[Talk-vi] MapRoulette challenges in Vietnam - find road network problems

Hello OSM Vietnam, Xem bên dưới để dịch tiếng Việt. This is Andrew again from the Apple Maps team. We recently used our Atlas data analysis tool (https://github.com/osmlab/atlas <https://github.com/osmlab/atlas>) to look at a few types of potential issues related to roads and r

Re: [Talk-uy] Retos de MapRoulette en Uruguay

/challenge/9336 Rotondas malformadas: https://maproulette.org/challenge/9337 Problemas de enrutamiento y enrutamiento imposible: https://maproulette.org/challenge/9335 Gracias, Andrew Andrew Wiseman |  Maps | iPhone: +1.202.270.4464 | andrew_wise...@apple.com <mailto:andrew_wise...@apple.

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

The fact that they are not legally enforceable I think is irrelevant, after all you can always tell your router to ignore access=destination if you like. Rather this tagging accurately reflects the officially signposted "recommendation". I agree they are targeted at vehicles, so that's why I'd

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

access=destination, or better yet motor_vehicle=destination (since it probably shouldn't affect foot traffic) The wiki it says "Only when travelling to this element/area; i.e., local traffic only." which is what this imlies that if you're going to somewhere along here you can travel, but not if

[Talk-GB] OS Map Rules

(map and compass) a route along those paths. If I get a GPS trace (e.g. with OSMTracker) while I walk that route, is it acceptable to use this GPS data to update OSM, or would it be considered a derivative of OS data? Kind regards, Andrew Soon-to-be contributor (hopefully

Re: [talk-au] Street names from gis.mn.gov?

I'd recommend leaving a changeset comment to ask, it's likely they've used the wrong comment by mistake as that's a US data portal. On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 at 09:45, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Hi > > Sorry about the cryptic title :-) > > Was looking at the map earlier & spotted a change made by one

Re: [OSM-talk] Maintaining privacy as a casual mapper

Have you talked to the Data Working Group about this? -- Andrew From: 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk Sent: 03 November 2019 16:47 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Maintaining privacy as a casual mapper I find myself being stalked by one mapper

Re: [talk-au] Admin Boundaries of Australia

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 at 00:47, wrote: > Looks great. > > The requestor states that about 75% of the admin boundaries are missing > in Australia. I'll ask the user to contact the ML directly. > Yep and here's the thread discussing an import

Re: [talk-au] Uluru naming consistency

On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 11:08, Michael Gratton wrote: > On Tue, 29 Oct, 2019 at 10:43, Adam Horan wrote: > > I prefer the first proposal from Joachim: > > name = Uluṟu > > name:en = Uluru > > name:pjt = Uluṟu > > alt_name = Ayers Rock > > alt_name:en = Ayers Rock > > official_name = Uluru /

Re: [talk-au] Uluru naming consistency

Thanks for consulting the list for feedback before making the change, such a big change like this should be discussed first. On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 05:40, Joachim wrote: > For the following proposals I added the English and Pitjantjatjara > explicitly because Uluru has some translated names. >

Re: [Talk-ec] Retos de MapRoulette de Ecuador

55> Enrutamiento imposible: https://maproulette.org/challenge/9545 <https://maproulette.org/challenge/9545> Saludos, Andrew Andrew Wiseman |  Maps | iPhone: +1.202.270.4464 | andrew_wise...@apple.com <mailto:andrew_wise...@apple.com> > On Jul 23, 2019, at 11:58 AM, Andrew Wis

Re: [Talk-bo] Retos de MapRoulette en Bolivia

e/9495> Bolivia enrutamiento imposible: https://maproulette.org/challenge/9490 <https://maproulette.org/challenge/9490> Saludos, Andrew Andrew Wiseman |  Maps | iPhone: +1.202.270.4464 | andrew_wise...@apple.com <mailto:andrew_wise...@apple.com> > On Feb 18, 2019, at 4:47 PM, Andrew Wis

Re: [Talk-ar] Retos de MapRoulette en Argentina

tte.org/challenge/9457 <https://maproulette.org/challenge/9457> Argentina enrutamiento imposible: https://maproulette.org/challenge/9458 <https://maproulette.org/challenge/9458> Saludos, Andrew Andrew Wiseman |  Maps | iPhone: +1.202.270.4464 | andrew_wise...@apple.com <mailto:andrew_wi

Re: [talk-au] LPI NSW Lot Boundaries—worthwile to request?

:03, Luke Stewart wrote: > Yes, I was referring to inclusion only in the editor. I am unsure > whether our current waiver from LPI NSW services includes access to lot > boundaries. > > Cheers, > Luke > > On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 15:15, Andrew Harvey > wrote: >

Re: [talk-au] LPI NSW Lot Boundaries—worthwile to request?

You're just asking to see these layers in editors, not actually importing those boundaries into OSM right? The layers are defined at https://github.com/osmlab/editor-layer-index/tree/gh-pages/sources/oceania/au/nsw . On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 11:22, Luke Stewart wrote: > I didn't notice the lot

Re: [talk-au] LPI NSW Lot Boundaries—worthwile to request?

To avoid opening a can of worms, I've been waiting for them to upgrade to CC BY 4.0 before asking for the LWG waiver and instead relying on the pre-waiver permission. They said they were planning to move to CC BY 4.0 but that was about a year and a half ago. On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 07:04, Dion

Re: [Talk-africa] Fix road problems around Africa with MapRoulette: Angola, Egypt, Kenya, Rwanda, South Africa, Tunisia & Uganda

lab/appledata/wiki/MapRoulette-Challenges#africa> Thanks, Andrew Andrew Wiseman |  Maps | iPhone: +1.202.270.4464 | andrew_wise...@apple.com <mailto:andrew_wise...@apple.com> > On Sep 6, 2019, at 4:45 PM, Andrew Wiseman wrote: > > Hello OSM Africa, > > This is Andrew a

Re: [Talk-GB] FIXME/fixme/OSm Notes Quarterly Project

On 2019-10-21 11:26, Andy Townsend wrote: I don't have data for the whole UK, but do have numbers for "OSM notes" and "fixme tags" for a couple of areas going back at least a couple of years. If people are interested I could pull the numbers together. I'd be interested in seeing these

Re: [talk-au] Suburban Tunnel at Sydney Central Station

I'm okay with disused or construction, until we know it's completely gone or replaced. Better to leave it there rather than deleted it helps prevent someone else might just add it back in later without checking on the ground first. On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 at 00:02, Luke Stewart wrote: > G'day, > >

Re: [talk-au] Mapping 'private roads' conclusion

+1 On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 11:56, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok.. I think the following can be done on the Australian Tagging > Guidelines; > > > Remove the words "not map the interior private roads in detail" from > service roads > >

Re: [talk-au] Discussion K: Evaluation of ACT paths audit 2012 and the OSM ACT dataset

On 8/10/19 7:33 pm, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Are you sure that ways signed as designated for cyclists and pedestrians are far more popular than all other ways? I think the issue is that he wants to tag paths like this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/474940890 which looks like this

Re: [talk-au] Mapping 'private roads' conclusion

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 11:56 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Any objections, corrections, better words .. ??? > > No, looks good. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Men's Shed?

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 21:03, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 07/10/19 19:57, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > I added this to the ATG as amenity=community_centre + > community_centre:for=man, > > > 'man' may mean both men and women. On the other hand it maybe the o

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

There is another thread here about the ATG being recently changed and it being discussed to revert this back, so could you please post what tags and kinds of infrastructure you're talking about? On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 10:05, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au < talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote: >

Re: [talk-au] Men's Shed?

I added this to the ATG as amenity=community_centre + community_centre:for=man, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Tagging_Guidelines=revision=1856025=1855758. Not saying we need to follow, this if the discussion leads elsewhere it can be updated. To me it seems more like

Re: [talk-au] Consistent tagging of botanic gardens around Australia - leisure=park vs leisure=garden

On 7/10/19 3:55 pm, Warin wrote: The landuse=forest one is probably an arboretum. It's a botanical garden laid out in an area of bushland: https://www.northernbeaches.nsw.gov.au/things-to-do/recreation-area/stony-range-regional-botanic-garden I separated out the arboreta from the list.

Re: [talk-au] Men's Shed?

On 7/10/19 2:18 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: As per the title, what do we call a Men's Shed? https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2018-January/011639.html ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

Re: [talk-au] Consistent tagging of botanic gardens around Australia - leisure=park vs leisure=garden

The current tagging for Australian botanical gardens is: leisure=park 57 leisure=garden 43 leisure=nature_reserve 6 lesiure=playground 1 tourism=attraction 2 tourism=zoo 2 landuse=forest 1 no object tagging 1 It would appear that the parkiness is more interesting than the gardeny

Re: [talk-au] Kingston (Norfolk Island) capital tag

+1 On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 01:54, Joachim wrote: > Hello Aussie mappers, > > a quick heads-up that i plan to change the capital tag[1] in Kingston > (Norfolk Island) from "yes" to "4".[2] > Rationale: Norfolk Island is not self-governing any more[3] and the > boundary is admin_level=4 [4]. > >

Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed edits to Australian Tagging Guidelines on tagging footpaths/cycleways (Was: Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law)

On 6/10/19 8:12 am, David Wales wrote: Why did he remove the bridge tag? I think he doesn't understand how to tag man_made=bridge because he took the bridge tags off the other ways as well: http://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=69845883 ___

Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed edits to Australian Tagging Guidelines on tagging footpaths/cycleways (Was: Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law)

On 4/10/19 10:53 pm, Andy Townsend wrote: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1698#issuecomment-134914770 Thanks for that. I hadn't realised there was yet another prioblem with using the path tag: highway=path bicycle=designated is currently rendered differently to

[talk-au] On the origin of path tags (Was: Undiscussed edits to Australian Tagging Guidelines on tagging footpaths/cycleways)

On 4/10/19 10:53 pm, Andy Townsend wrote: In places like Germany, however, dedicated infrastructure is more common, and there are usually signs telling you exactly what you are allowed to do.  As I understand it (and this was before my time, so this is largely hearsay) "cycleway" and

Re: [talk-au] Mapping 'private roads'

As you mention I can see these being useful for emergency services or anyone who has been granted access to private roads/tracks. If you're mapping based on what you can see from the aerial imagery, then I see no issue with mapping these as access=private. On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 09:46, Warin

Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed edits to Australian Tagging Guidelines on tagging footpaths/cycleways (Was: Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law)

On 4/10/19 5:20 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote: though for something that's unpaved then highway=path and highway=footway mean the same thing to me. I think at one point footway was assumed to be paved and path unpaved. The default now appears to be unpaved for both as they are rendered the same

Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed edits to Australian Tagging Guidelines on tagging footpaths/cycleways (Was: Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law)

. On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 16:48, Andrew Davidson wrote: > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:30 PM Andrew Harvey > wrote: > >> I'm mildly for reverting, although I'm happy to hear out arguments either >> way and be proven wrong. >> > > Up until May this year path meant an un

Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed edits to Australian Tagging Guidelines on tagging footpaths/cycleways (Was: Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law)

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:30 PM Andrew Harvey wrote: > I'm mildly for reverting, although I'm happy to hear out arguments either > way and be proven wrong. > Up until May this year path meant an unsealed "track" that was too small for vehicles (or at least that's how mappers w

Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed edits to Australian Tagging Guidelines on tagging footpaths/cycleways (Was: Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law)

9 at 16:01, Andrew Davidson wrote: > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 3:09 PM Herbert.Remi via Talk-au < > talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> There are almost no paths in the ACT compliant with Australian Tagging >> Guidelines >> > > Thanks for bringing that to our

Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed edits to Australian Tagging Guidelines on tagging footpaths/cycleways (Was: Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law)

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:06 PM Daniel O'Connor wrote: > +1. > > Do have to amend the bits around not legal for SA cyclists to be on > footpaths given > https://www.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/23438/DPTI-Cycling-and-the-Law-Booklet.pdf > These days it might be easier to say everywhere

Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed edits to Australian Tagging Guidelines on tagging footpaths/cycleways (Was: Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law)

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:13 PM Ewen Hill wrote: > Daniel, >I thought it was 250watts for e-bikes (a European standard now > basically global) so the book may be incorrect anyway > > Isn't that what it says on page 3? ___ Talk-au mailing list

[talk-au] Undiscussed edits to Australian Tagging Guidelines on tagging footpaths/cycleways (Was: Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law)

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 3:09 PM Herbert.Remi via Talk-au < talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > There are almost no paths in the ACT compliant with Australian Tagging > Guidelines > Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Turns out that a "helpful" wiki user radically changed the suggested way

Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law

On 30/9/19 9:20 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > One other shared path nearby, they're "painted" on the path itself, rather than separate signs, & are no longer in very good condition! :-) That's why I don't sweat the whole designated/yes thing. All we're essentially mapping is whether or

Re: [OSM-talk] From the SotM: tagging session

On 30/9/19 14:50, Roland Olbricht wrote: It has been a talking point that the wiki should be purely descriptive. There is no objection that people sort out tagging questions in the wiki, but the mixture of purely descriptive and as normative intended pages would cause confusion. By

Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 06:42, Andrew Davidson wrote: > On 29/9/19 10:41 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access says designated means > > "...in general this means that there is a (explicit) sign saying > > som

Re: [talk-au] Discussion F: landuse=residential

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 13:31, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au < talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > # Discussion F: landuse=residential > > ## The Issue > > I am very interest in improving quality and consistency. In this case, the > question is inconsistent or incomplete? I have discovered that many >

Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 7:30 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Examples of the signs are given on the linked page > > > Yeap, the law is the same as the ACT. I was more interested in how consistently they are installed in Queensland. In the ACT as a rule they don't put them up (but they will use

Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law

On 29/9/19 10:41 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access says designated means "...in general this means that there is a (explicit) sign saying something like 'pedestrians allowed', or a pedestrian icon." So if signposted for a particular mode, I'd

Re: [talk-au] "designated" for foot and bicycle (was: Re: Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law)

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 21:33, Andy Townsend wrote: > They're designed for use by foot > and bicycle traffic, and foot and bicycle traffic is at the very least > actively encouraged from using them in preference to the parallel > roads. Whether that should be "=yes" or "=designated" on these

Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 20:35, Andrew Davidson wrote: > On 28/9/19 8:55 am, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > If the way is specifically for a particular mode, then use > > mode=designated. So a shared cycle pedestrian path is > > foot=designated+bicycle=designated. > > Actu

Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law

On 28/9/19 8:55 am, Andrew Harvey wrote: If the way is specifically for a particular mode, then use mode=designated. So a shared cycle pedestrian path is foot=designated+bicycle=designated. Actually in Australia if a path is designated for bicycles then you can't walk on it: http://www8

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

We can check for properties where the brand:wikidata tag was left behind by checking the other tags, particularly name= and shop=. -- Andrew From: SK53 Sent: 28 September 2019 17:32 To: Silent Spike Cc: Talk GB Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook

Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law

If the way is specifically for a particular mode, then use mode=designated. So a shared cycle pedestrian path is foot=designated+bicycle=designated. A footpath (US sidewalk) which allowed bikes but not designated for them would be foot=designated + bicycle=yes + footway=sidewalk, a cycle only path

Re: [talk-au] Centrelink locations

I haven't sent one, feel free to send one and add it to the catalogue (even if you don't hear back, if it's helpful to keep track of what we've sent and when). On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 21:41, David Wales wrote: > Dear Talk-AU, > > I have found a dataset on data.gov.au with Centrelink addresses, >

Re: [talk-au] Consistent tagging of botanic gardens around Australia - leisure=park vs leisure=garden

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 10:58, Daniel Graus wrote: > Recently, the Sydney Royal Botanic Gardens were changed from > leisure=garden to leisure=park. This change prompted some discussion ( > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/73984430) but no firm conclusions > really arose, with the gardens

Re: [talk-au] Consistent tagging of botanic gardens around Australia - leisure=park vs leisure=garden

On 24/9/19 10:56 am, Daniel Graus wrote: Should all botanical gardens be changed to match one another? Is leisure=park or leisure=garden more correct in some/the majority/all of these cases? OK, a quick global survey Of the ~2,500 botanical gardens that are in Wikidata and have a match

Re: [talk-au] Three rules for OSM planning in Canberra

Uh, what does all this have to do with OSM? On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 at 21:08, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au < talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Three rules for OSM planning in Canberra > **Rule 1: In Australian Communist Territory everything is owned by the > government, > Rule 2: everything is

Re: [talk-au] Topic B: inconsistencies, idiosynchrosies and vagueness

I completely agree the "how to map" of OpenStreetMap (not just tags, but also things like when to split a highway, when to snap nodes, what should be mapped etc) is full of "inconsistencies, idiosyncrasies and vagueness". But when I look at where OSM is today I think we've done a pretty amazing

Re: [talk-au] Newcastle to Ballina Pacific Highway classification

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 16:32, Luke Stewart wrote: > On the 100km/hr speed limit, there are many dual carriageways within and > outside that have a 100 limits, including (virtually) the entire ring road > and the M4 (NSW speed zone guidelines stipulates that 100km/hr is for urban > motorways and

Re: [talk-au] Discussion of state regulation and planing issues for OSM

+1 to what Andrew and Seb have already said. This mailing list is a great place for this kind of discussion (including 1-5). It ensures the discussion is publicly documented for reference, everyone is included (no private discussion) and accessible regardless of where you based, and unlike slack

Re: [talk-au] Discussion of state regulation and planing issues for OSM

On 19/9/19 09:41, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au wrote: Are there any suggestions where matter 4 and 5 could be discussed and links provided so that the OSM community can communicate, negotiate and formulate a direction for these things? I can't suggest anything as I don't understand your

Re: [talk-au] Newcastle to Ballina Pacific Highway classification

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 7:23 AM Aleksandar Matejevic (E-Search) via Talk-au wrote: > > Near Newcastle there is “END MOTORWAY” sign ( >

[Talk-pt] Fixação da costa e das águas interiores nos Açores e na Madeira / Coastline and water fixes in the Azores and Madeira

Hello OSM Portugal, (Versão em português abaixo) My name is Andrew, I work for Apple on the Maps team. We are interested in doing some fixes and improvements to water features and the coastlines around the Azores and Madeira on OSM, such as adding and improving geometry of coastlines, lakes

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 18:07, Jonathon Rossi wrote: > True, but that quote was that they wouldn't relicense under the ODbL. I > hadn't really thought about it as relicensing, but by definition removing a > clause would be a modified license. Interesting that heaps of other > agencies are

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 15:31, Jonathon Rossi wrote: > I had considered providing feedback to the Licensing WG a while back on > this, but since I wasn't in contact with DNRM I don't think I had enough > information to justify to them that this might help get them across the > line. In your

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 12:43, Jonathon Rossi wrote: > I guess lawyers don't want to authorise and public servants don't want to > sign anything that isn't written there, the reference material is all > useful and explains everything but that isn't on the signing page. > > Maybe instead of this:

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 12:41, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > With regard to my ongoing issues with GCCC, the latest obstacle is because > there are 2 online versions of CC BY 3.0 - they apparently say the same > thing, but are formatted differently, which was enough to throw things into > utter

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 11:48, Jonathon Rossi wrote: > I agree that neither side is likely change their position. > > Could we propose (to OSMF) new wording for an updated waiver that makes it > clearer, the attribution half doesn't seem like a problem, its the second > half which mentions ODbL

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 11:07, Greg Lauer wrote: > Just so I am clear on this issue. We are not asking DERM to change the > current CC4 licence. We are asking DERM to give us formal permission to use > the data. This can be as simple as an email from a responsible party at > DERM giving us

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

use > BY 4.0-licensed material in the OSM project. This is the best path forward. If you would like a second voice for your enquiry with Gold Coast, feel free to loop me in. On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 07:34, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 21:02, Andrew Harvey > wrote:

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 18:05, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > See https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ > > CC BY 4.0 requires waiver > > The additional text is confirmation that it is > actually released under this licence > and that personal confirmation is not required. >

Re: [talk-au] Are we allowed to use PTV datasets (CC 4.0)?

On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 23:29, Aaron Fang Shenhao wrote: > Hi everyone, > > This is my first time using the mailing list. > Welcome! > I’ve noticed that PTV’s (Public Transport Victoria) datasets ( > https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/footer/data-and-reporting/datasets/) all fall > under Creative

Re: [talk-ph] Help fix the road network in the Philippines with MapRoulette challenges

Hi Maning, We aren’t currently planning to work on these, but may in the future. I’ve done a few myself for fun though. We ran this analysis for a number of countries, and I figured I should let the communities know about them sooner rather than later so the data doesn’t get too stale. Andrew

Re: [talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 17:29, Frederik Ramm wrote: > "Come for a serious bushwalk or a casual jog, visit a lookout in the > winter for whale watching off the coast, or break out the binoculars for > birdwatching. There are cycling opportunities on fire trails and plenty > of chances to cool off

Re: [talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands

First up, I appreciate your work mediating here Frederik, thank you. On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 15:46, Frederik Ramm wrote: > On 12.09.19 06:27, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > It's always better to have this mapped based on confirmations on the > > ground, and it appears in this case

Re: [talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 13:45, Greg Lauer wrote: > Hi Frederick, > > There is 'authoratative' data available for NPWS estate - > https://data.nsw.gov.au/data/dataset?q=NPWS+track===_format=_id==score+desc%2C+metadata_modified+desc > and > we have a waiver - >

Re: [talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands

On 12/9/19 05:31, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: Since then the pressure from the mountain bike community to has map everything has reduced,  presumably the mountain bike  community has realized that OSM is one of the tools the authorities use to locate illegal trails. That's only going to

Re: [talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 06:23, Frederik Ramm wrote: > On 9/11/19 21:31, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: > > The construction and use of unauthorized trails is illegal with large > > penalties (though I have never heard of a prosecution). > > Are there sources that are not restricted by copyright

Re: [talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 23:40, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > the DWG was drawn into an edit war regarding several paths that were > mapped in this area: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-34.3740/150.8761 > > The argument is about in how far the (largely north-south running) paths > are

[talk-ph] Help fix the road network in the Philippines with MapRoulette challenges

Hi OSM Philippines, My name is Andrew, I work for Apple on the Maps team. We recently used our Atlas data analysis tool (https://github.com/osmlab/atlas <https://github.com/osmlab/atlas>) to look at a few types of potential issues related to roads and routing on OpenStreetMap, such as

[Talk-africa] Fix road problems around Africa with MapRoulette: Angola, Egypt, Kenya, Rwanda, South Africa, Tunisia & Uganda

Hello OSM Africa, This is Andrew again with Apple’s Maps team. We recently used our Atlas data analysis tool (https://github.com/osmlab/atlas <https://github.com/osmlab/atlas>) to look at a few types of potential issues related to roads and routing, such as overly sharp road angles,

[OSM-Talk-ZA] Help improve the map with MapRoulette challenges in South Africa

Hello OSM South Africa, This is Andrew again with Apple’s Maps team. We recently used our Atlas data analysis tool (https://github.com/osmlab/atlas <https://github.com/osmlab/atlas>) to look at a few types of potential issues related to roads and routing, such as roads that have overly

Re: [Talk-br] Desafios MapRoulette no Brasil

browse/challenges/8650> Entre em contato se tiver alguma dúvida ou comentário. Obrigado, Andrew Andrew Wiseman |  Maps | iPhone: +1.202.270.4464 | andrew_wise...@apple.com <mailto:andrew_wise...@apple.com> > On Jul 29, 2019, at 10:34 AM, Andrew Wiseman por (Talk-br) >

Re: [talk-au] [Imports] Australia / Victoria / Melbourne - VicMap Property

On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 08:11, Simon Jackson wrote: > On one hand we're already snapping features like parks, landuse, and a >> variety of amenity tags to the property boundaries (based on aerial >> imagery), how would you reconcile what's in OSM already vs what you propose >> to import? >> > > As

Re: [talk-au] [Imports] Australia / Victoria / Melbourne - VicMap Property

On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 at 10:02, Simon Jackson wrote: > *Short Version:* > https://arcg.is/0Tu8Tb > Start a discussion on incorporating the VicMap Property dataset into OSM. > Sorry I can't see that link without an ESRI login. > *The Data* > The VicMap dataset consists of a number of layers that

Re: [talk-au] OSGeo Oceania's OSMF Local Chapter Application

I've just submitted this application to OSMF now. On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 22:23, Andrew Harvey wrote: > Hi all, > > OSGeo Oceania has put together the OSMF Local Chapter application, it's > now being presented back to the community for any final feedback or > thoughts before

Re: [talk-au] play ground locations and much more from open data source but how?

We have the waiver already https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue, but regardless you still need to follow the import guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines. I second what Andrew Davidson has said, that care should be taken given we have a lot

Re: [talk-au] Tagging of Aboriginal flag

On Sun., 18 Aug. 2019, 2:21 pm Andrew Davidson, wrote: > On 17/8/19 9:29 am, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > According to the wiki > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dflagpole you can use > > flag:wikidata to specify the exact flag. The Australian Aborigi

Re: [talk-au] Tagging of Aboriginal flag

On 17/8/19 9:29 am, Andrew Harvey wrote: According to the wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dflagpole you can use flag:wikidata to specify the exact flag. The Australian Aboriginal Flag is https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1285625 and the Torres Strait Islander Flag is https

Re: [talk-au] play ground locations and much more from open data source but how?

On 18/8/19 11:07 am, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au wrote: how to do this? Step 1 read this: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines I want to upload the play ground locations to OSM. It's not just a case of "uploading". A large number of playgrounds in Canberra have already been

Re: [talk-au] Tagging of Aboriginal flag

According to the wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dflagpole you can use flag:wikidata to specify the exact flag. The Australian Aboriginal Flag is https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1285625 and the Torres Strait Islander Flag is https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q462621. Then there

[talk-au] OSGeo Oceania's OSMF Local Chapter Application

Hi all, OSGeo Oceania has put together the OSMF Local Chapter application, it's now being presented back to the community for any final feedback or thoughts before being submitted to OSMF. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GAMY_pLAUMXe-PjJhQ4C4Eqvn2rq9xEt2mse3WexNxg/edit?usp=sharing I'll

Re: [OSM-talk] Using OSM as database for nature park hiking routes?

The hiking routes https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking#Tagging_walking_and_hiking_Route_Networks added to OSM should be verifiable https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability. Talking from my experience, there are a lot of hiking paths, but only some are signposted routes, so only

Re: [talk-au] Residential Poolside Building

in the spatial distribution of tennis courts and their relationship to polo grounds? I agree with Andrew that marking a building next to a private swimming pool as anything other than "building=yes", almost always calls for pure speculation. Whether it's a pool shed, cabana or out

Re: [talk-au] Residential Poolside Building

On 13/8/19 08:59, Sebastian S. wrote: I've also been mapping pools occasionally. Thinking about it I'm actually not sure what the value for the map could be but they stand out a lot on good quality aerial images. Mapping them is probably adding about the same amount of value to the map as

Re: [talk-au] Residential Poolside Building

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 20:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/08/19 19:46, Benjamin Ceravolo wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I've been tracing in residential swimming pools Please use access=private on those that aren't open to the public. > > and I have not as yet > > found an

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 17:27, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > It's even hard to recommend apps like Maps.me when they don't > attribute Openstreetmap, instead putting their own logo in the lower > right corner. > > If people don't know that OSM is the source of the data in a map, they > won't know how

[talk-au] City of Launceston Imagery + Open Data

City of Launceston have completed both the imagery tracing waiver, and CC BY waiver for their open data. I've updated https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue with the details. The imagery should make it into editors through

[talk-au] February 2019 Imagery for ACT

The ACT Government have published their updated February 2019 imagery through their open data portal, which we have the waiver to use. The PR to add this to iD and JOSM is at https://github.com/osmlab/editor-layer-index/pull/689 but in

Re: [Talk-br] Desafios MapRoulette no Brasil

saber se você tiver alguma dúvida or feedback. Obrigado, Andrew Andrew Wiseman |  Maps | iPhone: +1.202.270.4464 | andrew_wise...@apple.com <mailto:andrew_wise...@apple.com> > On Feb 26, 2019, at 11:31 AM, Andrew Wiseman por (Talk-br) > wrote: > > Olá OSM Brasil &

Re: [talk-au] Road classification in AUS

> I'm not sure why other users are not using attributes/tags like lanes, surface, smoothness, maxspeed, toll and other attributes which would be of great help to figure out what is the capacity of the road. Do you mean OSM mappers, or downstream consumers of OSM data? A lot of mappers are

Re: [talk-au] Removing "WikiProject" prefix

I don't see any issues, fine with me. On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 at 07:07, dcapillae wrote: > Hi, > > I am Daniel, from Spain. I would like to change the name of the wiki > pages related to the Australia mapping project to remove the > "Wikiproject" prefix following the pages name conventions [1]. > >

<    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   >