On Sun, 1 Oct 2023, at 8:25 PM, Yuchen Pei wrote:
> The repo for the vicmap importing project, vicmap2osm[1] seems to be
> missing a license, could you add one please? Thank you.
package.json declares it as under the MIT license, but I've added a dedicated
LICENSE file now for clarity.
> I
On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, at 5:40 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote:
>> I've tried to get StreetComplete to ask about access but it was rejected
>> https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/2930
> note that it was rejected because
> 1) access is at least sometimes unsigned and not
On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 5:39 PM, Little Maps wrote:
> Andrew, thanks for the super fast reply, and for the overpass query which
> I'll cut and paste from! A few thoughts…
>
> AH: 1.98% of tracks have public vehicle access and 8.7% of tracks have no
> public vehicle access (of all tracks). So
One more minor point about my stats, this doesn't count tracks pretty much all
of the track is inaccessible for routing because the access tags are set on a
gate at the start of the track. I know myself and other mappers will sometimes
forget or not bother (which I'll try to correct now) to set
On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 12:08 PM, Little Maps wrote:
> Joe, when you talk about reaching consensus, I assume you mean consensus
> among the Australian osm community, not the global osm community. Is that
> right? The highway=track wiki states: "highway=track does not imply any
> particular
TL;DR;
1. no access tags don't mean access=yes (public) it just means access hasn't
been set.
2. access=unknown is probably better than access=private +
fixme:access=actually unknown access but I don't want routers to use this for
now
On Thu, 19 Aug 2021, at 9:58 PM, Joseph Guillaume wrote:
>
On Thu, 19 Aug 2021, at 4:07 PM, Kevin Pye wrote:
> The Vicmap TR_ROAD table has a column "restrictions", in which a value '4'
> indicates that the road is private. In the latest version of the data, which
> was released only in the last couple of weeks, there are 158,466 roads with
> that
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021, at 4:40 PM, Little Maps wrote:
> Andrew, the 1:25,000 Vic gov topo mps show tracks/driveways on private
> properties in a different colour to those on public land and the map
> legend clearly distinguish the two. So hopefully there is a
> public/private field in the dataset
Thanks for the feedback,
On Mon, 16 Aug 2021, at 7:03 PM, Little Maps wrote:
> Thanks for a great series of projects Andrew. One query… is there an error in
> the Victorian all tracks challenge? It includes nearly 250,000 tracks to be
> reviewed and potentially added to OSM. By contrast,
Collaborating with the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR), I've set up
MapRoulette challenges which identify tracks (highway=track) which appear in
government datasets but are missing in OSM.
The code to produce these challenges and the documentation of source data and
waivers is at
On Thu, 17 Jun 2021, at 6:08 PM, Adam Horan wrote:
>
> The ABS have an interesting factsheet on postcodes and their own 'Postal
> Area' interpretation (POA).
> https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/factsheetspoa
> It starts with this statement:
> *"A postcode is a four digit
On Sun, 13 Jun 2021, at 12:24 PM, Sebastian S. wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Have you considered adding a
> ref:{Vic map reference}={Vic map ID}
> Tag to the imported data points?
>
> Or do you consider a ref tag or source tag an issue for users?
I decided against a reference, see
On Sun, 13 Jun 2021, at 12:21 PM, Sebastian S. wrote:
> Thanks Andrew for this great proactive communication. Please keep at it.
>
> With regards to the suburb etc tags I must say I was swayed for some time.
> However I still feel that including the full address has more benefits for
> the
On Tue, 8 Jun 2021, at 7:33 PM, Ewen Hill wrote:
> Andrew,
> Thank you for both your initial work and the communication as well as the
> listening. Can I congratulate you on the lib/toOSM.js for the capitalisation
> and duplication processing. Very detailed
>
> A few numpty questions after
On Wed, 9 Jun 2021, at 5:36 PM, Benjamin Ceravolo wrote:
> How is address going to be 'placed' onto the map, I assume a node?
>
> My primary question is where is the node going to be placed?
>
> Will it be placed in the centre of the property/parcel? If so, they will be
> fine in denser areas
To sum up the contentious issue of suburb, postcode, state tags,
- Phil, Daniel and Seb would prefer the suburb and postcode on each address
object.
- Andrew Davidson and cleary would prefer we not include suburb and postcode on
each address object and instead require data consumers to derive
On Thu, 27 May 2021, at 8:39 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> On 25/5/21 4:41 pm, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> > I'd make a polite argument there is still value in at least the suburb,
> > possibly postcode being still provided. When exporting data via
> > overpass as CSV; it's not currently easy or
On Tue, 25 May 2021, at 4:41 PM, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> I'd make a polite argument there is still value in at least the suburb,
> possibly postcode being still provided. When exporting data via overpass as
> CSV; it's not currently easy or obvious to appropriately bring in the parent
>
21, at 2:05 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> On this, I'm not sure if this may be an OSMAND problem, or an issue with the
> way the info has been loaded in OSM, but here's something that I noticed a
> few weeks ago, that may apply here?
>
> Had to go visit a bloke for the first time, & his
On Fri, 21 May 2021, at 4:48 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> With regard to postcodes how does it work when there are 2 postcodes out of
> the same mail centre?
>
> EG Gold Coast Mail Centre at Bundall is postcode 4217, but the GC City
> Council, which is in that area, has its own postcode
20 matches
Mail list logo
