On 5/10/23 14:41, Warin wrote:
Community hall, Police, Fire say 10 each
Store, fuel, mechanic say 20 each
Nurse medical facility, RFDS clinic say 30
Doctors say 40
Hospital say 100
I'd wonder if we are building an impossible to manage rule set. For
example, many small town doctor's
What a brilliant piece of work ! And a good outcome too.
Thanks for that effort.
David
On Fri, 2021-12-03 at 14:22 +1100, Little Maps wrote:
> Hi folks, for anyone interested in rural roads, I’ve put together a
> very nerdy review of the super accuracy of OpenStreetMap’s road
> surface tags
Jubal, I think its great you should be putting in an effort like that.
One little worry however, many roads in Australia travel across very
lightly populated areas and are often quite unsuitable for certain
vehicles and drivers who are inexperienced with the conditions. Such
roads are often
highway=rest_area
rest_area:camping=caravan ?
My previous post had :conditional ... and that is wrong.
I don't know about applying camp_site tags to rest areas,
maybe. Will think on it.
On 26-Apr-17 05:29 PM, David Bannon wrote:
Hmm, at risk of a
Hmm, at risk of answering my own question, there is a key, camp_site=*
that is intended to apply to tourism=camp_site. Could you apply it to a
rest area as well ?
highway=rest_area
camp_site=basic
caravan=yes
tent=no
David
On 26/04/17 17:17, David Bannon wrote:
On 25/04/17 20:33, Warin
On 25/04/17 20:33, Warin wrote:
Take the respective 'tourism=camp_site' data to 'highway=rest_area'
with 'caravan=yes'.
Just what will that mean then ? That a caravan can pull into the rest
area ? We will loose the information that camping is, at least
primafacie allowed/practical ?
I
On 20/04/17 19:50, Warin wrote:
Thanks. Sometimes my 'plain English' understanding gets the better of
the 'OSM meanings'!
Hmm, I think people in caravans do think they are camping. If there is a
sign, "no camping" we assume it means no caravans too.
a) I do think that 'rest areas' should be
ple may camp there using tents, campers,
caravans or motor homes. Removing camp_site tags because the site does
not suit one particular style of camping is not appropriate.
Adding tent=no might be the solution you are looking for.
David
On 19/04/17 11:57, Warin wrote:
On 19-Apr-17 11:10 AM, Davi
Warin, I am not sure I agree.
There are a number of what are officially Rest Areas that are set up,
used and officially blessed as camp sites. Now the term "Camp Site"
might mean different things to different people. To people with a
caravan or motor home, and there are a lot of them, a camp
Do you mean without seeing them yourself Warren ? I personally think
that you should only correct another mapper's work if you have
personally seen something that needs correction. I am sure there are
some exceptions. But here, in particular, you seem to have "negative"
information.
Its
Hmm, yes Warin, I agree, I don't really understand what that para is
trying to tell me.
Your alternative seems reasonable. Shorter, clearer.
David
On 03/07/16 08:33, Warin wrote:
Hi,
On the Australian tagging guidelines wiki page there are various
comments on the use of the access tag.
Does not look good Adam !
"shall not copy or reproduce the Licensed Material without the
Licensor’s prior written consent"
"shall keep the Licensed Material confidential and shall not
Commercialise or otherwise disclose"
"shall not . or otherwise disclose the Licensed Material so
On Sun, 2015-05-03 at 17:43 +1000, Ian Sergeant wrote:
Is there supposed to be a subjective step that I'm missing? That is
you look at all the amenity, and make a judgement call on the
category?
Do you mean when using the proposed camp_site= tag Ian ? No, no scope
or need for
times over the last several years, but
either I haven't made it effectively, or I'm wrong.
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 3:39 PM, David Bannon
dban...@internode.on.net wrote:
On Sat, 2015-05-02 at 14:36 +1000, Ian Sergeant wrote:
Hi,
My only observation would
Hi Folks, as some of you are possibly not subscribed to the tagging
mailing list, thought I'd point out a proposal under way.
Its about a rough classification of camp sites in an ordered way. With
the intention of making them a bit easier to render or search for.
On Sat, 2015-05-02 at 14:36 +1000, Ian Sergeant wrote:
Hi,
My only observation would be that in Australia toilets and no water
seems a very common combination at camp grounds. You know the kind of
campground I'm talking about, with either drop toilets or unpotable
water.
Thanks Ian. The
Nicholas, generally, when addressing an envelope for example, we'd say -
somestreet,
Coorparoo,
Queensland, postcode
We'd reserve the use of Brisbane to an address in the CBD itself. Or
so I think...
Apply the same principle here do you think ?
David
On Mon, 2014-10-13 at 23:09 +,
addr:suburb
Personally, I am leaning towards addr:city = Coorparoo as it fits the
convention of addressing letters as you point out.
But I'd like to adhere to the established convention in Australia.
Cheers,
Nick
-Original Message-
From: David Bannon [mailto:dban...@internode.on.net
Interesting proposal on the OSM Tagging list. Oz would have a
unpaved/paved ratio as higher that most countries, we should have an
opinion on this.
So far, reaction has been mixed, some (including myself) welcoming it
and some seeing it as a duplicate of surface=
Comments folks ?
David
On
of private
properties. A very quick check would have prevented that error.
I am pretty sure all we want is for the database to have accurate,
relevant data.
David
On Sat, 2014-05-17 at 22:12 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 8:31 AM, David Bannon
dban...@internode.on.net
On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 18:02 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Nick Hocking
nick.hock...@gmail.com
(sensible statements about house numbers)
I definitely think that road names must NOT be imported but
added individually, where current osm
Grant, are you suggesting the domain is being held in a cyber squatting
mode ? That Michael is holding it with the intention of making a profit
from it ?
David
On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 15:21 +, Grant Slater wrote:
Hi OSM Australia,
Anyone up for this?
The openstreetmapS.com domain is
Yep, as Jason says, its all there under -
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Observatory
Looks to me like Bass drove it initially but just lost steam. Don't
blame him, I did the same when I wanted to get a better definition of
4x4 tracks.
However, the SquareKilometer is just
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 19:13 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
Just a heads up that GA have a tile service for their NATMAP 250K Topo
Maps.
Thanks Andrew, I thought the list might be interested in a few comments
about this service.
Firstly, really cool that they are doing it !
Putting aside the
On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 10:32 +1100, mick wrote:
To gain some confidence in what I've collected I plan to drive as many roads
in my area of interest (Glen Innes, NSW) several times with my two GPS units
recording and find an acceptable level of coincidence before I add anything
to OSM.
On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 18:30 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
but I don't see the benifit in hosting them when GA already do a
pretty good job at this. If your application doesn't support z/y/x
then patch it, and if you can't it would be much simpler to just proxy
the GA tile server to give a
, glad the situation has improved.
David
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 15:36 -0800, Paul Norman wrote:
From: David Bannon [mailto:dban...@internode.on.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Geoscience NATMAP 250K Topo Maps
Then the license holder withdrew the ecw
Interesting Andrew. Do you know much about this service ?
I have been trying to display it in FoxtrotGPS which normally uses OSM
or Google tiles. But I find two puzzling things -
1. While I request png files I seem to get JPEG
2. Their Y and X number system seems to be miles away from where I'd
to look
into what can be done.
Thanks for your help.
David
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 22:20 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
On 13 November 2013 22:01, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote:
Interesting Andrew. Do you know much about this service ?
I know that they also publish the original ECW
Arthur, the HeadlessException might relate to a situation where Java
cannot use you X env correctly. I guess you are not using in a situation
where you are (eg) SSH-ing into the machine ? If so, need to add -X or
-Y to tell it to send its xwindow back to you. And, of course have a
good X server
I agree. Armchair mapping is useful for features difficult to survey and
perhaps appropriate for (eg) roads not yet surveyed but it should never
be applied to overwrite features already present, features probably
accuratly mapped already.
The OSM wiki page on Armchair mapping used to make
Arthur, not every item we enter into the OSM database gets rendered on
the default map on the OSM website. The maintainers of the map have
chosen what they think should appear and how it appears.
Other maps will display a quite different set. Or you can build your own
maps and choose what you
On 03/07/13 08:52, Steve Bennett wrote:
FYI, the map style I'm working on for cycle touring does make this
distinction: http://emscycletours.site44.com/map2.html#egrt
Nice work !
You might be right - but on a technical front, it's no more burdensome
to show all of [unsealed, unpaved, gravel,
Ian, at the time, someone, I am not sure who, preferred 'unsealed'
arguing that unpaved did not mean the same thing. Roads can be sealed in
ways that do not really mean paved.
Personally, I did not care, being more interested in getting it
documented so we all used the same tag. However, now,
Mark, 99% of the times electrification=yes is used, it has railway=
there as well. Can we assume any rendering would look for the railway=
tag first ? I mean to say that no one 'should' assume electrification=
applies only to railways ?
So,
barrier=cattle_grid
electrification=yes
would
Andrew, I don't think the current definitions in OSM provide well for
the range of 'parks' you will encounter. I think its probably best to
try and at least define the borders between various sections, even if
you end up labeling them all with the same.
For example near me there is a section of
at 2:09 PM, David Bannon
dban...@internode.on.net wrote:
I am not sure I agree with you Waldo.. (???).
Its useful in my opinion when ever storing data (of any
nature) to think
about how that data will be used. While we will often find
I am not sure I agree with you Waldo.. (???).
Its useful in my opinion when ever storing data (of any nature) to think
about how that data will be used. While we will often find other use
cases later on, addressing the primary one is important.
I think very few users of map data are
On Tue, 2013-04-23 at 19:27 +1030, Brett Russell wrote:
..
Ok looks like I need to transition to JOSM. Err, how do you even move
around it?
a quick paste from my notes, I refer back to them every time I have been
away from JOSM for awhile. Thats a sure sign of a bad user interface !
I mapped some roads in the state forest I like to play in and noted they
were substantially wrong in Google at the time. Couple of months later,
four or five ? they were fixed in google. Vic forest maps still show
them incorrectly but of course that could be just old releases, maybe
the
Richard, I most certainly don't disagree with with you but maybe the
picture is a little incomplete ?
On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 11:52 -0500, Richard Weait wrote:
... if we wish to suggest a change then suggesting such a change along
with a patch to execute it stands a much better chance of
Hi Russell, maybe you have followed the conversation ? If so, you will
see that I think we do need a new approach but are unlikely to get it
'approved' ? Oh well, won't be the first fight I have lost !
So, the fall back is really as now doc'ed on the Australian Tagging
Guidelines.
Use 4wd_only
I guess people are aware of this story, people in trouble for following
badly constructed maps -
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-10/apple-maps-strands-motorists-looking-for-mildura/4418400
Looks like its to be the lead story on the abc news tonight.
I bet we could all find examples in OSM
On Sun, 2012-11-25 at 20:35 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
One thought that occurs here would be to tag the *maintenance* of a
track rather than its *current state*.
Yep, that would be useful info indeed. Not sure how 'collectible' it
would be though. The (dirt) road that I live on is graded
OK, time I decided we don't really have any prospect of changing
approved tags to address the dirt road situation.
So I will push a model, sort of supported by the three votes recorded (!
). It will use existing tags (approved and unapproved) and accept that
maps such as OSM's are unlikely to
OK, I have to recognise that my proposed proposal is not attracting
any support. So I will walk away. However, that leaves the problem
unsolved and , I still think, dangerously so.
Are there any alternatives folks ? Should we (ie in Australia)
encourage people to use smoothness= for example ? I
On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 14:54 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
..
In summary, I would ask you to pull out attributes of a thoroughfare
which make it 4wd only and tag those instead.
Andrew, thanks for the very carefully considered response.
I agree with just about all the points you make but
Righto folks, I have not had a lot of feedback about the drafted
proposal to tidy up how 4x4 tracks (and other) are described. I added a
bit about what happens when tags conflict after Li queried that but
thats all !
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Davo#Draft_4x4_road_proposal
Its fair
grades 6-8, what happens when a track is tagged with 4wd_only=yes and
grade=6?
Li.
On 06/11/2012, at 2:23 PM, David Bannon wrote:
OK Li, you ask and you shall receive !
Here
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Davo#Draft_4x4_road_proposal
is my very early draft. You
as grade 6? Which tag should take priority?
Isn't 4wd_only=yes and 4WD recommended some what contradicting?
Li.
On 07/11/2012, at 8:20 PM, David Bannon wrote:
Hello Li
what happens when a track is tagged with 4wd_only=yes and grade=6?
Technically I'd see no issue having both those
Yep, good idea Wil. I don't see anything obvious in Map Features,
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features you really have two
choices, define your own or start a campaign to define a suitable key.
First is easier, second will do a heap better job as if most people do
it the same way, its
November 2012 08:47, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
wrote:
Yep, good idea Wil. I don't see anything obvious in Map
Features,
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features you really
have two
choices, define your own or start
I think thats what the access tag is for ?
Access values are used to describe the legal access for highway=*
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
However, as you could forcaste, there is no 4x4 or 4wd value approved.
david
On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 20:28 +1100, Ian Sergeant wrote:
On
david, and you'll be getting plenty of input from me, watch
out ;-)
A draft would be great. Let me know when it's ready to review.
Li.
On 05/11/2012, at 9:10 AM, David Bannon wrote:
Thanks Li, I have not put that proposal up yet, waiting on a
response to a related matter
Maybe the issue is that they cannot, in practice, sign every such bush
track ?
And I don't want them using my taxes to try ! Nope, I think its up to us
to make those decisions. And, dare I say it, apply common sense.
David
On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 14:22 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Sun, Nov
attributes, I see your point and agree
that it's useful data to have. Since my company focuses on 4WD maps
and navigation, we will certainly take full advantage of this.
BTW, do you have the link to the proposal page? Will go and cast a
vote.
Li.
On 04/11/2012, at 2:41 PM, David Bannon wrote:
Li
Li, I beg to differ. While I agree that grading of a 4x4 track is
subjective, so is much of the other data in the OSM database. Must be
that way.
The real issue is how important the data is. As I have mentioned, I am
concerned that maps are being rendered that ignore this data. Routing
engines
Folks, following some suggestions off-list I have rewritted the
proposed unsealed roads section on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Tagging_Guidelines
Emphasis has now been placed on the roads people are thinking about
rather than the tags used. Makes it a bit more friendly to
Li, another complication worth thinking about. In theory, when we map
a road, the highway tag needs to relate to the purpose of the road
rather than the condition. This is a topic that has been under
discussion for the last week or so. And renderers really only seem to
be interested in the
May I suggest one reason why OSM shows so many less localities than
officially listed by Geoscience ?
A very large number of localities really have nothing to identifty
them on site. Maybe a building or two, perhaps a church but in many
cases, just a cross road. Not even a sigh to say where you
Folks, you have every right to call me fickle. But maybe we need to
be realistic ? This is a follow up to the discussion about advice that
appears on Australian_Tagging_Guidelines and a programme to see better
default rendering of dirt and 4x4 roads.
Firstly, I approve of the 4wd_only tag, I
unmade modes. Sigh
But yes, the current descriptions of tracktype are pretty much
English country gardens, but thats something we can work on.
David
- Original Message -
From: David Bannon
To:, , David Bannon
Cc:
Sent:Sun, 28 Oct 2012 13:48:28 +1030
Subject:Re: [talk-au] 4wd_only
Hi folks, I have put _my_ summary of this discussion on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Tagging_Guidelines
discussion tab. if I don't get beaten up too badly about it, I'll move
it to the main page. I am presenting it as the outcome of the group
discussion so please feel
Ross, thats pretty cool.
My plan at the moment is to document this discussion on the OSM wiki
and then start lobbying the people who maintain the OSM website's
slippery map to do just what you have done there. I guess we all
expected it to be do-able but nice to have it confirmed.
Would you mind
Hi Folks, a summary of discussion on dirt roads before I hack at the
discussion tab of Australian_Road_Tagging. Seems to me two issues not
completely clear -
1. Nathan sees all cases of highway=track implying 4x4 required. I
don't really agree, the dynamic range in this space is just too tight,
Hi Folks, some advice please ?
I am interested in getting some OSM data covering the north of the North
Island of NZ, some where I am visiting shortly. However, there is not
extract available and its too big to pull down from the OSM website.
Seems my only choice is to pull down the while
Beauty, great answer, thanks !
Downloaded easily in the airport lounge, lots easier than 5G would
have !
David
On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 08:44 +0800, D Tucny wrote:
2009/1/19 David Bannon d.ban...@vpac.org
Hi Folks, some advice please ?
I am interested in getting some
67 matches
Mail list logo
