,district,city,quarter,neighbourhood,city_block should we be adding an admin_level at all? So should we remove 7/5? I'd be happy to get rid of admin_level 7. It never really had a good

[talk-au] boundary=aboriginal_lands ( Was Re: admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?)

On 30/11/21 17:51, stevea wrote: This is REALLY going to be different in Oz than USA, but please consider boundary=aboriginal_lands. boundary=aboriginal_lands is not applicable to Australia for at least two reasons: 1. Australia does not have a system of "reservations". Before the 1960s

Re: [talk-au] admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 at 09:29, Dian Ågesson wrote: > Suburbs and Localities in Australia are all using admin_level=10 > , > and some changes in early 2020 to the default map rendering (

Re: [talk-au] Importing 200 emergency markers?

On 27/11/21 12:27, Ewen Hill wrote:    It might be worthwhile obtaining the standard waver from PBR which could confirm the status of the markers as well. As they are not standard, perhaps consider adding a few more fields, colour=white, source= and if they are all on the telephone poles,

[talk-au] Weird tag (Was Re: Importing 200 emergency markers?)

On 25/11/21 22:52, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote:   Technically correct but I have added it to the list: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Counterintuitive_key_names ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

Re: [talk-au] Importing 200 emergency markers?

On 26/11/21 18:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote: Hi, The markers were installed by the railway, and are maintained by the railway. They are pole numbers attached to each telegraph pole along the railway. So they are pole reference numbers that are being used as emergency markers?

Re: [talk-au] Enriching OpenStreetMap with open data

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 15:27, John Luan wrote: > And we will have another follow up session after we finish the bulk > import, and we will talk about our bulk import experience. > I wasn't able to join the whole talk, but if you're planning on doing a bulk import then please make sure you check

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

Re: [talk-au] Lots of identical changesets for toll roads (possibly incorrect).

I haven't looked at their other changesets, but I've reverted this one to remove the toll=yes on the untolled section. On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 11:40, Jake Coppinger wrote: > Hello, > > I noticed I was getting bad OSM car directions which avoided General > Holmes Dr (the east/west road under

Re: [talk-au] Unconnected ways

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 11:54, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Same problem where a bushwalking route uses a beach. I was told IIRC it > is ok to use highway=path with trail_visibility=no. > Agreed, and while I still don't think it's perfect, it's probably the best compromise at the

[talk-au] Use of macrons in name:en

There is a good discussion going on at talk-nz about use of macrons and names https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-nz/2021/thread.html#318 There was talk about if macrons should appear in the English name (name:en), which got me checking Uluṟu and Kata Tjuṯa. So should that be tagged

Re: [talk-au] Service Roads?

(non _link) highway=* tags. Perhaps "service"="frontage road" would help, but I don't know if this would collide with other conventions. Thanks all! On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 22:13, Dian Ågesson wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > From your description in example A, it sounds l

Re: [talk-au] Splitting Ways for small roundabout traffic islands

On 15/11/21 22:14, Andrew Harvey wrote: Splitting makes the data more complicated than it needs to be, and doesn't add more value or accuracy compared to simply tagging the traffic island as a node. One with a gap for pedestrians gets tagged as crossing:island=yes, without a crossing maybe

Re: [talk-au] Dedicated Indigenous Protected Areas 2020 dataset available for OSM

On 21/11/21 18:10, nwastra nwastra wrote: I am of the opinion that because we are only adding two extra IPAs and the marine parts to the existing IPAs, it is probably not necessary to go through the imports mailing list as we would follow the same procedure as that was used with CAPAD will a

Re: [talk-au] Use of pedestrian streets to imply route hierarchy

Based on the wiki I understand highway=pedestrian to be for roads that pedestrians freely walk on and some vehicles can drive on, but mostly vehicles don't drive on them because there are too many pedestrians or restrictions limit vehicle access. It's a common misstagging to use it as a more

[talk-au] Service Roads?

only use the B way to access the carpark(s). Someone else might have a better interpretation however I do feel like on the ground they are very different roads and tagging with highway=services alone doesn't reflect that. Thanks in advance, Andrew

Re: [talk-au] Tagging non-govt (road) ways

Those suggestions look fine to me. For flags it means maps can render the flag graphic, some is a bit redundant but not wrong. On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 at 10:16, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > > On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 at 17:01, Andrew Hughes wrote: > >> >> I can see

Re: [talk-au] Tagging non-govt (road) ways

6 Nov 2021 at 12:38, Andrew Hughes wrote: > Thanks yet AGAIN Andrew, > > I believe ... > > *operator:type:government=state* > > ...best suits. > > I can see us using wikidata for other similar situations. Thank you for > also pointing that out. > > Thanks agai

Re: [talk-au] Tagging non-govt (road) ways

Thanks yet AGAIN Andrew, I believe ... *operator:type:government=state* ...best suits. I can see us using wikidata for other similar situations. Thank you for also pointing that out. Thanks again, Andrew On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 at 07:00, Andrew Harvey wrote: > My opinion is it's bet

Re: [talk-au] Splitting Ways for small roundabout traffic islands

to the middle of the lane, so placement tagging is more complicated. Interesting to see those city stats Andrew. What I'd like to hear is from those who do split, is why? Is it just because you're trying to follow the documented rules, or is there a reason for splitting being better? Ideally we'd

Re: [talk-au] Splitting Ways for small roundabout traffic islands

On 15/11/21 18:18, Dian Ågesson wrote: Is there a preferred approach, or does it not really matter? If splitting ways, are u-turns restrictions required? I think it's a style question. I just took a random sample of 50 roundabouts in city and the number of roundabouts with islands, single

Re: [talk-au] Splitting Ways for small roundabout traffic islands

On 15/11/21 20:38, Warin wrote: I have yet to see a 'no U turn' on them and they do make a good safer place to do a u turn if you do the correct thing. I thought we were talking about where the entry and exit flares join. Fun fact, there is at least on roundabout with a no u-turn sign

Re: [talk-au] Is it a fence?

On 15/11/21 20:28, Warin wrote: What else would you call it? A tall fence? I'd tag it barrier=fence height=40 I'd also say fence. But that's a 6 story apartment block, which would be about 20m tall, so somewhat less than 40. ___ Talk-au mailing

Re: [talk-au] Proposed features/Snow chains

highway=chain_up_area sounds fine, while these places close/open depending on conditions, many are signposted as chain bays and they don't move, so can be surveyed and added. I think snow_chains:conditional=required @ ... is very useful to show roads which you may be expected to carry and use

Re: [talk-au] Proposed features/Snow chains

On 14/11/21 18:30, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: 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 snow_chains:conditional=required @ snow; required @ ice

Re: [talk-au] Are letter boxes art?

On 14/11/21 14:29, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: As we've been driving around, especially in the bush, I'm sure we've all spotted the occasional really good letterbox, much like this one: https://goo.gl/maps/McSEgmTTLEHRhmxH8 Would they classify as public

Re: [talk-au] Tagging non-govt (road) ways

Corporations, private mine site operators, private retail companies eg https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18378048 If you preferred to store this directly in OSM, then something like your second option operator:type:government=state could work. On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 at 03:20, Andrew Hughes wrote: > Tha

Re: [talk-au] Tagging non-govt (road) ways

Thanks everyone, I just learnt a whole lot. operator:type = private operator:type = government Is a nice fit (thanks again Andrew). Now, to probably extend the question a little bit (sorry). What if I tried to add more specific info about the type, for example operator:type

Re: [talk-au] Tagging non-govt (road) ways

We have a tag for this http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:operator:type On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 17:31, Andrew Hughes wrote: > Hi All, > > I was wondering how I could tag ways that would indicate that they are > belonging to "non-government" - aka these are private asse

[talk-au] Tagging non-govt (road) ways

au/project/hampstead-park/ Thank you, Andrew ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Suburbs: Nodes, Areas, or both?

On 6/11/21 20:30, Simon Poole wrote: Yes, Gruyère is a cheese, it's named after the town of Gruyères see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruy%C3%A8res, very nice place BTW. That's why I was wondering :-), but I suppose the dairy industry explains it. I think Wikipedia is wrong on this one.

Re: [talk-au] Suburbs: Nodes, Areas, or both?

On 5/11/21 18:06, cleary wrote: Sorry. I should have written ...add the place node to the relation and its role would be "label". Done: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2428804 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

Re: [talk-au] Vic State Forest Boundary Files

International Public License (“the License”) for the purposes of the OpenStreetMap Project, the State of Victoria agrees to the following: On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 at 08:43, Little Maps wrote: > Hi Andrew, yes, happy to take it on. Is there a template for data requests > online somewhere that explai

Re: [talk-au] Vic State Forest Boundary Files

Sun Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 9:06 AM wrote: > > Hi > Is there any chance, or point, of including > https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/esta-emergency-markers in an ambit > request? > Tony That one might be a tough ask as it is licensed CC BY-NC 3.0. If they give us a waiver then everyone else can just

Re: [talk-au] Vic State Forest Boundary Files

I think it'll be much easier to request a waiver for a wider set of Victorian open data. DELWP has been very accommodating and kindly granted us a waiver for Vicmap, so I can't see there being a problem with other CC BY data like

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

Isn't it always the case though that patrolled beaches will have flags and that is the area patrolled? My point is then what's the difference between `lifeguard=yes` and `lifeguard=yes @ flagged_area / red_and_yellow_flags`, to me they mean the same thing. On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 18:06, Graeme

Re: [talk-au] Aust. Minutely Replication Not Updating > 24hrs

Thanks Andrew, It doesn't appear that a (github) issue has been submitted yet. I'm not sure my French would be helpful. I have done my best with Google translate https://github.com/osm-fr/infrastructure/issues/327 As always, thanks again Andrew! On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 at 10:54, Andrew Harvey

Re: [talk-au] Aust. Minutely Replication Not Updating > 24hrs

://download.openstreetmap.fr/replication/planet/minute/state.txt so not just australia. The primary OpenStreetMap replication feed isn't stalled https://planet.openstreetmap.org/replication/minute/state.txt so the issue is on the openstreetmap.fr side. On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 at 11:29, Andrew Hughes wrote

[talk-au] Aust. Minutely Replication Not Updating > 24hrs

was #Tue Oct 19 14:54:17 UTC 2021 sequenceNumber=4764378 timestamp=2021-10-19T14\:54\:14Z Is anyone aware of anything related to this? Additionally, if this is a problem I don't know who would be the appropriate person to bring this to their attention. Thanks everyone for reading. Andrew

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

I'm with Ben, I feel it's sufficient to tag on the beach. Isn't it always the case in Australia that there will be flags if patrolled and that you should swim between the flags? For long beaches we may already split the feature into different named beaches, so you could do the same if only part

Re: [talk-au] Emergency markers licence?

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

Re: [talk-au] Source material.

On 19/10/21 8:37 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote: On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 20:11, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote: It does not have 'State Forests' ... unfortunately. Ah I confused "State Park" with "State Forest". I think State

Re: [talk-au] Source material.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 20:11, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > It does not have 'State Forests' ... unfortunately. > Ah I confused "State Park" with "State Forest". ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

Re: [talk-au] Source material.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 13:30, Little Maps wrote: > By contrast, the list of Vicmap datasets on the department’s VicMap > catalog includes 4 extra datasets as part of Vicmap, namely (1) VicMap > Imagery, (2) Vicmap Index (contains boundary and coastline data), (3) > Vicmap Lite and (4) Vicmap

Re: [talk-au] Source material.

That would be great Ian. If you find that some useful datasets aren't covered under the Vicmap CC BY waiver, but are CC BY licensed then we can request an updated waiver to cover them. Andrew Parker, it looks like State Parks for VIC are included in CAPAD https://www.awe.gov.au/agriculture-land

Re: [talk-au] Source material.

ns. If we don’t, then the official boundaries can’t be obtained from any > available source. That’s how I interpret it, but I’m basing this > interpretation off the fact that we need to seek permission to use each > dataset, not the portal it is obtained from. Hope that makes sense. Curious >

Re: [talk-au] Source material.

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 >

[talk-au] Source material.

e 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] Path discussion tagging guidelines

On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 20:03, wrote: > The only other difference was a general ambivalence on how shared paths > are tagged. The wiki says highway=cycleway & foot=designated, people here > were also happy with highway=footway & bicycle=designated. Two sides of the > same coin I guess, and

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

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

Re: [talk-ph] Data improvements in the Philippines

not be correct or may actually be for another nearby street, which is why I suggest that if you do want to use it it is verified on the ground. The address point data was collected through a variety of methods including field survey. Andrew Andrew Wiseman |  Maps | iPhone: +1.202.270.4464

Re: [talk-au] Monitoring admin boundaries Was: Re: Mapping tree cover

On 9/10/21 10:54 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote: Andrew Davidson has been keeping an eye on changes and doing some updates. I've updated a few I noticed changed in NSW. I checked the existing boundaries in NSW/SA/ACT/TAS last year before the other states were imported. Geoscape (aka PSMA) put

[talk-au] Monitoring admin boundaries Was: Re: Mapping tree cover

open source dataset to prevent editing drift? > Andrew Davidson has been keeping an eye on changes and doing some updates. I've updated a few I noticed changed in NSW. I'm not aware of something up and running spitting out differences, but we could code something up with some tolerance to ignore

Re: [talk-au] Basic question

Thank you everyone. It is clear now that it is OK to have an area inside or overlapping another area. That is logical and contrary to what I had been told by another mapper. It may be the case that I misunderstood what they were saying. Cheers Andrew Parker On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 14:26, Andrew

Re: [talk-au] Basic question

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:53, cleary wrote: > > Good mapping practice is to keep administrative boundaries such as state > parks, conservation areas, suburbs etc separate from natural features such > as water, waterways, woods etc. While they sometimes approximate, they > rarely coincide

Re: [talk-au] Russian Town Names?

There general rule in OSM is only tag if the place does have a common name in that language, and not tag transliteration. If you really want to add transliterations this can be done via Wikidata which can be linked to OSM. Some maps like Mapbox will then use the Wikidata linked transliterations

Re: [talk-au] Mapping tree cover

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 09:22, EON4wd wrote: > Question, How can I identify this person so that I can contact them to be > able to find out what they are thinking? > If you're using the default iD editor, select a feature, then in the bottom left there is a link to view on OSM, which shows in the

[talk-au] Basic question

appreciate some guidance on this issue. Kind regards Andrew Parker ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-ph] Data improvements in the Philippines

Hello everyone, This is Andrew again from the Apple team. I wanted to let you know that we are sharing street names missing from OSM in the Philippines under the ODbL in case you were interested in taking a look. The data is in a geojson file with line geometry, name and OSM way ID(s

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au < talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Hi Andrew and list, > > How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a vote process, > or does someone take it upon themselves to document in the wiki any > consensus

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme, Tony, Thorsten, Kim all advocate for not blanket tagging bicycle=no to every normal footpath (for the record I also support this, an explicit bicycle=no can still be tagged where signage is indicating such). Matthew has pointed out cases where

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 18:18, Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au < talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > The question is when is a foothpath with bicycles=yes considered a shared > path? > Should a shared paths be used over footpath=yes ? > >From my NSW perspective, shared paths are always tagged

Re: [talk-au] Way errors in Quilpie Qld

On Sat, Oct 2, 2021 at 10:46 PM Thorsten Engler via Talk-au wrote: > I would assume that the lot boundaries recorded in DCDB are "exact" and any > discrepancy between them and the physical world come down to the margin of > errors the surveyors did when placing boundary pegs at some point. I

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

Bit more discussion going on at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111889860, welcome to the list HighRouleur. These updates are important as a lot of the software and apps that cyclist > use for course routing takes the shortest or fastest routes which could > include illegal paths such as

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >