Re: [talk-au] farm airstrips

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Especially with the "runway" apparently going through a tree & 2 fences!

Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 at 18:36, Andrew Welch via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Considering there's also a "hanger" there that doesn't seem to be visible
> on any aerial imagery I just checked, I'm in favour of deleting it. It just
> doesn't seem to actually exist, and I question where the name came from.
> ---
> Thanks,
> Andrew Welch
> m...@andrewwelch.net
>
>
> On 29/04/2024 5:34 pm, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> the DWG was contacted by the owner of some farmland about an
> aerodrome=airport that was mapped on their property and which they would
> like to have removed since it was not a published airstrip and while they
> occasionally used it for take-offs and landings they don't want ir promoted.
>
> My standard response in cases like this would be "I can mark it
> access=private but if something is clearly there, I cannot remove it."
>
> I have checked with aerial imagery though and there is absolutely nothing
> on the aerial imagery that would set this "airstrip" apart from the
> neighbouring grassland. Yes it looks like I could land a plane there, but I
> could also land a plane the next field over, or a little bit further east
> or west - it all looks the same. I assume that there might be a clue
> locally like a windsock or so, but other than that, nothing.
>
> I'd therefore be tempted to delete the airstrip from OSM. Opinions about
> that? Here's the area:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-38.3681/145.3901
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Question about using NSW Speed Zone Data in OSM

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

They responded a few days ago but, as we're travelling atm, I didn't have a
chance to do anything about it.

Their response:

"We sincerely appreciate your efforts in bringing to our attention the
organised edits rules and guidelines, of which we were previously unaware.
We acknowledge the necessity to adhere to these guidelines and commit to
creating a wiki page for our organised edits accordingly. However, we
kindly request some time to complete this task.

Regarding our compliance with other editing rules, we are confident that we
are fully adhering to them. It's important to note that our system utilises
tools that rely on OpenStreetMap data. Upon discovering numerous
discrepancies in the NSW speed zone data within OpenStreetMap, we initiated
edits to rectify these inconsistencies.

Our editing process follows a detailed verification procedure, outlined as
follows:


   1. A driver reports a speed discrepancy on a specific road.
   2. The driver report undergoes thorough verification and is escalated
   for further examination.
   3. We utilise NSW Speed Data (
   https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/speed-zones) to verify the
   reported speed limit.
   4. If the claimed speed limit aligns with the NSW Speed Data, we proceed
   to update it in OpenStreetMap.
   5. Conversely, if the reported speed limit does not match the NSW Speed
   Data, we reject the claim. However, if multiple drivers report the same
   speed limit discrepancy over time, we request evidence from the drivers,
   often resulting in the provision of images depicting posted speed limit
   signs. Based on this evidence, we update the speed limits in OpenStreetMap
   accordingly.


We are eager to address any discrepancies that other mappers may have
reported concerning the edits we have made. Could they kindly provide us
with evidence to facilitate a detailed investigation? This will enable us
to reassess and update our map editing processes as necessary.

Our primary objective in making these edits is to enhance the experience of
our drivers and community. Therefore, we welcome any suggestions or further
discussion that would contribute to ensuring the accuracy of our edits."

Don't know if that answers the questions you have?

I've suggested that they set up an account here to talk about what they are
doing.

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 at 11:36, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Message sent to User pointing out the OE Guidelines & also asking for
> their sources.
>
> To f/up next week.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 at 22:10, Andy Townsend  wrote:
>
>> On 21/02/2024 11:45, Mark Pulley wrote:
>>
>> I’ve got some further info on how this user has been editing (see comment
>> on changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117791362 )
>>
>> In short, Harsimranjit works for an un-named company. Unspecified people
>> can report an incorrect speed limit on a road segment, it is verified
>> (?how?) by someone else in the company, then goes to Harsimranjit who
>> checks the claimed speed limit change with NSW Speed Zone Data, then if the
>> NSW Speed Zone Data matches the proposed change, the edit is made. This
>> process has obviously not worked in at least a few of these changesets (the
>> ones I found had been changed incorrectly).
>>
>>
>> Separate to any other issues, at the very least, that company should be
>> following the organised editing guidelines.  If you drop an email to
>> d...@openstreetmap.org, we can try and persuade them to do so.  I don't
>> think we've had a ticket or report about this particular one so far.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Andy (from the DWG)
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Mass Edit Proposal - South Australia's Arterial Traffic Network

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Please have a look at
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mass-edit-proposal-south-australias-arterial-traffic-network/110006/2
& comment if you wish.

NB I am only posting this to get the word out, the proposal has nothing at
all to do with me!

Thanks

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

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Yep, any "normal" mapper would have been reverted & had a holiday if they
persisted, long before this!

Thanks

Graeme


On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 20:01, Andrew Welch  wrote:

> As much as we want to wait on them and work with them, there’s probably a
> point at which we should treat their edits like vandalism (and just revert
> their deletions) until they actually work with us.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew Welch
> m...@andrewwelch.net
>
>
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 8:13 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>> I've yet had no response back from Stephen Stenberg re Slate Falls
>> Lookout, after I basically repeated what you all had already said to him :-(
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 10:51, Andrew Welch via Talk-au <
>> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>>> The user who's edits were revered by Frederik has now tagged those ways
>>> as access=no, hopefully that means the message is starting to get across to
>>> NPWS.
>>>
>>> They did set some questionable names on those trails though, and haven't
>>> replied to a changeset comment asking about those.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Andrew Welch
>>> m...@andrewwelch.net
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 23:12, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>>>
>>>> There’s probably going to be other examples of NPWS deleting paths.
>>>> I’ve just had a look at the Jungle Circuit in Blackheath. This was deleted
>>>> by NPWS https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144648041 - at least
>>>> most of it was, a small bridge was left behind near the creek, and the
>>>> first part from Rodriguez Pass was left alone. With Rodriguez Pass
>>>> currently closed, I’m not able to check it in-person. It was passable in
>>>> 2017, with some indistinct sections, so it’s possible that the 2020 fires
>>>> and 2022 floods have finished it off. I’ve asked a clarifying question on
>>>> the changeset.
>>>>
>>>> Mark P.
>>>>
>>>> On 27 Feb 2024, at 8:53 pm, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I haven't followed this thread and I don't know if this is relevant to
>>>> the discussion but I have just reverted the deletion of a bunch of paths in
>>>> Tweed Shire, NSW here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147956474
>>>> - the deleter claims to have ties to NPS.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09"
>>>> E008°23'33"
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>
>>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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

Thanks

Graeme


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

> The user who's edits were revered by Frederik has now tagged those ways as
> access=no, hopefully that means the message is starting to get across to
> NPWS.
>
> They did set some questionable names on those trails though, and haven't
> replied to a changeset comment asking about those.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew Welch
> m...@andrewwelch.net
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 23:12, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>
>> There’s probably going to be other examples of NPWS deleting paths. I’ve
>> just had a look at the Jungle Circuit in Blackheath. This was deleted by
>> NPWS https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144648041 - at least most
>> of it was, a small bridge was left behind near the creek, and the first
>> part from Rodriguez Pass was left alone. With Rodriguez Pass currently
>> closed, I’m not able to check it in-person. It was passable in 2017, with
>> some indistinct sections, so it’s possible that the 2020 fires and 2022
>> floods have finished it off. I’ve asked a clarifying question on the
>> changeset.
>>
>> Mark P.
>>
>> On 27 Feb 2024, at 8:53 pm, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>>
>> I haven't followed this thread and I don't know if this is relevant to
>> the discussion but I have just reverted the deletion of a bunch of paths in
>> Tweed Shire, NSW here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147956474
>> - the deleter claims to have ties to NPS.
>>
>> --
>> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks Frederik!

Had spotted that earlier & was going to ask if anybody could confirm it,
but got caught up with other stuff.

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 at 19:56, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> I haven't followed this thread and I don't know if this is relevant to
> the discussion but I have just reverted the deletion of a bunch of paths
> in Tweed Shire, NSW here
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147956474 - the deleter claims
> to have ties to NPS.
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Question about using NSW Speed Zone Data in OSM

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Message sent to User pointing out the OE Guidelines & also asking for their
sources.

To f/up next week.

Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 at 22:10, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 21/02/2024 11:45, Mark Pulley wrote:
>
> I’ve got some further info on how this user has been editing (see comment
> on changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117791362 )
>
> In short, Harsimranjit works for an un-named company. Unspecified people
> can report an incorrect speed limit on a road segment, it is verified
> (?how?) by someone else in the company, then goes to Harsimranjit who
> checks the claimed speed limit change with NSW Speed Zone Data, then if the
> NSW Speed Zone Data matches the proposed change, the edit is made. This
> process has obviously not worked in at least a few of these changesets (the
> ones I found had been changed incorrectly).
>
>
> Separate to any other issues, at the very least, that company should be
> following the organised editing guidelines.  If you drop an email to
> d...@openstreetmap.org, we can try and persuade them to do so.  I don't
> think we've had a ticket or report about this particular one so far.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy (from the DWG)
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

It would be interesting to see what Strava shows, so yes, please, Tom, I'd
like to see the OT link.

Thanks

Graeme


On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 at 22:22, Tom Brennan  wrote:

> I thought I'd see if the tagging details in the US Trail Access Project
> link might be useful for Australia.
>
> I tagged all of the tracks out at Kanangra - mainly because it has a mix
> of tracks, but few enough that it's easy to cover them all - with
> operator=NPWS or informal as appropriate. Basically the maintained ones
> with operator tags, others as informal.
>
> I know Gaia (for example) renders informal tracks with less priority
> than formal tracks, though I don't know exactly the combinations of tags
> they are focussing on. I believe they refresh their tiles every 2-3
> weeks so I'll have a look again in a few weeks.
>
> If you're into mapping bush tracks, I hacked an Overpass Turbo query
> which does a pretty good job of visualising some of the useful tags (and
> where tags are missing). Happy to share.
>
> cheers
> Tom
> 
> Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
> Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com
>
> On 24/02/2024 8:10 am, Mark Pulley wrote:
> > I had suggested changing to access=no, or adding a disused: prefix
> (mainly to keep NPWS happy), but looking at this page, the recommendation
> seems to be to keep the tags as they are now (access=discouraged,
> informal=yes).
> >
> > Mark P.
> >
> >> On 23 Feb 2024, at 7:29 pm, Tom Brennan  wrote:
> >>
> >> Given this thread is still going, the US has a useful collaboration
> resource between mappers and land managers
> >>
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project
> >>
> >> cheers
> >> Tom
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Now talking to NPWS.

One question for everybody.

Mark P was there in Nov 2023 & track was still there, with no "Track
closed, keep out" or similar signage.

Has anybody been there since then & can confirm or otherwise that this is
still the case?

Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 at 16:44, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Message resent regarding proposed Liaison Officer & also confirming track
> in question.
>
> Awaiting response.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 17:16, Phil Wyatt  wrote:
>
>> I have also contacted Stephen privately to see if he wants to chat
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers - Phil
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Graeme Fitzpatrick 
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 20, 2024 5:54 PM
>> *To:* Andrew Welch 
>> *Cc:* Mark Pulley ; OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List
>> 
>> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
>>
>>
>>
>> NPWS have now contacted DWG again.
>>
>>
>>
>> I was in the process of responding to his comments, was up to ~10
>> paragraphs, then hit the wrong button in our DWG system & deleted the
>> lot!!! :-(
>>
>>
>>
>> That's well & truly enough for today so I'll try again (after trying to
>> remember what I said!) tomorrow.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 16:10, Andrew Welch via Talk-au <
>> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>> I think it might also be important to state that OSM is a database, so if
>> consumers aren’t rendering tracks properly if tagged as such, the issue is
>> with them not us, and that what they are doing can be considered as
>> vandalism by mappers. We have ways to reflect the current state, and ensure
>> that mappers unaware of these discussions won’t go ahead and re-add the
>> trails.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Andrew Welch
>>
>> m...@andrewwelch.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 3:45 pm, Mark Pulley 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I’ve just had another private message from Stephen Stenberg:
>>
>>
>>
>> I had replied privately:
>>
>>
>>
>> Prior to reversion, we had been discussing this for several months at the
>> talk-au mailing list. I had delayed the reversion as I was of the
>> understanding that someone from NPWS was about to join the discussion, but
>> that did not eventuate.
>>
>> For reasons discussed on some of the previous changesets, and on the
>> mailing list, there should be something present. I’ve added a comment to my
>> changeset regarding a couple of suitable changes, and have sent a note back
>> to the mailing list for further discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> I had also added a comment to the most recent changeset.
>>
>>
>>
>> He has replied to me:
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope this message finds you well. Several months ago, you were informed
>> about the decision to exclude certain paths near Apsley Falls Campground
>> from OpenStreetMap. Despite clear communication from the NSW National Parks
>> and Wildlife Service (NPWS) stating that these tracks, at their request,
>> have been removed, it appears there is a persistent effort to reintroduce
>> them.
>>
>> It is important to emphasize that these paths are situated on NPWS land,
>> and as part of their management strategy, NPWS no longer wishes for these
>> paths to be displayed. Reinstating these pathways not only contradicts NPWS
>> wishes but also requires additional work hours from their end to rectify
>> the situation.
>>
>> It is crucial to understand that NPWS has already dedicated resources to
>> remove these paths, and by reapplying them, it creates unnecessary
>> challenges. I urge you to respect NPWS’s decision and refrain from adding
>> these paths back onto OpenStreetMap.
>>
>> Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated and will
>> contribute to the effective management of the area.
>>
>> Thank you for your understanding.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have replied back, requesting that he either make comments on the
>> changeset, or discuss on the mailing list, rather than send private
>> messages, as I don’t want to be passing messages back and forth. (Thanks
>> to tonyf1 who has made the same suggestion on the changeset.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark P.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 20 Feb 2024, at 2:13 pm, Mark Pull

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Message resent regarding proposed Liaison Officer & also confirming track
in question.

Awaiting response.

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 17:16, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> I have also contacted Stephen privately to see if he wants to chat
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
>
>
> *From:* Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 20, 2024 5:54 PM
> *To:* Andrew Welch 
> *Cc:* Mark Pulley ; OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List <
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
>
>
>
> NPWS have now contacted DWG again.
>
>
>
> I was in the process of responding to his comments, was up to ~10
> paragraphs, then hit the wrong button in our DWG system & deleted the
> lot!!! :-(
>
>
>
> That's well & truly enough for today so I'll try again (after trying to
> remember what I said!) tomorrow.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 16:10, Andrew Welch via Talk-au <
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> I think it might also be important to state that OSM is a database, so if
> consumers aren’t rendering tracks properly if tagged as such, the issue is
> with them not us, and that what they are doing can be considered as
> vandalism by mappers. We have ways to reflect the current state, and ensure
> that mappers unaware of these discussions won’t go ahead and re-add the
> trails.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrew Welch
>
> m...@andrewwelch.net
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 3:45 pm, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>
> I’ve just had another private message from Stephen Stenberg:
>
>
>
> I had replied privately:
>
>
>
> Prior to reversion, we had been discussing this for several months at the
> talk-au mailing list. I had delayed the reversion as I was of the
> understanding that someone from NPWS was about to join the discussion, but
> that did not eventuate.
>
> For reasons discussed on some of the previous changesets, and on the
> mailing list, there should be something present. I’ve added a comment to my
> changeset regarding a couple of suitable changes, and have sent a note back
> to the mailing list for further discussion.
>
>
>
> I had also added a comment to the most recent changeset.
>
>
>
> He has replied to me:
>
>
>
> I hope this message finds you well. Several months ago, you were informed
> about the decision to exclude certain paths near Apsley Falls Campground
> from OpenStreetMap. Despite clear communication from the NSW National Parks
> and Wildlife Service (NPWS) stating that these tracks, at their request,
> have been removed, it appears there is a persistent effort to reintroduce
> them.
>
> It is important to emphasize that these paths are situated on NPWS land,
> and as part of their management strategy, NPWS no longer wishes for these
> paths to be displayed. Reinstating these pathways not only contradicts NPWS
> wishes but also requires additional work hours from their end to rectify
> the situation.
>
> It is crucial to understand that NPWS has already dedicated resources to
> remove these paths, and by reapplying them, it creates unnecessary
> challenges. I urge you to respect NPWS’s decision and refrain from adding
> these paths back onto OpenStreetMap.
>
> Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated and will contribute
> to the effective management of the area.
>
> Thank you for your understanding.
>
>
>
> I have replied back, requesting that he either make comments on the
> changeset, or discuss on the mailing list, rather than send private
> messages, as I don’t want to be passing messages back and forth. (Thanks
> to tonyf1 who has made the same suggestion on the changeset.)
>
>
>
> Mark P.
>
>
>
> On 20 Feb 2024, at 2:13 pm, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>
>
>
> I’ve just received a private message from Stephen Stenberg (who had
> deleted these last time):
>
>
>
> Contrary to your statement, the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service
> has officially closed the track.
>
> “Reasons for reversion: This is still visible on the ground (checked by
> myself 30 November 2023) The track is not formally closed.”
>
> Kindly refrain from reinstating this track, as doing so will necessitate
> its removal once again by NPWS.
>
>
>
> So far the track hasn’t been deleted again.
>
> I had asked on one of the older changesets about whether this had been
> officially closed - didn’t get an answer to that, only "These tracks per
> our request have been removed. Please do not add them back on."
>
> It’s a shame that NPWS 

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

NPWS have now contacted DWG again.

I was in the process of responding to his comments, was up to ~10
paragraphs, then hit the wrong button in our DWG system & deleted the
lot!!! :-(

That's well & truly enough for today so I'll try again (after trying to
remember what I said!) tomorrow.

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 16:10, Andrew Welch via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> I think it might also be important to state that OSM is a database, so if
> consumers aren’t rendering tracks properly if tagged as such, the issue is
> with them not us, and that what they are doing can be considered as
> vandalism by mappers. We have ways to reflect the current state, and ensure
> that mappers unaware of these discussions won’t go ahead and re-add the
> trails.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew Welch
> m...@andrewwelch.net
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 3:45 pm, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>
>> I’ve just had another private message from Stephen Stenberg:
>>
>> I had replied privately:
>>
>> Prior to reversion, we had been discussing this for several months at the
>> talk-au mailing list. I had delayed the reversion as I was of the
>> understanding that someone from NPWS was about to join the discussion, but
>> that did not eventuate.
>> For reasons discussed on some of the previous changesets, and on the
>> mailing list, there should be something present. I’ve added a comment to my
>> changeset regarding a couple of suitable changes, and have sent a note back
>> to the mailing list for further discussion.
>>
>> I had also added a comment to the most recent changeset.
>>
>> He has replied to me:
>>
>> I hope this message finds you well. Several months ago, you were informed
>> about the decision to exclude certain paths near Apsley Falls Campground
>> from OpenStreetMap. Despite clear communication from the NSW National Parks
>> and Wildlife Service (NPWS) stating that these tracks, at their request,
>> have been removed, it appears there is a persistent effort to reintroduce
>> them.
>> It is important to emphasize that these paths are situated on NPWS land,
>> and as part of their management strategy, NPWS no longer wishes for these
>> paths to be displayed. Reinstating these pathways not only contradicts NPWS
>> wishes but also requires additional work hours from their end to rectify
>> the situation.
>> It is crucial to understand that NPWS has already dedicated resources to
>> remove these paths, and by reapplying them, it creates unnecessary
>> challenges. I urge you to respect NPWS’s decision and refrain from adding
>> these paths back onto OpenStreetMap.
>> Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated and will
>> contribute to the effective management of the area.
>> Thank you for your understanding.
>>
>> I have replied back, requesting that he either make comments on the
>> changeset, or discuss on the mailing list, rather than send private
>> messages, as I don’t want to be passing messages back and forth. (Thanks
>> to tonyf1 who has made the same suggestion on the changeset.)
>>
>> Mark P.
>>
>> On 20 Feb 2024, at 2:13 pm, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>>
>> I’ve just received a private message from Stephen Stenberg (who had
>> deleted these last time):
>>
>> Contrary to your statement, the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service
>> has officially closed the track.
>> “Reasons for reversion: This is still visible on the ground (checked by
>> myself 30 November 2023) The track is not formally closed.”
>> Kindly refrain from reinstating this track, as doing so will necessitate
>> its removal once again by NPWS.
>>
>> So far the track hasn’t been deleted again.
>> I had asked on one of the older changesets about whether this had been
>> officially closed - didn’t get an answer to that, only "These tracks per
>> our request have been removed. Please do not add them back on."
>> It’s a shame that NPWS hadn’t bothered to join the discussion on here.
>> I’ve added a comment to my reversion changeset, suggesting access=no
>> (rather than deleting outright). Any relevant comments there are welcome!
>>
>> Mark P.
>>
>> On 13 Feb 2024, at 11:17 pm, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>>
>> Done. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147406352
>>
>> Mark P.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] New tags for Vic State Forests

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Sounds good to me!

Thanks

Graeme


On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 at 11:15, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> I would leave off boundary=protected_area until they have IUCN
> Categories assigned. It doesn't add any more information than
> leisure=nature_reserve.
>
> On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 11:52 AM Little Maps  wrote:
> >
> > Hi all, landuse=forest is widely used to denote State Forests in OSM,
> due to legislated landuse of timber harvesting. However, from 1 Jan this
> year, timber harvesting is now banned in all native forests in Victoria, so
> the problematic landuse=forest tag is no longer appropriate.
> >
> > I’m seeking feedback on the most appropriate tag to use now. Down the
> track, individual decisions will be made on conservation / recreation /
> Indigenous management priorities in each reserve. In the interim, are there
> any objections to replacing landuse=forest with the following tags…
> >
> > boundary=protected_area
> > leisure=nature_reserve
> >
> > plus name tags etc, and mapping separate natural=wood etc boundaries as
> needed. Among other advantages, getting rid of landuse=forest will make
> vegetation mapping a lot simpler in State Forests in Vic.  Cheers Ian
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks, fellas!

There's my new thing I've learnt today! :-)

Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 at 09:25, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 02/01/2024 22:03, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > Only thought there is should the note= possibly be a description= ?
> >
> > Notes are only visible to mappers on OSM, descriptions show to
> > "everybody" (?) using it downstream.
> >
> >
> This seems to be referring to an OSM note _tag_ rather than "OSM notes"
> (those red things).  Although not many things claim to process OSM note
> tags, some do - data in there is just a "public" to downstream OSM data
> consumers as in a description tag,
>
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/note#projects
>
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/description#projects
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Only thought there is should the note= possibly be a description= ?

Notes are only visible to mappers on OSM, descriptions show to "everybody"
(?) using it downstream.

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 at 20:25, Mark Pulley  wrote:

> I’ve prepared a partial revert for Apsley Falls, ready for upload.
> (Keeping the trail near the cliff, leaving the eastern non-visible trail
> deleted)
>
> The tags would return to what they were before NPWS deleted them.
> highway=path
> foot=yes
> informal=yes
> trail_visibilty=intermediate
> surface=dirt
>
> With additional tags:
> hazard=cliff (not listed on the wiki, but there are 36 uses in Taginfo)
> access=discouraged
> note=access discouraged by NPWS
>
> with a link in the changeset notes to
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F +
> mention of this discussion.
>
> Any objections / changes before I go ahead?
>
> Mark P.
>
> On 18 Dec 2023, at 8:22 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
> So access=discouraged may be the best answer, possibly together with a
> hazard= tag?
>
> Incidentally, I never heard back from the NPWS bloke who wanted to set-up
> an OSM liasion contact.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 at 20:02, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>
>> I’m not aware of any restriction regarding staying on marked tracks only.
>> The map on the sign at the start of the walk doesn’t mention any
>> restriction, and the National Parks web site doesn’t mention any
>> restrictions.
>>
>> Mark P.
>>
>> On 16 Dec 2023, at 1:32 pm, Andrew Harvey 
>> wrote:
>>
>> If there is a general park notice "stay on marked tracks only" combined
>> with the "End of track" I would say that's sufficient to imply you can't
>> continue further and therefore access=no.
>>
>> Without the general park notice but simply "End of track", to me that
>> just means it's the end of foot=designated, and further tracks would be
>> foot=yes and informal=yes, without any access=no.
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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

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

Thanks

Graeme


On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 at 20:02, Mark Pulley  wrote:

> I’m not aware of any restriction regarding staying on marked tracks only.
> The map on the sign at the start of the walk doesn’t mention any
> restriction, and the National Parks web site doesn’t mention any
> restrictions.
>
> Mark P.
>
> On 16 Dec 2023, at 1:32 pm, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
> If there is a general park notice "stay on marked tracks only" combined
> with the "End of track" I would say that's sufficient to imply you can't
> continue further and therefore access=no.
>
> Without the general park notice but simply "End of track", to me that just
> means it's the end of foot=designated, and further tracks would be foot=yes
> and informal=yes, without any access=no.
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Nowra bridge help

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Bob

So the western bridge is now northbound & the "middle" bridge is south?

Thanks

Graeme


On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 at 08:06, Bob Cameron  wrote:

> Wonder if someone might fix this one. Don't want to stuff it up
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=17/-34.86388/150.60252
>
> The main crossing over the Shoalhaven River on Princes Hwy
>
> The eastern/old span is no longer in use and gated at the northern end.
> Both "new" spans are in use one way each way 3 lanes each. My (not
> overly useful) 11/12/23 southbound Mapillary imagery hasn't merged yet.
> Typically that may take another week. No overhead imagery is current.
>
> I can dig up all the 1FPS 4K photos I have if anyone wants them.
>
> Tnx, Bob
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Maranda or Maranoa Road

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Worked for me, thanks, Bob.

I can see why somebody looking at the first photo could think Maranda
though!

Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 15:40, Bob Cameron  wrote:

> Hi Nev
>
> The Mapillary imagery at the eastern end at Carnarvon Hwy;
>
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/bob3bob3?lat=-27.124729889167=149.06543468617=17%5B%5D=bob3bob3=2018-12-01=894202007803486=photo=0.7498372203522408=0.5576487643887181=2.5378590078328984
>
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/bob3bob3?lat=-27.124956401538=149.06555451822=17%5B%5D=bob3bob3=2018-12-01=536970883983415=photo=0.5062349898034363=0.4869555951651467=0
>
> The Mapillary interface is far more usable than the tiny OSM-ID window,
>
> Says Maranoa. Maranoa is also the name of a large Qld river and LGA
> centred on Roma.
>
> Pls tell me if the above links work or not. It may get messed up with my
> login name..
>
> Cheers
> On 11/12/23 14:02, Nev W wrote:
>
> Thanks Graeme. Will correct it soon.
> Nev
>
> On 11 Dec 2023, at 12:49 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
>  wrote:
>
> Qld Geocoder says Maranoa
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing 
> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Maranda or Maranoa Road

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Nev

Qld Geocoder says Maranoa

https://apps.information.qld.gov.au/data/cadastre/GenerateSmartMap?q=32\EG14

https://apps.information.qld.gov.au/data/cadastre/GenerateSmartMap?q=2\SP124668

Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 12:19, Nev W  wrote:

> I checked the QSpatial State Controlled Roads dataset listed in the
> Australian Data Sources catalogue but this road is not in the dataset,
>
> > On 11 Dec 2023, at 11:30 am, Nev W  wrote:
> >
> > I noticed this road near Surat in Qld named Maranda Road for all it’s
> history.
> > I have noticed it called Maranoa Road on other maps which I expect is
> correct.
> > Is there an osm suitable source we can refer to for checking road names
> as there is no Maillary imagery or can someone confirm the correct name?
> >
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/141481858/history#map=14/-27.1550/149.0153
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] OSM - NSW NPWS liaison

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Sure thing Tony.

That's one of the questions I've got for him when he gets back.

Thanks

Graeme


On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 16:19,  wrote:

> Hi Graeme
>
> I have been attempting to set up a dialogue between Parks Victoria and
> OSM, so far unsuccessfully. I think its a step forward if NWPS wants
> to liaise with a Liaison Officer. I would give them a Liaison Officer
> and at the same time encourage them into the community. The OSM
> Liaison Officer would explain to NWPS that OSM is a community and
> mentor them into the community.
>
> Graeme, please find out whether their contact person is representing a
> region or all of NWPS. If appropriate, can you give me their contact
> info, either on or off list. I would like to talk to them and see if
> it helps get Parks Victoria to appoint a Liaison Officer.
>
> Tony Forster
> Friends of Lysterfield Park
>
>
> > Thanks everybody for your thoughts.
> >
> > As per Steve's comment, here is probably the easiest contact point due to
> > not needing an account, but we'll see what other suggestions are made?
> >
> > I was wondering if a general OSM-AU / OSM-Oceania e-mail address,
> probably
> > as part of OSGeo, would help with this sort of thing?
> >
> > Anyway, my message back to him for further details came back with an OOO
> > till 21/11 (his query was from a few weeks ago) so we have some time to
> > discuss it!
> >
> > His address also listed him being at Coffs Harbour, so I don't know if
> he's
> > asking on a regional basis onl, or if that may be a main office?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Graeme
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 14:48, Ben Kelley  wrote:
> >
> >> In the context of the tracks, there is always the risk that if you
> delete
> >> something that you don't think should be there, that someone else
> re-maps
> >> it because they see it in the aerial photo. (As we discussed.)
> >>
> >> I guess the best is that we could detail a preferred approach (e.g. in
> >> Australian tagging guidelines). I think it's clear that there are a
> number
> >> of views on this though.
> >>
> >> Then at least if something happens that differs from the preferred
> >> approach, it makes it clearer whether a revert is justified.
> >>
> >>  - Ben.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 14:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> DWG have received a
> >>> "*Request for a Liaison Officer*:
> >>> To enhance the accuracy of OpenStreetMap data pertaining to the NSW
> >>> National Parks and Wildlife Service"
> >>>
> >>> This has come up in regard to tracks that they say they have previously
> >>> requested be deleted (I'm contacting them to confirm just which?)
> >>>
> >>> What would be the easiest way for them to contact us with questions
> like
> >>> this - here / Forum / Discord?
> >>>
> >>> Question posed in all three places
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> Graeme
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >> Talk-au mailing list
> >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> >>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] OSM - NSW NPWS liaison

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Tried a test message from an outside e-mail but doesn't seem to have come
through.

Do you have to be subscribed to the list to be able to post to it?

Thanks

Graeme


On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 15:02, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Lots of the detail is there already
>
>
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths
>
>
>
> Never know, they might even get to like mapping and start adding lots more
> detail like “operator” to existing tacks and notes to those under
> rehabilitation
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
>
>
> *From:* Ben Kelley 
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 2, 2023 3:44 PM
> *To:* OSM-Au 
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] OSM - NSW NPWS liaison
>
>
>
> In the context of the tracks, there is always the risk that if you delete
> something that you don't think should be there, that someone else re-maps
> it because they see it in the aerial photo. (As we discussed.)
>
>
>
> I guess the best is that we could detail a preferred approach (e.g. in
> Australian tagging guidelines). I think it's clear that there are a number
> of views on this though.
>
>
>
> Then at least if something happens that differs from the preferred
> approach, it makes it clearer whether a revert is justified.
>
>
>
>  - Ben.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 14:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
> DWG have received a
>
> "*Request for a Liaison Officer*:
>
> To enhance the accuracy of OpenStreetMap data pertaining to the NSW
> National Parks and Wildlife Service"
>
>
>
> This has come up in regard to tracks that they say they have previously
> requested be deleted (I'm contacting them to confirm just which?)
>
>
>
> What would be the easiest way for them to contact us with questions like
> this - here / Forum / Discord?
>
>
>
> Question posed in all three places
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] OSM - NSW NPWS liaison

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks everybody for your thoughts.

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

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

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

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

Thanks

Graeme


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

> In the context of the tracks, there is always the risk that if you delete
> something that you don't think should be there, that someone else re-maps
> it because they see it in the aerial photo. (As we discussed.)
>
> I guess the best is that we could detail a preferred approach (e.g. in
> Australian tagging guidelines). I think it's clear that there are a number
> of views on this though.
>
> Then at least if something happens that differs from the preferred
> approach, it makes it clearer whether a revert is justified.
>
>  - Ben.
>
>
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 14:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>> DWG have received a
>> "*Request for a Liaison Officer*:
>> To enhance the accuracy of OpenStreetMap data pertaining to the NSW
>> National Parks and Wildlife Service"
>>
>> This has come up in regard to tracks that they say they have previously
>> requested be deleted (I'm contacting them to confirm just which?)
>>
>> What would be the easiest way for them to contact us with questions like
>> this - here / Forum / Discord?
>>
>> Question posed in all three places
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] OSM - NSW NPWS liaison

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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

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

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

Question posed in all three places

Thanks

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

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

I didn't so much mean the heat trace, as the actual line on the map itself
which is no longer shown for those "disused" paths.

Thanks

Graeme


On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 at 17:03,  wrote:

> Hi Graeme
> I have not seen anything indicating Strava removes ways from heat
> maps. Way 1033069444 was removed by lifecycle prefix on 1 September.
> Its heat trace is still there. I expect it to fade as it is used less
> and finally disappear.
> Tony
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1033069444/history
>
> https://www.strava.com/heatmap#16.18/145.31833/-37.93630/hot/run
>
>
>
> Quoting Graeme Fitzpatrick :
>
> > Made this, slightly tongue in cheek, comment t'other week.
> >
> > Turns out that they possibly do!
> >
> > Just clearing a Note & noticed that the traces of these paths,
> >
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?note=3942697#map=18/-32.95437/151.74519
> > which are tagged as disused, don't appear in Strava!
> > https://www.strava.com/heatmap#18.18/151.74460/-32.95468/hot/run
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Graeme
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 10:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> In regard to Strava, it would be very handy if they read OSM access
> data &
> >> removed traces from their map when tracks are changed to access=no.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Graeme
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 09:47, Andrew Harvey 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 14:19, Ben Ritter 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something
> >>>> should exist in OSM.
> >>>>
> >>>> This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I
> >>>> think it should be represented with:
> >>>>
> >>>>- highway=* because it is clearly a track to a surveyor
> >>>>- informal=yes because it is not maintained like the other paths
> >>>>- access=no because the relevant authority says so
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe it's more nuanced than that.
> >>>
> >>> If the point of the closure is to permanently remove the track and
> >>> restore it back to bush, and especially if there has been some work
> done
> >>> like placing branches or fallen tree trunks along the path, or if
> >>> vegetation is regrowing within the track, then it should use one of the
> >>> "stages of decay" lifecycle prefixes.
> >>>
> >>> If the future status is unknown, but it's currently closed, then that's
> >>> where I'd leave the highway=* value intact and add access=no.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just
> this
> >>>> particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
> >>>> 2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
> >>>> 3. Leave the deletion as it is.
> >>>>
> >>>> For this particular example, the results would be:
> >>>> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access
> tags
> >>>> 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or
> >>>> alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*
> >>>> 3. No reversion
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I would opt for 2, leave the way in place, but with access=no, a
> >>> lifecycle prefix on the highway tag like abandoned:highway=*
> >>> or rehabilitated:highway=*.
> >>>
> >>> If there is signage that says closed for rehabilitation, we should
> >>> capture the closure reason somewhere, so OSM data consumers can present
> >>> that reason for the closure to users, whether that be
> >>> via rehabilitated:highway=* or something like,
> >>> access:reason=rehabilitation.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 13:55, Ewen Hill  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>   A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those
> >>>> protecting the environment over ground truth mapping.
> >>>>
> >>>>  On lord Ho

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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

Turns out that they possibly do!

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

Thanks

Graeme


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

> In regard to Strava, it would be very handy if they read OSM access data &
> removed traces from their map when tracks are changed to access=no.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 09:47, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 14:19, Ben Ritter 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something
>>> should exist in OSM.
>>>
>>> This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I
>>> think it should be represented with:
>>>
>>>- highway=* because it is clearly a track to a surveyor
>>>- informal=yes because it is not maintained like the other paths
>>>- access=no because the relevant authority says so
>>>
>>> I believe it's more nuanced than that.
>>
>> If the point of the closure is to permanently remove the track and
>> restore it back to bush, and especially if there has been some work done
>> like placing branches or fallen tree trunks along the path, or if
>> vegetation is regrowing within the track, then it should use one of the
>> "stages of decay" lifecycle prefixes.
>>
>> If the future status is unknown, but it's currently closed, then that's
>> where I'd leave the highway=* value intact and add access=no.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>>
>>> A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this
>>> particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):
>>>
>>> 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
>>> 2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
>>> 3. Leave the deletion as it is.
>>>
>>> For this particular example, the results would be:
>>> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags
>>> 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or
>>> alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*
>>> 3. No reversion
>>>
>>
>> I would opt for 2, leave the way in place, but with access=no, a
>> lifecycle prefix on the highway tag like abandoned:highway=*
>> or rehabilitated:highway=*.
>>
>> If there is signage that says closed for rehabilitation, we should
>> capture the closure reason somewhere, so OSM data consumers can present
>> that reason for the closure to users, whether that be
>> via rehabilitated:highway=* or something like, access:reason=rehabilitation.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 13:55, Ewen Hill  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>   A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those
>>> protecting the environment over ground truth mapping.
>>>
>>>  On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits for
>>> an outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the
>>> potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may alter
>>> food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage values,". In
>>> Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in the
>>> Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human activity.
>>> In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist
>>> protection.
>>>
>>> I feel the  lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances however
>>> it might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to
>>> protect fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps these.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 22:57, Ben Ritter 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think we can assist environmental maintenance without compromising the
>>> ground truth value. They are not actually in conflict with each other.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly this. If we map the closure including the reason for the closure,
>> we can help inform park users about which areas to avoid and why they are
>> asked to avoid those areas. People are going to still see the path on the
>> Strava heatmap or they are still going to find it on the ground anyway.
>&g

Re: [talk-au] emergency highway airstrips

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 19:38, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Present location of highway_strip...
>
>
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/?w=%22aeroway%22%3D%22highway_strip%22+in+Australia
>

Having a look at them & some possible issues?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/957372815 &
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/919594591 may be duplicates of the same
spot, especially as there are markings on one & not the other?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/929622888 has included the runway
alignment ref in a note, as the ref is the Hwy number. I guess that should
be fixed by having a separate runway drawn over the top of the highway?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/975224506 may be a private strip, but
certainly doesn't look like a highway!

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] emergency highway airstrips

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 22:50, Ian Steer via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/187347278#map=15/-31.9089/127.0839=


Should it be layer=1?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] emergency highway airstrips

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

& by an amazingly scary co-incidence, I was just reading another forum
which mentioned these two videos!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK10UiizJF8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZktxR5xAX1I

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 07:28, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aeroway%3Dhighway_strip
>
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2023, 20:18 Warin, <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> How do we tag emergency highway airstrips, as used by the RFDS? I
>> thought this was documented on the Australian tagging guidelines but I
>> cannot see it..
>>
>> I have used this as an example
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/493146070
>>
>> for a rough area cleared for the wings and a turning area.
>>
>> aeroway aerodrome
>> military airfield
>> name Royal Flying Doctor Service Emergency Airstrip Stuart Highway
>> wikipedia en:Highway strip#Australia
>>
>>
>> together with
>>
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/493146071
>>
>> for the centre line of the runway itself. Note the highway exists as a
>> separate way.
>>
>> aeroway runway
>> ref 13/31
>> source survey
>> surface asphalt
>>
>>
>> -
>>
>> Anyone have thought on this? I'm not certain of
>>
>> military airfield .. may not always be military though this area is
>> surrounded by it.
>>
>> name Royal Flying Doctor Service Emergency Airstrip Stuart Highway
>> .. more of a description possibly operator???
>>
>>
>> Once this is discussed .. then I'll put it in the Aust. Tagging
>> Guidelines thingy.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] How to efficiently improve AU address coverage?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Do we need the country, city & post code fields?

Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 12:23, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> On Tue 2023-10-03 19:51:13 +1100, Warin wrote:
>
> > On 3/10/23 14:27, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> > [... 12 lines elided]
>
> > OK, what is needed to be done for "Stage 2 - Set unit from
> > housenumber"?
>
> > Further testing of the upload script. The changes themselves are
> > pretty safe. It's using a custom uploader and if something isn't
> > right it could make a mess. Sure the changeset could be reverted
> > in the worst case scenario but you end up with more history so
> > best to avoid this. I'll see if I can find some time to progress
> > this further.
>
> > Umm 'custom uploader' .. a file compatible with JOSM should be easy
> > enough to create. Then selecting a small area to upload and test would
> > be a simple manual operation, as would uploading the entire change
> > set.
>
> The osc file[1] generated in Stage 2 is compatible with JOSM.
>
> [1] https://ypei.org/assets/tmp/unitFromNumber-1.osc
>
> I spot checked a few nodes and they look correct too. See also the
> attached screenshot.
>
>
> My understanding of this Stage is to fix all the discrepancies between
> streetnumber=X/Y in osm and streetnumber=Y;unit=X in the vicmap dataset,
> before Stage 3 - uploading new addresses from the latter.
>
> I can do the test upload of a small area (say ~100 addresses) and report
> back.
>
> I will check the scripts that generate this file, to find out whether
> the logic indicates the file has full coverage corresponding to the
> datasets.
>
> > [... 5 lines elided]
>
>
> Best,
> Yuchen
>
> --
> Timezone: UTC+11
> PGP Key: 47F9 D050 1E11 8879 9040  4941 2126 7E93 EF86 DFD0
>   
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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

Thanks

Graeme


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

>
>
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 14:19, Ben Ritter  wrote:
>
>> I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something
>> should exist in OSM.
>>
>> This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I think
>> it should be represented with:
>>
>>- highway=* because it is clearly a track to a surveyor
>>- informal=yes because it is not maintained like the other paths
>>- access=no because the relevant authority says so
>>
>> I believe it's more nuanced than that.
>
> If the point of the closure is to permanently remove the track and restore
> it back to bush, and especially if there has been some work done like
> placing branches or fallen tree trunks along the path, or if vegetation is
> regrowing within the track, then it should use one of the "stages of decay"
> lifecycle prefixes.
>
> If the future status is unknown, but it's currently closed, then that's
> where I'd leave the highway=* value intact and add access=no.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>
>> A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this
>> particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):
>>
>> 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
>> 2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
>> 3. Leave the deletion as it is.
>>
>> For this particular example, the results would be:
>> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags
>> 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or
>> alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*
>> 3. No reversion
>>
>
> I would opt for 2, leave the way in place, but with access=no, a lifecycle
> prefix on the highway tag like abandoned:highway=*
> or rehabilitated:highway=*.
>
> If there is signage that says closed for rehabilitation, we should
> capture the closure reason somewhere, so OSM data consumers can present
> that reason for the closure to users, whether that be
> via rehabilitated:highway=* or something like, access:reason=rehabilitation.
>
>
>
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 13:55, Ewen Hill  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>   A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those
>> protecting the environment over ground truth mapping.
>>
>>  On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits for
>> an outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the
>> potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may alter
>> food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage values,". In
>> Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in the
>> Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human activity.
>> In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist
>> protection.
>>
>> I feel the  lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances however it
>> might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to protect
>> fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps these.
>>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 22:57, Ben Ritter  wrote:
>
>> I think we can assist environmental maintenance without compromising the
>> ground truth value. They are not actually in conflict with each other.
>>
>
> Exactly this. If we map the closure including the reason for the closure,
> we can help inform park users about which areas to avoid and why they are
> asked to avoid those areas. People are going to still see the path on the
> Strava heatmap or they are still going to find it on the ground anyway.
>
>
>>
>> In fact, I think it is *more helpful* to keep the highway features with
>> the addition of the access tag and/or the lifecycle prefix.
>>
>> Many OSM users are used to incomplete data, so if they saw an OSM map
>> which didn't include tracks that they observe in the wild, they would
>> likely assume the data is missing, not that there is a restriction on it.
>>
>
> Good point, we see this already with Overture maps which conflates OSM
> buildings with AI generated buildings. I can see in the future map
> providers might conflate OSM highway=* network with probe data like Strava,
> I'm not saying we need to map all the negative space too but for paths
> which may still get activity it may help to map these in OSM so that a
> conflation won't pick up on it being missing in OSM.
>
>
>>
>> With the aim of ensuring as many maps as possible indicate the closure,
>> the existing lifecycle tag should be used, which is
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:highway, instead of a
>> new one.
>>
>> Anyone publishing maps using OSM data while ignoring the access tag is
>> being reckless, and should stop it. Deleting those features is not a
>> solution in any specific case (this thread is case in point), or in the
>> long term for the 

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

& for some reason, Andy's reply didn't appear in my email until after I
sent my own saying more or less the same thing?

Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 08:58, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 23:12, Adam Steer  wrote:
>
>>
>> It's not even controversial that NSW NPWS would remove informal trails
>> from OSM. Heck, I would. I'd also get smart, and start to ask OSM to revoke
>> accounts of repeat trail remappers.
>>
>
> Not disagreeing with you, Adam, but if the track has been completely
> removed from OSM, then there's nothing there to say "Don't map it"! If
> somebody is only looking at imagery, & can see a track going off that way,
> that's not on the map, then they're likely to add it & it will immediately
> reappear as a public track, whereas if it stays mapped as an abandoned
> track with access=no, that won't happen.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 23:12, Adam Steer  wrote:

>
> It's not even controversial that NSW NPWS would remove informal trails
> from OSM. Heck, I would. I'd also get smart, and start to ask OSM to revoke
> accounts of repeat trail remappers.
>

Not disagreeing with you, Adam, but if the track has been completely
removed from OSM, then there's nothing there to say "Don't map it"! If
somebody is only looking at imagery, & can see a track going off that way,
that's not on the map, then they're likely to add it & it will immediately
reappear as a public track, whereas if it stays mapped as an abandoned
track with access=no, that won't happen.

Thanks

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

[talk-au] Fwd: Classifying settlements (Was Re: Filling in blank space (Was Re: Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size))

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

& re-sending to the list!

Thanks

Graeme


-- Forwarded message -
From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2023 at 13:08
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Classifying settlements (Was Re: Filling in blank
space (Was Re: Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population
size))
To: stevea 
Cc: Kim Oldfield via Talk-au 


Thanks Ian & Steve

Looking at the numbers from a Qld perspective, I'd go inbetween the two
samples!

e.g.

Hamlet <250
Village 250-1000
Town 1000-15000
City 15000<

Which would produce https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Bup

It also becomes obvious that there are quite a few places with no
population listed!

Thanks

Graeme


On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 at 12:35, stevea  wrote:

> Oops, resending to the talk-au list as a whole:
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2023, at 7:00 PM, Little Maps  wrote:
> > City = > 50,000 people
> > Town = 5000 - 50,000
> > Village = 1000 - 5000
> > Hamlet = < 1000
> >
> > This kind of query gives a broad-brush pattern of how we can classify
> places into cities, towns etc. If we can gain consensus on broad cutoffs,
> we can then explore how services such as health and educational facilities
> influence outcomes.
>
> A great OT query; thank you!
>
> In USA, and by no means do I mean to be culturally insensitive or seem
> like I'm ramming anything down anybody's throat, we use some rough
> guidelines at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Tags#Places which
> overlap somewhat.  That wiki, again, deliberately USA-specific (and still
> emerging and getting fine-tuned as of 2023) says:
>
> City = > 50,000 people
>
> Town = 10,000 - 50,000, though some "incorporated municipalities" which
> are smaller than 10,000 (such as the rare state capital which qualifies,
> like Montpelier, Vermont, or other VERY significant "towns" with less than
> 10,000 but they contain an important "cultural center" like a university, a
> hospital or other "major amenity" will get place=town as well, this can
> include "major shopping" or something like "the only big box (hardware,
> variety...) store around for a long ways")
>
> Village = 200 - 10,000, though this is flexible (as of 2023), and it is
> emerging as consensus that a village contains at least a small commercial
> area such as a supermarket, a small market (even a convenience store), a
> bank, a gas station (or two, you know, for price competition's sake!) and
> perhaps a medical clinic and/or cluster of doctor / dentist / medical
> offices.
>
> Hamlet < 200 people
>
> Isolated Dwelling = no more than two households / families.  (Could be a
> sheep / cattle station for you folks down under).
>
> Trying to help offer perspective, please, though, "you do you" (Aussies do
> Aussies).
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Classifying settlements (Was Re: Filling in blank space (Was Re: Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size))

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks Ian & Steve

Looking at the numbers from a Qld perspective, I'd go inbetween the two
samples!

e.g.

Hamlet <250
Village 250-1000
Town 1000-15000
City 15000<

Which would produce https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Bup

It also becomes obvious that there are quite a few places with no
population listed!

Thanks

Graeme


On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 at 12:35, stevea  wrote:

> Oops, resending to the talk-au list as a whole:
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2023, at 7:00 PM, Little Maps  wrote:
> > City = > 50,000 people
> > Town = 5000 - 50,000
> > Village = 1000 - 5000
> > Hamlet = < 1000
> >
> > This kind of query gives a broad-brush pattern of how we can classify
> places into cities, towns etc. If we can gain consensus on broad cutoffs,
> we can then explore how services such as health and educational facilities
> influence outcomes.
>
> A great OT query; thank you!
>
> In USA, and by no means do I mean to be culturally insensitive or seem
> like I'm ramming anything down anybody's throat, we use some rough
> guidelines at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Tags#Places which
> overlap somewhat.  That wiki, again, deliberately USA-specific (and still
> emerging and getting fine-tuned as of 2023) says:
>
> City = > 50,000 people
>
> Town = 10,000 - 50,000, though some "incorporated municipalities" which
> are smaller than 10,000 (such as the rare state capital which qualifies,
> like Montpelier, Vermont, or other VERY significant "towns" with less than
> 10,000 but they contain an important "cultural center" like a university, a
> hospital or other "major amenity" will get place=town as well, this can
> include "major shopping" or something like "the only big box (hardware,
> variety...) store around for a long ways")
>
> Village = 200 - 10,000, though this is flexible (as of 2023), and it is
> emerging as consensus that a village contains at least a small commercial
> area such as a supermarket, a small market (even a convenience store), a
> bank, a gas station (or two, you know, for price competition's sake!) and
> perhaps a medical clinic and/or cluster of doctor / dentist / medical
> offices.
>
> Hamlet < 200 people
>
> Isolated Dwelling = no more than two households / families.  (Could be a
> sheep / cattle station for you folks down under).
>
> Trying to help offer perspective, please, though, "you do you" (Aussies do
> Aussies).
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Classifying settlements (Was Re: Filling in blank space (Was Re: Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size))

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

So coming back to this ...

I like the idea of adding "numbers" per extra facility :-)

Calling each of them is worth 100, if a place has Police, Fire & Ambos, do
they get +300 or just +100?

& another "important" thing that I thought of - the community Hall, home of
public meetings, dances etc!

Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 at 09:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 18:45, Andrew Davidson  wrote:
>
>> apply the Fitzpatrick adjustment:
>>
>
> I like it! :-)
>
> Although Fizzie Fuzziness has a better ring to it :-)
>
> Talk more later - I'm just reverting stuff atm!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Filling in blank space (Was Re: Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 14:27, stevea  wrote:

> Whoops, meant to send this to the list, I sent it to Graeme only.
>

I've done the same myself recently, when I've forgotten that the AU list
has to reply-all!

The forum is much easier that way :-)

Thanks

Graeme

PS & thanks for your input, Steve!
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Filling in blank space (Was Re: Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks for that, Ian!

& yes

On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 11:56, Little Maps  wrote:

> It'd be great to develop some clear guidelines to guide future changes.
>

It would be!

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] How to efficiently improve AU address coverage?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 at 21:34, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Then simply the major cities of Brisbane


Brisbane itself is already done via an import of BCC data a few years ago,
but this is only "Brisbane" itself, not the surrounding "cities"

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Filling in blank space (Was Re: Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Good to hear from you, Bob.

As somebody who spends a lot of time out in remote places, what's your
thoughts on the concept?

Thanks

Graeme


On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 at 15:45, Bob Cameron  wrote:

> I managed (to buy) a coffee in Windorah two years ago..  That has to count
> for something..
>
> They have spent a lot on the campsite too. Newish amenities and hot
> showers for $5/n in 5/21.
>
> Cheers Bob
> On 1/10/23 10:31, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Oh look - Windorah is there, so it must be important after all! :-)
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Light bulb moment!

I could always ask my brother, who works at ABS! :-)

Thanks

Graeme


On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 at 09:37, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> On 1/10/23 10:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> >
> > I'm reading that as ATSI communities of any size are counted?
>
> Yes. The UCL is urban centres and localities. They get listed as a
> locality if they are not urban.
>
> I think the ABS does this because it is important for reporting on
> statistics to do with first peoples.
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Filling in blank space (Was Re: Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Oh look - Windorah is there, so it must be important after all! :-)

Thanks

Graeme


On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 at 09:26, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> On 29/9/23 20:22, Warin wrote:
>
> > I did meet some English 4WD world travellers that had a world map. In
> the
> > north west corner of Australia was Carnegie on that map .. it is a
> > cattle station, has fuel and might do some food if you ask. It is a fair
> > way to the next places with fuel. It was on their map so they went. Such
> > is the power of 'filling in the blank spaces'.
>
> It is interesting to look at world maps and looking at what gets put in
> for Australia compared to elsewhere. Check out this 1957 Nat Geo maps
> and see how many of the AU place names you even recognise:
>
> https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-548412715/view
>
> Trida? Not even in OSM.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 at 09:10, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

>
> This is what the ABS does.
>

Interesting, even if somewhat deep!

I noticed though:

" Discrete Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and discrete
tourist resorts with a population exceeding 1,000 are considered to be
Urban Centres regardless of density."

I'm reading that as ATSI communities of any size are counted?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Good conversation, thanks, everyone!

On Thu, 28 Sept 2023 at 20:04, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

>
> Err downtown Rathdowney has a population of 161.I might be OK with
> village, but it's a bit of a stretch to call it a town.
>

I was looking at https://profile.id.com.au/scenic-rim/population?WebID=160,
but https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/SAL32394
says 320 ? I guess that's "town" vs area?

Just reading the wiki on it, & it mentioned showgrounds & Post Office. What
do the presence of them do to the "relative importance" scale?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 28 Sept 2023 at 11:25, cleary  wrote:

All valid arguments, thanks.


> If everything is exaggerated so that villages are described as towns and
> towns as cities etc., then I think it just devalues the whole database on
> which the map is based.
>

I certainly see where you're coming from, but it would be good to do
something that fixes the vast empty when you cross the Great Dividing
Range: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=7/-27.163/145.569

I'll be interested to read comments from other mappers.
>

So would I, but so far there's apparently not too many interested in it?

Thanks

Graeme



>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2023, at 9:08 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Yes, it probably shouldn't be a one size fits all equation.
> >
> > Against what you said, Rathdowney in SEQ, with ~1800 people, only has a
> > cafe / takeaway / store with a few grocery items, pub, currently closed
> > servo, all of police, RFS & (honourary) ambo, primary school, church/s
> > but it's a very popular day-trip tourist stop, so I would definitely
> > count it as a town.
> >
> > Most people travel 30k up the road to Beaudesert for a full range of
> > services, so that should possibly become a city?
> >
> > But Maroon, 20k the other way, with only a primary school & a RFS
> > station, would only be a village.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Graeme
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Sept 2023 at 08:26, cleary  wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree that population is not necessarily the only factor but, in
> practice, population correlates closely with the services and facilities
> available in a location which is effectively the "relative importance",
> isn't it?
> >>
> >> I presume you are considering putting bigger dots and bigger writing on
> the map  for small settlements in isolated areas. Map renderers can do that
> for themselves if they wish. It is more important for OSM to show
> on-the-ground truth.  If a small settlement has few services,  then showing
> it as a town is misleading.
> >>
> >> Windorah Qld and Ivanhoe NSW are both currently shown as "town" in OSM
> but neither has more than rudimentary health service (if any), a hotel,
> small primary school and service station. I couldn't buy a coffee in either
> place last time I visited. I don't think either place had even a small
> supermarket or convenience store. Unlikely to find a doctor.  Probably
> wouldn't find a car mechanic, couldn't buy a new tyre if you needed one.
> The locals all travel a couple of hundred kilometres for shopping, health
> care etc.  I find it very misleading to label these places as towns, just
> because they are the largest settlements in their respective vicinities.
> The towns are the places where people go to get the goods and services they
> need.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, 27 Sep 2023, at 2:18 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> >> > Have just raised this for discussion on both the Forum & Discord, so
> >> > also throwing it out here.
> >> >
> >> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Tagging_towns_by_relative_importance%2C_not_just_population_size
> >> >
> >> > Any thoughts or comments welcome, in any place!
> >> >
> >> > Thanks
> >> >
> >> > Graeme
> >> > ___
> >> > Talk-au mailing list
> >> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Talk-au mailing list
> >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks!

Yes, it probably shouldn't be a one size fits all equation.

Against what you said, Rathdowney in SEQ, with ~1800 people, only has a
cafe / takeaway / store with a few grocery items, pub, currently closed
servo, all of police, RFS & (honourary) ambo, primary school, church/s but
it's a very popular day-trip tourist stop, so I would definitely count it
as a town.

Most people travel 30k up the road to Beaudesert for a full range of
services, so that should possibly become a city?

But Maroon, 20k the other way, with only a primary school & a RFS station,
would only be a village.

Thanks

Graeme


On Thu, 28 Sept 2023 at 08:26, cleary  wrote:

>
> I agree that population is not necessarily the only factor but, in
> practice, population correlates closely with the services and facilities
> available in a location which is effectively the "relative importance",
> isn't it?
>
> I presume you are considering putting bigger dots and bigger writing on
> the map  for small settlements in isolated areas. Map renderers can do that
> for themselves if they wish. It is more important for OSM to show
> on-the-ground truth.  If a small settlement has few services,  then showing
> it as a town is misleading.
>
> Windorah Qld and Ivanhoe NSW are both currently shown as "town" in OSM but
> neither has more than rudimentary health service (if any), a hotel, small
> primary school and service station. I couldn't buy a coffee in either place
> last time I visited. I don't think either place had even a small
> supermarket or convenience store. Unlikely to find a doctor.  Probably
> wouldn't find a car mechanic, couldn't buy a new tyre if you needed one.
> The locals all travel a couple of hundred kilometres for shopping, health
> care etc.  I find it very misleading to label these places as towns, just
> because they are the largest settlements in their respective vicinities.
> The towns are the places where people go to get the goods and services they
> need.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2023, at 2:18 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > Have just raised this for discussion on both the Forum & Discord, so
> > also throwing it out here.
> >
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Tagging_towns_by_relative_importance%2C_not_just_population_size
> >
> > Any thoughts or comments welcome, in any place!
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Graeme
> > ___
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Wed, 27 Sept 2023 at 16:29, Ian Sergeant  wrote:

> Aren't most places classified by the government authority as
> cities/villages/towns/localities/suburbs?
>

Possibly so, but they don't necessarily match what OSM says!

Is it done by population currently?  I didn't think so..
>

Not by Govt, but population is supposed to be (or at least was) the main
criteria for OSM.

Have now added some possible criteria to the Guideline's Talk page

Thanks

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

[talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Have just raised this for discussion on both the Forum & Discord, so also
throwing it out here.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Tagging_towns_by_relative_importance%2C_not_just_population_size

Any thoughts or comments welcome, in any place!

Thanks

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

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Nicely put, Phil! :-)

Agree with everything you say.

Thanks

Graeme


On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 16:43, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
>
>
> Personally, I believe if the managing agency requests that the tracks be
> removed from the map then as good corporate citizens we should do
> everything possible to lower the promotion of such tracks. Track managers
> also have a responsibility to also actively advise people and if the area
> is high use then signage and rehabilitation at the locations will help.
>
>
>
> Track rehabilitation, even when undertaken actively, can take many, many
> years and there will likely be remains of the
> closed/abandoned/rehabilitated tracks showing in some environments, on some
> imagery, for an extended period of time.
>
>
>
> I don’t believe that the abandoned or disused tags adequately reflect the
> desire of the managers but it is supported by some. Some users may see
> those tags as an ‘opportunity’ to reopen the track and promote use back to
> previous levels and they may do this without the backing of the agency.
>
>
>
> In a nutshell, in this instance, they are asking for folks to stop going
> there. I also feel that if a track has active rehabilitation being
> undertaken then a better tag would be rehabilitated:highway=*type* along
> with access=no. Many such tracks will get limited rehabilitation at the
> ‘take off points’ only and the rest of the track will be left to very
> slowly rehabilitate, maybe with some occasional bars to impede water flow
> and allow buildup of debris. Again, it will take many years for full
> rehabilitation to take place.
>
>
>
> So my view is…
>
>
>
>- If you *cant* see the track on the imagery – delete it.
>- If you can see the track in imagery – then tag it appropriately to
>discourage use as per the managers desire. Also work with the managers to
>actively close the tracks if you desire. Obviously if you are concerned on
>the tagging then its also likely that the area is a favourite place for
>you. Work with the managers!
>- Work with and encourage app developers to ensure suitably tagged
>tracks do not appear on public maps
>
>
>
> Cheers – Phil (aka tastracks)
>
>
>
> Full disclosure – I ran Track Management for Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife
> for many years so I am slightly biased.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sebastian S. 
> *Sent:* Friday, September 22, 2023 7:32 AM
> *To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org; Andrew Harvey ;
> Mark Pulley 
> *Cc:* OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
>
>
>
> I recall these discussions vaguely.
> Was not one of the reasons for removing them from the map as the rangers
> or gov wanted them to be renaturatin etc. So from that perspective I
> understand why not having them in a map is in their interests.
>
>
>
> On 21 September 2023 11:25:02 pm AEST, Andrew Harvey <
> andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>
> I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS has
> deleted some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers National
> Park).
>
>
>
> These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion were
> reverted. I re-surveyed them later that year.
>
> These paths have been recently deleted again, initially edited by a
> different NPWS employee. (Three different change sets, summarised below.)
>
>
>
> I had thought the consensus last time was to leave the paths in, tagged as
> informal=yes (unless the path has been formally closed, in which case
> access=no can be used). Is this still the case? Also, do we need to add a
> policy to the wiki for similar situations?
>
>
>
> We have
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Path
> 
>
>
>
> Informal Paths (informal=yes) - these would still show up as for use, but
> with the note that they may not be maintained, may not have signage etc.
>
>
>
> Closed Paths (abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* + access=no) -
> These should not show up as for use, but still be present in OSM data for
> users looking for closed paths.
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Putting streams into OSM

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sat, 27 May 2023 at 16:34, Tom Brennan  wrote:

>
> But while useful, the question is really whether a full stream import is
> worthwhile.
>

I would say yes (if it's not too much effort required to do so?)

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Putting streams into OSM

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 22:26, Tom Brennan  wrote:

> I'm looking at adding missing stream data in national parks around Sydney.
>
> However, how much value is there in bringing in all of the stream data
> in say the DCS Base Map vs just the named streams?
>
> I can see for example, the value in bringing in named streams. But there
> are huge numbers of smaller (unnamed) streams.
>

It's not a bad idea, as it would let anybody needing water in the bush,
know that there's a creek over there, & also let you know that if you go
this way, you may get wet feet! :-)

But, do DCS Base & Topo differentiate between permanent & intermittent
creeks?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Murray River relation deletion?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Have spotted a bit of a similar issue here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6168517#map=13/-28.0105/153.4332,
which has a natural river & a few "streams" running through lots of dredged
out canals e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/593943553#map=13/-28.0018/153.3810.

Does this really need the relation included?

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 07:59, Little Maps  wrote:

> Thanks Warin and Cleary, I’ll remove the lake from the relation and cut
> the relation back to the river banks. I agree, there’s no need to add name
> or other tags to the riverbank (natural=water) tags as these details are
> already on the waterway and the waterway relation. Warin, I’ve never seen a
> lake that has a river name on its boundaries like this, the river details
> are usually on a central waterway, if one has been mapped. Thanks again, Ian
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tasmania Spatial Data

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Awesome work, thanks, Phil! :-)

Thanks

Graeme


On Fri, 5 May 2023 at 10:09, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
>
>
> Just a heads up that we have recently obtained a waiver for *a limited
> subset of* data from the LIST Open Data portal (
> https://listdata.thelist.tas.gov.au/opendata/). Data for which Land
> Tasmania is the custodian is now available for use in OpenStreetMap (
> waiver
> ).
> You need to check the metadata of individual layers to ensure the custodian
> is Land Tasmania. We also obtained a waiver for the Topographic Basemap
> tiles and have commenced the process to get that available in editors.
>
>
>
> The wiki has been updated to indicate layers that may be useful to mappers.
>
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources#Tasmania
>
>
>
> The usual caveats apply – some data is old and no longer maintained so be
> careful with its use. Also please follow all community and import
> guidelines if considering any mass imports.
>
>
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Why set coast line to nation park or, administrative boundaries?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Don't know if this helps. or makes it worse!

Had a thought so looked at Gold Coast Council's online city plan, where I
know that a National Park touches the shore:
https://cityplan.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/eplan/property/41NPW429/0/184?_t=property
compared to what we have
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=18/-28.09018/153.45895

Darker green on Council map is NP, bright green is Council Public Open
Space, patch of ocean is Council "ground", which we show as being within
the Admin Boundary of Gold Coast City based on PSMA Admin Boundaries, but
which is also "outside" the Australian "coastline"?

Other spots on the GC show similar, in that there is a discrepancy, & often
an overlap, between Council & State boundaries.

Thanks

Graeme


On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 at 18:14, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 29/3/23 14:30, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 at 14:05, OSM via Talk-au 
> wrote:
>
>> Since the coastline tag is also supposed to represent the high water mark
>> then I would say that they should be snapped together (since they then
>> represent the same feature - that is, the high water mark). This would mean
>> that the boundary data already in OSM from the government basemaps would
>> just be their own mapping of the high water mark, and probably be less up
>> to date or refined as our own.
>>
> Exactly. So if anything we should be actively snapping them.
>
>
> Are there any links to these boundaries linked to the high water mark???
>
>
> I would have though that CAPAD data would be accurate as it should come
> from the National Parks people using the gazette.
>
>
> My trove searches only turned up low water mark stuff - but I only looked
> in NSW.
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Why set coast line to nation park or administrative boundaries?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 17:15, cleary  wrote:

>
> I'm uncertain about the terms of use of the government data but,
> generally, when reproducing another person or organisation's resources
> (images, text etc) with permission, one is required not to distort that
> resource so as to not embarrass the donor.  Where a source such as the NSW
> Government has given permission to use its data in OSM, I feel we have an
> obligation to use it correctly. It would be wrong to show inaccurate
> boundaries and attribute them to the Government source.  As the person who
> initiated obtaining access to the NSW data a few years ago, I feel
> particularly embarrassed that we might mis-use it.
>
> but I believe that if we are going to do something, we should do it
> properly and, in OSM, that would mean as accurately as we can manage  -
> even if it is inconvenient and untidy.
>

I don't actually disagree with you, but being picky to the nth degree here
:-), does that mean we should only map using DCS NSW Imagery, & treat the
DCS Base & Topo maps as gospel?

I think we're all agreed that while they're helpful, their Imagery is
*wwwaaayyy* out of date, while the others should only be taken as an
indication, not definitive.

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Why set coast line to nation park or administrative boundaries?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 at 20:25, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> As for the administrative boundaries .. the present official view is
> that local councils cannot now sell 'land' between the high tide and low
> tide, however they have in the past.
>
> What the state of this 'land' between high and low tide is now I'm not
> certain of.
>

Several years ago now, I was having this same conversation with a bloke
from Sydney.

His family have owned a private marina in Sydney (I'm not sure if the main
or Middle Harbour?) since the mid-1800s. They have a car park on the shore,
a jetty going out over the water, with their office built on it, & a pier
going further out from that.

Several years before I was speaking to him, they'd put in for planning
approval to rebuild & extend the existing office on the existing jetty,
where it's above the actual land / water boundary.

Council had no issue with it, but they were still waiting State Govt
approval, as the two departments involved (call them Lands vs Harbours &
Marine) were arguing, *in court !*, over which Dept had the right to give
them the OK to go ahead! NB neither Dept had any issue with the planned
work, they were arguing over which of them had control of that bit of wet
dirt, 2m below the jetty, which hasn't seen the light of day for 170
years!, & which wasn't going to be touched, or affected in any way, by the
proposed work :-(

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] [OSGeo Oceania] OpenStreetMap Special Interest Group Charter

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Hi

Wondering what the current situation is in regard to the OSM SIG?

Thanks

Graeme


On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 16:30, Edoardo Neerhut  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I wanted to put out a reminder that there is a meeting tomorrow at 12:00
> pm UTC +11 to discuss a charter for an OpenStreetMap Special Interest Group
> (OSM SIG). You should be able to see the meeting details on our open
> calendar here
> .
> We have previously been referring to this as a working group, but note that
> it is the same thing.
>
> The OSM SIG aims to support OSM efforts throughout Oceania and make use of 
> OSGeo
> Oceania 's funding and structure
> when it makes sense to do so. We've made a first attempt
> 
> at a charter which will clarify some of these goals. There have been some
> really good suggestions so far which I hope to discuss more tomorrow, but
> feel free to jump into the document and make comments or suggestions.
>
> The agenda for tomorrow
> 
>  is
> pretty simple and just involves a review of the charter. You're welcome to
> add any OSM issues you would like to discuss as they relate to the OSM SIG.
> It's also worth checking out the QGIS charter
> 
> which is a bit further along. It may provide inspiration.
>
> Hope to see some of you there,
>
> Ed
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> ocea...@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Hi Rob

Response received from Legal:

" The OSM Terms of Use do not impose any addition restrictions on the use
of the OpenStreetMap geodatabase beyond the terms of ODbL.
We do prohibit the emergencies services and anything similarly
time-sensitive from using OSM Services directly because OSM does not
guarantee uptime or responsiveness. However, while OSM Services include
*data distribution*, they do not include the *data itself*. Thus, the
Department is free to download the planet file and use the data purely
under the terms of ODbL, but should not rely on the existence or freshness
of the planet file download."

So you should be fine to go with it, as long as everybody realises that OSM
is still only updated by volunteers, so could potentially have issues.

Thanks

Graeme


On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 at 10:41, rob potter  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am representing the state transport department Department of Transport
> and Planning (Victoria, Australia) - OpenStreetMap Wiki
> 
>  and
> we are looking to consume the OSM road & rail networks for our operations.
>
> *Lawyers have raised a concern about these conditions, as the road data
> use is supplied to our emergency services fire and ambulance.  We have not
> started using the information but we are implementing a system of
> validation and change detection, then produce an authoritative version for
> other agency consumption.*
> *Unlawful and other unauthorized uses include a clause "Operate dangerous
> businesses such as emergency services or air traffic control, where the use
> or failure of the Services could lead to death, personal injury or
> significant property damage;" and "Store data available through the
> Services in order to evade these Terms (including aiding anyone else in
> doing so); or"*
>
> Please any advice would be greatly appreciated, ultimately we will enhance
> the overall content of OSM in the Victoria, but really do not want to cause
> problems later.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rob
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Re Truck low gear areas

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Following on from our discussions re slopes & low gear areas t'other week,
spotted this one mentioned in the Newsletter:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Key:hazard=0=2370057#Slope,_uphill_and_downhill

Thanks

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

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

I must admit to using Strava the other way around.

If somebody leaves a Note to say that "there's another track here" or "this
track is closer to the creek", I'll often look at Strava, & add / move the
track based on it's results.

Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 17:57, Little Maps  wrote:

> On 27 Feb 2023, at 9:05 am, Tom Brennan  wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like the general consensus is:
> > - Strava heatmap is good for aligning *existing* tracks
> > - Strava shouldn't be used for the creation of new tracks without some
> ground truthing.
>
> Hi all, nice discussion. I agree but would broaden the 2nd point. The
> focus for the thread was walking tracks (paths etc in OSM). For vehicle
> tracks (fire trails etc), there’s not always a need to compare Strava
> against ground truthing (great though this would be) and careful inspection
> of imagery may often suffice. OSM’s vehicle tracks / fire trails are
> incomplete (or absent) in many areas, and Strava’s heat map is a great way
> to prioritise mapping of well used tracks using imagery, using the same
> care as all other mapping from imagery. So, I’d suggest broadening the 2nd
> point to ‘… without ground truthing or careful inspection of imagery, where
> appropriate”.  Cheers Ian
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 13:54, Andrew Hughes  wrote:

> Yes...
>
>
> https://vicroadsopendata-vicroadsmaps.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ef496e07eae049a3bb94351bc496dd6a_0/explore?location=-36.518496%2C145.313781%2C7.55
>
> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
>

Sorry, Andrew, but apparently not?

I asked that question on Discord just the other day about somewhere else
with that CC & got told No Way! :-(

https://discord.com/channels/413070382636072960/763192797775265864/1076347259324739635
& a couple following if you're on it?

I can copy the contents if needed?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] [Impersonated Sender] Re: Map feedback - Australia

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks for that, Salim.

Another question, though.

I assume that the edit in OSM will show as being made by one of the TT
team, not by the person who said "there's a problem here".

If I, who has previously mapped that spot, want to then query the change
you've made, what are your procedures for confirming what you were told?

I've had exactly this issue just this week - I changed a maxspeed based on
a complaint that it was wrong, but other people have then queried my change
as they don't think the speed limit in that spot has actually changed?

Thanks

Graeme


On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 at 21:41, Salim Baidoun 
wrote:

> Hello Andy, AUS Community,
>
>
>
> I conducted my due diligence and came back with a solid answer to answer
> your question, Yes, the user will have agreed to OSM's Contributor Terms.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> *Salim A. Baidoun*| Community & Partnerships
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Salim Baidoun 
> *Date: *Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 6:43 PM
> *To: *Andy Townsend 
> *Cc: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
> *Subject: *[Impersonated Sender] Re: [talk-au] Map feedback - Australia
>
> *CAUTION:* This email was not sent by an authorized server for this mail
> domain. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
> sender and know the content is safe. Guidelines for authorized mail relay
> can be found here:
> https://confluence.tomtomgroup.com/display/OTSKB/Mail+Relay+Processes
>
> Hello Andy,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the question, will check with the relevant team and revert
> back very soon.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> *Salim A. Baidoun*| Community & Partnerships
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Andy Townsend 
> *Date: *Monday, February 13, 2023 at 7:51 PM
> *To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
> *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Map feedback - Australia
>
> You don't often get email from ajt1...@gmail.com. Learn why this is
> important 
>
> For the avoidance of doubt - will the user have agreed to OSM's
> Contributor Terms?
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms
> 
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> On 13/02/2023 17:48, Salim Baidoun wrote:
>
> Hello Australia Community,
>
>
>
> In TomTom's endeavor to improve OSM, we plan to conduct edits based on
> user input. This activity is the result of checking if feedback received
> for the TomTom map is also valid for OSM.
>
> Note that, starting with a small number, we will only perform edits if
> they add value to the OSM map, do not conflict with any recent edits made
> by the community, and are supported by a local source. In the absence of
> credible source material, we will reach out to the local community for
> guidance.
>
>
>
> We will start with editing POIs, land use, addresses, and highways during
> this activity. Over time, we will evaluate more feedback and expand to
> other features. You can refer to the GitHub issue
> 
> for further details regarding the types of planned edits.
>
> The MapRoulette challenge used for these edits will be accessible only for
> our editing team as it could contain confidential information. Along with
> the *#tomtom* hashtag that accompanies every TomTom edit in OSM, we will
> also add the *#tt_mapfeedback* hashtag to the changeset if it is an
> incidental edit resulting from user feedback.
>
>
>
> We plan to start with Australia in 2 weeks along with a selection of
> countries for which there is available user input, and then expand to other
> countries. Please reach out to me if you have any thoughts or questions
> about this upcoming activity.
>
>
>
> Regards.
>
>
>
> Salim A. Baidoun / Community & Partnerships - Global
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
>
> Talk-au mailing list
>
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au 
> 

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 at 20:37, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think there are some emergency services in Europe using OSM data already
> .. so if I am correct then it is possible (as it should be in a reasonable
> world).
>
Yeah, I've previously seen comments from people in the US that their
Counties Emergency Services use OSM as it shows all the back roads & so on

Thanks

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

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Hi Rob

Awesome news, thanks! :-)

Those concerns will have to be bounced to OSM Legal, so I'll forward both
your messages to me for comment.

Thanks

Graeme


On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 at 10:41, rob potter  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am representing the state transport department Department of Transport
> and Planning (Victoria, Australia) - OpenStreetMap Wiki
> 
>  and
> we are looking to consume the OSM road & rail networks for our operations.
>
> *Lawyers have raised a concern about these conditions, as the road data
> use is supplied to our emergency services fire and ambulance.  We have not
> started using the information but we are implementing a system of
> validation and change detection, then produce an authoritative version for
> other agency consumption.*
> *Unlawful and other unauthorized uses include a clause "Operate dangerous
> businesses such as emergency services or air traffic control, where the use
> or failure of the Services could lead to death, personal injury or
> significant property damage;" and "Store data available through the
> Services in order to evade these Terms (including aiding anyone else in
> doing so); or"*
>
> Please any advice would be greatly appreciated, ultimately we will enhance
> the overall content of OSM in the Victoria, but really do not want to cause
> problems later.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rob
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 12:31, Andrew Hughes  wrote:

> And each culvert has a unique asset/ref identification (example Victorian
> Dept of Transport, Structure Number == SN2252)
>
>
Sorry to be awkward, but do we have permission to use that data?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears"

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Does it need the "7k" in there as well?

Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 at 13:54, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 at 12:44, Andrew Hughes  wrote:
>
>>
>> Looking good. Given...
>>
>> Node:  traffic_sign=AU:R6-22
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3227568911
>>
>> Way:  low_gears:hgv=designated
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/245284221
>>
>> Question:
>>
>> The tagging of the way  does not use the AU:R6-22 (signage) code. Can
>> anyone elaborate on why this is?  They seem like conflicting tagging
>> schemes.
>>
>
> You can if you like
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_sign#On_a_way_or_area.
>
> One is tagging the exact sign (which is specific to Australia), the other
> is tagging the restriction which the sign creates on the way (which could
> apply globally).
>
> Would someone be able to review this tagging...
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/132233374
>
>
> That looks okay. The wiki does say
>
> In case of multiple signs separated by commas or semicolons, the prefix
> should appear only once at the beginning (except if signs from different
> prefixes are combined).
>
> Which would be traffic_sign=AU:R6-22,G9-83
>
> but how you have it should also be acceptable.
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears"

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 09:38, Andrew Hughes  wrote:

>
> The  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hazard#Traffic_hazards tag
> seems very appropriate but in my mind, needs a :hgv namespace.
>

I wondered about putting exactly that but then thought that the sign
usually / often mentions buses as well?


> still not sure on the actual values but...tag/values I would appreciate
> feedback on:
>
> hazard:hgv=Use low gears
> hazard:hgv=Long Steep Descent
> hazard:hgv=Use low gears;Long Steep Descent
>
>
Would you need both of them? Are there any cases when you'd need to use low
gears that aren't a steep descent?


> Another example I would appreciate feedback  are QLD "Tilting Truck
> signs": https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/signs/warning
>
> hazard:hgv=Tilting
> hazard:hgv=High Risk Rollover
> hazard:hgv= ?
>
>
Another good one!

Rollover Danger, maybe?

Surprising that there isn't a Low Gear sign on that page?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears"

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 10:40, Andrew Hughes  wrote:

> There are other signage like "No Engine Breaking", could anyone propose a
> convention inline with the above that could be extended for such additional
> signage?
>

Answering in reverse!

I thought I remembered something about "quiet zones" for traffic, so did
some searching & found:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:railway%3Dlevel_crossing#Quiet_zones,
but which has apparently never been used.

Also found https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation#Quiet_lanes

The same idea could possibly be used as designation=quiet_zone, possibly
with quiet_zone=hgv?

Can anyone suggest the most appropriate way to take ways where the road is
> signed with "Use Low Gears"?
>

& maybe the same concept as designation=low_gears?

That one could even come in under
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hazard#Traffic_hazards as
hazard=low_gear_required?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] 'Named' EV chargers

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Maybe just name them as Tesla Charger at this Place 1, 2, 3 & so on?

Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 26 Dec 2022 at 09:00, Ian Steer  wrote:

> I also agree - but if there are several superchargers at the same location,
> do they all get the same name? (probably)
>
> Ian
>
> On 16 December 2022 1:33:21 pm AEDT, Andrew Harvey
>  wrote:
> >I think it's reasonable for it to have a name like "Tesla Supercharger
> >Hollydene, NSW". If Tesla refers to it as such, and you might ask
> >someone to meet you at the Tesla Supercharger Hollydene, then that's it's
> name.
> >Just like we would map name="Woolworths Dee Why", since that's what the
> >receipt would label it as, and what you might tell someone when
> >referring to the store. It doesn't stop you also tagging brand= and
> branch=.
> >
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] 'Named' EV chargers

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 at 08:58, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

>
>
> There are some well attributed chargers out there -
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7814409569/
>

I'd question having the actual $ cost listed, rather than just fee=yes?

We tag servo's as having 91, 98 & diesel, but we don't attempt to say that
diesel is $2.29 / l as the prices are constantly changing.

Wouldn't the electricity cost via the charger also change on a regular
basis?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] TomTom Roadrunner

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

They have responded now on Discord, so all good.

Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 at 14:54, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Over on Discord, I've mentioned a few "peculiarities" that I've spotted
> with regard to Roadrunner traces, but not had any response, so they've
> possibly stopped following on there?
>
> Just in case there's any TomTom rep's still on here, here's another one
> that I've just spotted:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=18/-27.96453/153.34601
>
> There is no on-ramp / merge at that location, so not too sure what's gone
> on there?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Melbourne - Suburban Rail Loop - Too early to mark as under construction?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks, Michael

Yes, they are already warning of some occasional disruption to both car &
foot traffic, so I'll up it all to under construction.

Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 at 17:22, Michael Collinson  wrote:

> Being a grand cynic or at least just jaundiced,  'proposed' can be
> translated to "I'll be lucky to see this in my life time", so any actual
> work at all is a major, major change in significance so I'd go for 'under
> construction' in at least Graeme's example. Utility works also have an
> impact on the visible landscape (visual navigation) and may affect
> formal/informal right of way, particular to foot traffic.
>
> Mike
>
> On 2022-11-01 23:07, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Similar question here on the GC with the latest stage of the Light Rail.
>
> They've now started "utility works" - relocating power poles & conduits,
> sewer & water manholes, removing some trees etc.
>
> When should the "proposed" line get updated to "under construction"? Now,
> or only when they actually start digging the roads up & laying track?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 at 07:43, Andrew Davidson  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 8:37 PM Dian Ågesson  wrote:
>> > Just seeking views from others here: is this a bit premature? Should
>> only a section of the loop be marked as under construction, or any parts of
>> it at all?
>>
>> Normally I would have said that construction would only apply to the
>> bits that were actually under construction. However, in this case it's
>> underground, so we won't be able to tell.
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing 
> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] power=edge_server

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 at 06:04, Michael James  wrote:

> This dataset is not any sort of computing system, they have copied the
> ACMA mobile network tower information and called it research.
>
>
>
> This is of course going to be a licensing issue.
>

But from the Github mentioned above

" *Acknowledgements* The Australian Communications and Media Authority

for the radio base station dataset"

Maybe they did get permission to use it?

Thanks

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

[talk-au] TomTom Roadrunner

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Over on Discord, I've mentioned a few "peculiarities" that I've spotted
with regard to Roadrunner traces, but not had any response, so they've
possibly stopped following on there?

Just in case there's any TomTom rep's still on here, here's another one
that I've just spotted:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=18/-27.96453/153.34601

There is no on-ramp / merge at that location, so not too sure what's gone
on there?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Melbourne - Suburban Rail Loop - Too early to mark as under construction?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Similar question here on the GC with the latest stage of the Light Rail.

They've now started "utility works" - relocating power poles & conduits,
sewer & water manholes, removing some trees etc.

When should the "proposed" line get updated to "under construction"? Now,
or only when they actually start digging the roads up & laying track?

Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 at 07:43, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 8:37 PM Dian Ågesson  wrote:
> > Just seeking views from others here: is this a bit premature? Should
> only a section of the loop be marked as under construction, or any parts of
> it at all?
>
> Normally I would have said that construction would only apply to the
> bits that were actually under construction. However, in this case it's
> underground, so we won't be able to tell.
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Import Telstra Payphones

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Hi Marc

Have just commented on the changeset that looking on their website shows:
https://www.telstra.com.au/terms-of-use#copyright, which would certainly
seem to say that we can't use this info?

In that case, it may be safer to revert all of this until we have further
info?

Thanks

Graeme


On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 at 22:12, Marc Zoutendijk via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Marc Zoutendijk from the DWG here.
> Today we received a report from a user about what might seem to be an
> import from a non-allowed source.
> All the details can best be seen in this changeset discussion:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128084911
> Both involved users are cooperating well and there seems to be no need to
> take immediate action.
> What I would like to know from you is if the reported source is indeed
> allowed, as it is freely available.
> If that is true, the case can be closed without further ado.
> On the other hand, if the import is not allowed from that source then a
> revert needs to be performed.
>
> Possibly Andrew Harvey (who is also in the DWG) can take over here.
>
> Thank you for your input,
> Marc Zoutendijk.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Road centerline?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Yeah, spotted the same on the ones I looked at.

So, is it trying to get the truck to drive across the middle of the
roundabout, or just calculating the shortest, straight-line distance for
planning purposes?

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 at 18:04, Nev W  wrote:

> I checked quite a few and they have all been a straight line through parts
> where the highway is segregated or a straight line through roundabouts and
> associated with freight routes.
>
>
> On 11 Oct 2022, at 5:26 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
> Message left on one of their changesets to ask what they're trying to do,
> but hasn't mapped for 2 year so not holding my breath on a reply.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 at 17:01, Phil Wyatt  wrote:
>
>> Hi Graeme,
>>
>>
>>
>> I would certainly ask the user as they all seem to be something to do
>> with australia_freight relation (over 3 years old). May even have been used
>> to select ways in relation to freight routes around the country.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is only two others worldwide and no documentation re the tagging
>>
>>
>>
>> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1mE4
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers - Phil
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Graeme Fitzpatrick 
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 11 October 2022 5:15 PM
>> *To:* Nev W 
>> *Cc:* OSM-Au 
>> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Road centerline?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Nev!
>>
>>
>>
>> Looks like the next project is going through & deleting them all!
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 at 15:48, Nev W  wrote:
>>
>> Using http://overpass-turbo.eu/ to find road=centerline in Australia
>> there are quite a few of these and all by the same mapper.
>>
>> I only checked Australia but assume there would be others elsewhere
>>
>>
>>
>> https://imgur.com/a/FVFsa4l
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11 Oct 2022, at 3:23 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Just spotted this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/679847388
>>
>>
>>
>> What's a "road=cent*er*line [sic]"?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging fire stations

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 at 18:26, Ewen Hill  wrote:

>
> Is there any State data we could use?
>

Mentioned earlier that I found  https://www.data.qld.gov.au/dataset/rural-
fire-stations/resource/e09d0d06-b13e-4e52-b82d-1ce0cf05927c, but we'd
probably have to contact them for permission.

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] So, should we request an Oceania Community Channel?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

That's something I'd definitely like to see.

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 at 21:47, Adam Steer  wrote:

> Hi DIan
>
> To me it makes sense to have an "Oceania" community listed here:
> https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/9/none
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Road centerline?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Message left on one of their changesets to ask what they're trying to do,
but hasn't mapped for 2 year so not holding my breath on a reply.

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 at 17:01, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Hi Graeme,
>
>
>
> I would certainly ask the user as they all seem to be something to do with
> australia_freight relation (over 3 years old). May even have been used to
> select ways in relation to freight routes around the country.
>
>
>
> There is only two others worldwide and no documentation re the tagging
>
>
>
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1mE4
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
>
>
> *From:* Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 11 October 2022 5:15 PM
> *To:* Nev W 
> *Cc:* OSM-Au 
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Road centerline?
>
>
>
> Thanks, Nev!
>
>
>
> Looks like the next project is going through & deleting them all!
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 at 15:48, Nev W  wrote:
>
> Using http://overpass-turbo.eu/ to find road=centerline in Australia
> there are quite a few of these and all by the same mapper.
>
> I only checked Australia but assume there would be others elsewhere
>
>
>
> https://imgur.com/a/FVFsa4l
>
>
>
> On 11 Oct 2022, at 3:23 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Just spotted this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/679847388
>
>
>
> What's a "road=cent*er*line [sic]"?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Road centerline?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks, Nev!

Looks like the next project is going through & deleting them all!

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 at 15:48, Nev W  wrote:

> Using http://overpass-turbo.eu/ to find road=centerline in Australia
> there are quite a few of these and all by the same mapper.
> I only checked Australia but assume there would be others elsewhere
>
> https://imgur.com/a/FVFsa4l
>
> On 11 Oct 2022, at 3:23 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
> Just spotted this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/679847388
>
> What's a "road=cent*er*line [sic]"?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Road centerline?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

 Just spotted this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/679847388

What's a "road=cent*er*line [sic]"?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Next tagging clean up project

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 18:10, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The name of the station/brigade/* goes on the 'plot' not the building.
>
> I'm not certain of the operator tags - I think only on the amenity/plot
> not on the building .. ?
>

Both of those are how I currently do it, except in the cases of joint use
buildings, in which case that name etc goes on a node inside the building.

Question re building=fire_station though - do we still use that, when it's
only a shed to look at?

Thanks

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

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Yep, all visible, thanks, Tony.

Certainly appears to show that the south side of Hummingbird is a signed
shared path.

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 at 07:38,  wrote:

> Hi
> The Mapillary is partially processed, it may not appear on the
> worldmap yet but hopefully this link gives access to the sequence of
> photos
>
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/tonyf1?lat=-38.150390215353=145.29166281667995=16.813496063643257=681595696442544=photo
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> > Sebastian wrote
> > This was had no visible sign to indicate it was a shared way but it is
> > tagged as a shared way in OSM.
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/903736648#map=17/-38.15145/145.29173
> >
> > I replied
> > I would not change the tags till I had been out on site and I would
> > take Mapillary images.
> >
> > Well I have been on site this afternoon and have uploaded Mapillary
> > images, they will take a day or two to process.
> >
> > Way: 903736648 has 2 segments, Craig Rd and Hummingbird Dve, both have
> > visible shared path signage and there is also implicit evidence of a
> > cycleway:
> >
> > Craig Rd has shared path signage painted on the path on the south side
> > of the Hummingbird Dve intersection.
> >
> > Hummingbird Dve has a shared path sign on a pole at the Seasons Dve end.
> >
> > The additional cues are:
> > The traffic light has a pedestrian and a cyclist,
> > Phil Wyatt's observation that the wide paths are shared and the narrow
> > ones foot
> > End shared path signs at the intersection of Saddleback and Craig
> > Bicycles painted both sides of the intersection of Craig with
> > Hummingbird and with Saddleback, ie further north than the segment of
> > Craig in question
> > There were also bike warning signs in 2 locations on Hummingbird
> >
> > So the tagging looks fine to me.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> >
> > _
> > This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
> > see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging fire stations

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 09:27, Mark Rattigan  wrote:

>
> There are also plenty of minor RFS brigades which operate out of buildings
> that weren't originally built to be fire stations.
>

But how then do we tag all of those where the firies operate out of a tin
shed?

Is it a building=fire_station, as that is what it was built as, or a
building=shed, because that's what it actually is?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Next tagging clean up project

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 at 19:14, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

>
>
> Should it always be the case that the ‘plot’ on which the fire station
> building resides is the ‘amenity’ and the ‘building’ should be separate
> within the plot? To me, its not 100% clear in the wiki’s.
>

That was the way I thought it was supposed to work?

I also notice that both the amenity grounds, & also the actual building are
both now rendered! (Same for Police, but still nothing for ambo's :-()

You also just reminded me to check info to confirm details on a local
station & I found:
https://www.data.qld.gov.au/dataset/rural-fire-stations/resource/e09d0d06-b13e-4e52-b82d-1ce0cf05927c.
May be worth while contacting them to see if we could use it?

Thanks

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

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 at 21:21, Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

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

With no street image to go on, it's impossible to say, but Strava shows at
least some bike riding apparently along the "path" on the southern side of
Hummingbird Drv, so somebody must be using it?

https://www.strava.com/heatmap#18.12/145.28882/-38.14938/hot/ride

It would also surprise me somewhat if a path leading to a primary school
didn't allow cycling?

Thanks

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

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

To open another can of worms, just spotted this linked from discussions on
a completely different proposal:

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-of-bicycle-designated-vs-bicycle-yes-outside-of-germany/3230/23

So, what is the relation between designated & yes?

Thanks

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

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Would a simple bicycle=unknown / not specified work?

Or does that not go through to the map?

Thanks

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

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Doing some looking & found this site: http://lgam.wikidot.com/footpath

Some of definitions it mentions are:

The Glossary of Austroads Terms
 defines a footpath as
a "public way reserved for the movement of pedestrians and of manually
propelled vehicles."

The Australian Road Rules 
define a footpath as "an area open to the public that is designated for, or
has as one of its main uses, use by pedestrians."

Part 6A of the Austroads Guide to Road Design
 provides guidance
for road designers and other practitioners on the design of paths for safe
and efficient walking and cycling.

So, it would appear that officially, footpaths can be used for cycling!

Thanks

Graeme


On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 at 00:33, Michael Collinson  wrote:

> I suggest a good consensus basically following the rest of the world
> would be:
>
> 1) If a path is clearly marked for use by bicycles then use
> bicycle=designated.  I.e.  "there ARE signs present to indicate bikes
> are expressily permitted".
>
> 2) If a path has no signage barring cycling and no clear law or bylaw
> preventing it, such as for unsigned sidewalks in most (all?) Australian
> states and it is practical to use by bicycle, then use bicycle=yes. In
> the real world we cannot expect every legal usage of everything to be
> explicitly signed, it does not make sense.
>
> BTW, the way mentioned is a grass strip used mainly for pedestrian
> access. It was tagged by me and I use it regularly by bicycle when
> working in that area. There is no earthly reason for removing. I think
> the user is  basically mixing "yes" and "designated". I should also add
> that other types of edits by him are completely in order and I continue
> to welcome him in our OSM community.
>
> Mike
>
>
> On 2022-10-07 11:22, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> > Hi
> > I have been monitoring the edits by a user who still "changes shared
> > paths to footpaths as no signs present to indicated bikes are
> > permitted" in Victoria Australia.
> >
> > Most of these changes are small ways where there are unlikely to be
> > serious consequences, its not worth the petrol (or electricity in this
> > case for my Nissan Leaf) to go out and inspect the way and I have said
> > nothing.
> >
> > I have commented on way 1008258040 in Changeset: 126886850 where
> > bicycle=yes by the previous editor has been removed because there were
> > "no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted"
> >
> > There is good street level imagery. It is not a footpath in the
> > sidewalk sense. It looks OK for bicycles to me. Sorry to bother but I
> > request a clear community consensus again on whether "no signs present
> > to indicated bikes are permitted" is of itself sufficient evidence
> > that bicycles are disallowed.
> >
> > Sorry to bother you all
> > Tony
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] AFL goal post tag

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

65 uses of "goalposts", but I'm not sure how they would actually be tagged?

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/goalposts#values

Turns out, purely as goalposts=2, at least in a couple of samples!

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/962060329

Lots of them around Hong Kong, so possibly only one mapper?

Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 at 18:18, Nev W  wrote:

> Is there a suitable tag for the AFL goal posts. They are quite large  and
> imposing, and also indicate the orientation of the game as does the oval
> shape. Rendered goal posts would complement the mapping of pitches.
> https://abelsports.com.au/afl-goal-posts/
>
> I have not found tag for posts except in a fence or lamp/light posts/poles.
>
> I have used man_made=flagpole but is not really suitable
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dflagpole
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Proposed Bulk Edit: Road Route Numbering.

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 at 20:51, Dian Ågesson  wrote:

> I will continue updating relations where I can, but any help would be
> greatly appreciated tagging highway segments.
>
Happy to help where I can, Dian.

What's involved?

 Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] "Wrong" phone numbers

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks!

Both wikis & the Oz guidelines updated appropriately:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian_features#Phonewords

Thanks

Graeme


On Sun, 25 Sept 2022 at 11:48, stevea  wrote:

> Solutions abound!
>
> There is a pesky "only in this country toll-free dialing" sort of thing
> that is a number domestically (AU only) and then what appears to be its
> international number, something in NANPA's 710, or what is a moldy-oldy US
> federal government "thing" with exactly one working number (as of 2006).
> So, there is some sort of "error" somewhere.  Some places that allow these
> do not allow any non-domestic / international way of accessing this
> telephonic address, there isn't any bridging.  We have this in the states,
> you have this in AU, it is different all over the place.
>
> I think phone:AU:mnemonic might be a good start of something.
>
> If you put a plus sign in front of it in your country to say
> "international number" it begins +61.  That's simply "Australia."  It goes
> up and down from there!
>
> I wrinkle my brow at that +1-710-55 number, that's bogosity.  Maybe that
> works in another country or somewhere, but then you wouldn't put a + in
> front of it; that's an "international" phone # notation.  +1-710 (I live in
> NANPA-land, which is that first "1" and know it exists) is a dead-end.
> Maybe somebody encoded their domestic (to Oz) dialing pattern, I don't
> know.  But something is misunderstood here.
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] "Wrong" phone numbers

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks!

It turns out that we actually have provision for
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone:mnemonic,
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone#Phonewords!

That then raises another question.

The wiki says to use it as phone:mnemonic
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone:mnemonic>=+1-710-55-KLICK.

Because the number I asked about is an Oz only 1300, should it then be
?

& full capitals?

Thanks

Graeme


On Thu, 22 Sept 2022 at 18:34, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I too would ignore the marketing.
>
> On 22/9/22 17:44, Phil Wyatt wrote:
>
> Personally, I would just do the 6 as the others are redundant
>
>
>
> *From:* Graeme Fitzpatrick  
> *Sent:* Thursday, 22 September 2022 3:47 PM
> *To:* OSM-Au  
> *Subject:* [talk-au] "Wrong" phone numbers
>
>
>
> Just fixing a Note, & the company's phone number is listed on their
> website as 1300 xx xx, as they have their name in it. If you dial it
> though, the system will ignore the last two digits, as the first 10 make a
> valid number
>
>
>
> So how do we map it?
>
>
>
> Phone numbers are supposed to be formatted as 1300 xxx xxx, so will
> including the last two digits cause an error?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] "Wrong" phone numbers

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Just fixing a Note, & the company's phone number is listed on their website
as 1300 xx xx, as they have their name in it. If you dial it though,
the system will ignore the last two digits, as the first 10 make a valid
number

So how do we map it?

Phone numbers are supposed to be formatted as 1300 xxx xxx, so will
including the last two digits cause an error?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Proposed Bulk Edit: Road Route Numbering.

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Sounds OK as far as I am concerned, thanks, Dian.

Go for it!

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 20 Sept 2022 at 20:18, Dian Ågesson  wrote:

> Hello list,
>
> You may recall earlier this month the road route tagging guidelines were
> updated to adopt the "AU:" country prefix in the network field.
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-September/016533.html
>
> In order to make the transition as quick and seamless as possible, I'd
> like to propose a bulk edit to adjust the network tabs across Australia.
>
> The edit would:
>
>- Change all road network tags to use the AU prefix in alignment with
>the new tagging guidelines (
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads#Routes
>)
>
> If there is support for this effort, I will make the change in one weeks
> time.
>
>
> Would appreciate your thoughts and concerns.
>
> Dian
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Mapping planned light rail routes

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Work is due to start "soon" on the next extension of the GC Light Rail
route.

Details have been published about where it will be going, & where the
stations will be located, site offices are now appearing & physical work is
supposed to start later this year.

At what stage do we map this, & what as - proposed or construction?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Usage of Openstreetmap at EMSINA

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks all for thoughts, including yours from over there, Steve!

It may be worth approaching "Fire & Rescue" in each State to ask them
directly?

A bit of feedback from another forum, says that in NSW the RFS still use a
lot of paper maps, although I of them thinks that officially a system
called Collector is in use, but he doesn't know t much about it?

He & another bloke from Vic RFS both use an "RFS Buddy" app, which gives
lat/long or grid coords, but doesn't include a map.

I've been adding some street numbers to a couple of rural roads that I know
(using a public source!) - would there be any advantage to including Lot &
Plan numbers? eg  154 FOREST HOME RD, RATHDOWNEY is Lot 10 of Plan
RP178426. If so, what would we add them as?

Thanks

Graeme

PS Good luck with your planned return & career change, Adam!
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Usage of Openstreetmap at EMSINA

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Carrying on from this discussion, just spotted this mentioned on Discord:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgk9al1rluE

Very interesting, especially in regard to what we were talking about!

Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 23:49, Ewen Hill  wrote:

> A really great thread. Sometime early this century, the Victorian CFA used
> local brigades to confirm mapping. This became the original
> paperbasedSpatial Vision Maps. We now have the Common Operating Platform or
> EM-COP that does much the same as Graeme's QFES above but has a
> proprietary basemap.
>
>It works really well and allows updates by the Fire Behavioural
> Analysts (FBANS) and other Intel staff, BOM staff, warnings officers and
> local incident controllers as well as strike team leaders commanding 4 or
> so fire tankers.
>
> Now, if we could not put transmission towers on top of hills because there
> is one flaw in all of this.
>
> Ewen
>
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 10:10, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 at 20:42, Michael Collinson  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>  I'll ask a mate in the Victoria CFA.
>>>
>>
>> Son has a mate in Qld RFS so got him to ask last night.
>>
>> "It's a QFES app for iPads, that's slowly rolling out to RFS as well.
>> Fully interactive, they can draw fire fronts over a map and other units can
>> see it in real time. Prior to that though, they get around by GPS and mud
>> maps"
>>
>> No more info than that, but if it's on an iPad, I'd assume it's using
>> Apple Maps? & I believe Apple are starting to use OSM info?
>>
>> I know that when the fires were all happening, there were a lot of
>> complaints that the publicly-accessible QFES maps were woeful, with regard
>> to location & frequency of being updated, & they made the comment that they
>> use a much better system themselves "but it would be too complicated for
>> civilian viewers to understand"! :roll eyes:
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>
>
> --
> Warm Regards
>
> Ewen Hill
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] TomTom - OSM Collaboration

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Hi Will

On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 10:14, William Ireland 
wrote:

> Some initial ideas include but are not limited to providing leads from
> media sources extracted by our web scraping tool or locating missing
> highways from new housing developments.
>
>
>
> We would love to hear from you. What do you think of these ideas?
>

 I brought it up on Discord, & concerns were raised over whether we can
legally use "scraped" data, due to licensing copyright etc?

And are there any other areas where you need assistance or fields we can
> collaborate on?
>

A couple of suggestions that were made were

1. Perhaps getting higher quality, more frequent, more wide-spread street
view 360 imagery; &

2. Using your influence, which is probably greater than OSM itself, to try
to convince various Federal & State Govt departments to allow us access to
their data

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Usage of Openstreetmap at EMSINA

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 at 20:42, Michael Collinson  wrote:

>
>  I'll ask a mate in the Victoria CFA.
>

Son has a mate in Qld RFS so got him to ask last night.

"It's a QFES app for iPads, that's slowly rolling out to RFS as well. Fully
interactive, they can draw fire fronts over a map and other units can see
it in real time. Prior to that though, they get around by GPS and mud maps"

No more info than that, but if it's on an iPad, I'd assume it's using Apple
Maps? & I believe Apple are starting to use OSM info?

I know that when the fires were all happening, there were a lot of
complaints that the publicly-accessible QFES maps were woeful, with regard
to location & frequency of being updated, & they made the comment that they
use a much better system themselves "but it would be too complicated for
civilian viewers to understand"! :roll eyes:

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Adopting AU prefix in route network

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

A bit connected to this, possibly?

Coming home from a trip away this morning, & spotted a new road sign that I
haven't seen before.

We were on Mt Lindsay Hwy just north of Rathdowney, somewhere about here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-28.2049/152.8661 & saw what turns
out to be one of these: https://www.artcraft.com.au/g10-5-kilometre-plate
saying "BE 30" (30k to Beaudesert) + National.

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/signs/route says that "The national
sign (yellow writing on a green background) is a supplementary sign that
identifies national routes."

Don't know if this affects anything you've been working on at all?

Thanks

Graeme


On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 20:03, Dian Ågesson  wrote:

> Hello all,
>
>
> Following on from a previous discussion on the mailing list
> ,
> I've put together guidelines that would allow us to implement AU: prefixes
> in our route network tags.
>
> The content is here:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Diacritic/Proposed_Australian_Routes
>
> I am looking for affirmation that this change is a good idea and should be
> implemented in Australia.
>
> Dian
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au