Re: [talk-au] Bridges in the ACT

2010-08-14 Thread Roy Wallace
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:54 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:

 name=* should be the bridge name, not the road name

Not necessarily, according to the wiki. It seems that this is still ambiguous.

 ... at the very least I would do bridge:ref=* since you
 are referring to some kind of reference number for that bridge.

This sounds right to me. But if you propose bridge:ref=* then you
should probably also use bridge:name=* rather than the already
proposed bridge_name=*.

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


Re: [OSM-talk] Why quality is more important than routing speed

2010-07-05 Thread Roy Wallace
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:

  How do you use speed limit tags when
  only 5% of the roads are tagged with them?

 Think longer-term.

 Okay.  How do you use speed limit tags when only 8% of the roads are tagged 
 with them?

I don't share your pessimism. I've mapped maxspeed=* quite a bit.
Compared to name=*, it's no harder to map, and it is of increasing
importance. I think we'll get far more than 8% of road names tagged in
the long-term future, and I think the same of maxspeed=*.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Why quality is more important than routing speed

2010-07-04 Thread Roy Wallace
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:

 How do you use speed limit tags when
 only 5% of the roads are tagged with them?

Think longer-term.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [talk-au] How to tag a church without its own building

2010-07-04 Thread Roy Wallace
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote:

 Should I place a node as usual over the building (place_of_worship= (etc))
 with a note that it meets in the school hall?

IMHO, No - I don't like the idea of using separate/duplicate features
(e.g. an extra node) to describe something at the same physical
location.

Ideally, you would tag the building as simultaneously:
amenity=school (or townhall) AND
amenity=place_of_worship

...but this isn't possible because we require a 1-to-1 key-value
mapping (not really sure why, but that's the way it is).

So right now, I see four remaining options, IMHO all pretty crappy and
unsupported:

1) mash it into:
amenity=school;place_of_worship

2) mash it into:
amenity:school=yes
amenity:place_of_worship=yes

3) use two separate relations (one amenity=school and one
amenity=place_of_worship) that both have the building as the sole
member. John might have further thoughts on this [IMHO very hacky] use
of relations.

4) tag the primary function (so at least one well-established
amenity=* tag remains), then tag supplementary functions:
amenity=school
place_of_worship=yes (plus maybe place_of_worship:opening_hours=sunday, etc.)

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


Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering street names across several ways

2010-07-01 Thread Roy Wallace
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote:

 ... I assumed zverik's comment related to osm2pgsql or the like, where
 ways (or sets of relations) could be joined.

I don't think you want to join ways, because they belong to
different relations. (E.g. you might render the segment of street that
belongs to a bus route relation differently to the other segment with
the same name.)
Rather, you want multiple ways to share a name. This does sound like a
job for the renderer to me.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering street names across several ways

2010-07-01 Thread Roy Wallace
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:23 AM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:


 I think the rules for joining segments by osm2pgsql should be something like:
 ...

But hang on. Do we actually want to join segments [ways], or do we
want *separate* ways to share a name label?

I believe we want the second. Consider a renderer that renders the
lanes=* tag with some style. Say you have two connected ways:

name=Foo Street
lanes=2

and

name=Foo Street
lanes=4

You don't want to join these ways with osm2pgsql before rendering,
because you want to render them differently. You probably do, however,
want them to share a name label. Right?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [talk-au] Queensland parks, forests and conservation areas

2010-06-29 Thread Roy Wallace
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 9:49 PM, James Livingston
li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:

 Here's what I've currently got, any more comments?
 ...

Is it worth using an additional
classification:qld=national_park|conservation_park|state_forest, etc.
(or similar), just to make things extra clear?

That is, when you use a rule like Conservation Parks get
boundary=protected_area, I think it would be nice to also record that
they are a conservation_park.

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


Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!

2010-06-24 Thread Roy Wallace
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:

 You could always have highway=link.

 But some links ARE motorway rules and some ARE trunk road so just saying link 
 does not work.

highway=*
link=yes
?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging for street danger levels

2010-06-21 Thread Roy Wallace
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:

  +1. Please map the cause of the hazard, instead of (or at least as
  well as) a vague, subjective meta-description of a conglomeration of
  factors. If you are having trouble tagging any of these factors, e.g.
  traffic flow, let's discuss and fix that instead.

 So we are going to retag all highway=primary|secondary|tertiary|unclassified
 to highway=road and then tag the number of lanes and their width and surface
 in stead?

Not instead, but as well as. You can't infer lanes OR width OR
surface from highway=*. In the same way, I expect that I would not be
able to choose an informed cycle route based on someone tagging
hazard:cycle=2. I'd rather know what the hazard is - high traffic,
potholes, narrow lanes, hills, etc.

If you insist, go ahead and use hazard:cycle=2 - it doesn't bother me,
and may have some use as an interim solution - but I think we should
ultimately aim for a better solution, that is, more specific
information at least as well as the vague information.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging for street danger levels

2010-06-20 Thread Roy Wallace
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 6:17 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:

Personally I don't mind if they add some sort of subjective hazard level tag 
as well as these objective tags, but I think the objective tags will be much 
more useful in the long term.

+1. Please map the cause of the hazard, instead of (or at least as
well as) a vague, subjective meta-description of a conglomeration of
factors. If you are having trouble tagging any of these factors, e.g.
traffic flow, let's discuss and fix that instead.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [talk-au] Hikers on this list?

2010-06-18 Thread Roy Wallace
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 8:47 PM, James Livingston
li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:

 In particular, anything of class 4 and above can vary a lot. There are tracks 
 which probably aren't rated but if they were would be Class 6 that I'd be 
 happy to go on for an afternoon walk by myself, and there are Class 4 tracks 
 that I would never consider going on without preparation and other people.

This is the problem with using broad, subjective tags. I personally
don't think it's worth spending time trying to come up with a better
way to describe these concepts than the Australian Standard... :P But
you're right, for un-rated tracks it would be nice to be able to tag
something - I would suggest either:

class:as2156=unrated (if unrated tracks are always more difficult), and/or
class:as2156:equivalent=[1-6], or
class:as2156=[1-6] + source:class:as2156=estimate.

 I was fixing some of the tracks in the Noosa Headlands park recently, and 
 have a photo of the map board showing their classes. Does anyone have tagging 
 suggestions? I'm thinking something like track:as2156=* or class:as2156=* or 
 something would be good.

I think class:as2156=[1-6]. It should not be track, because we are
not saying, e.g. the track is 3, but rather the class is 3.

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


Re: [talk-au] Attributing points and/or areas

2010-06-18 Thread Roy Wallace
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Craig Feuerherdt
craigfeuerhe...@gmail.com wrote:

 Thinking from an OSM perspective I'd say move all the attributes from the
 point to the polygon and delete the point.

That's what I do.

 With my GPS hat on I'd say attribute the polygon as amenity=fuel but leave
 the point and all its attributes so it shows up on the GPS as a POI.

IMHO that's mapping for the GPS, i.e. bad.

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


Re: [talk-au] Attributing points and/or areas

2010-06-18 Thread Roy Wallace
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 7:20 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 19 June 2010 07:12, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
 With my GPS hat on I'd say attribute the polygon as amenity=fuel but leave
 the point and all its attributes so it shows up on the GPS as a POI.

 IMHO that's mapping for the GPS, i.e. bad.

 If a point is needed, the same thing could be achieved by making a
 point from the centre location of the area.

Within the GPS software - yes. Within the OSM database - no.

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


Re: [talk-au] Hikers on this list?

2010-06-16 Thread Roy Wallace
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:57 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:

 Some of us were discussing making a custom hiking map styles on IRC
 earlier so we can print out such maps or use them in presentations to
 show bush walkers the potential of what they can get back out of OSM.

In case you need some more examples/inspiration, see e.g.:
http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/register/p02885aa.pdf
I personally think it'd be good to create a style that is similar to
those already established and in common use.

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


Re: [talk-au] Hikers on this list?

2010-06-16 Thread Roy Wallace
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:30 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:

   - ideally there needs to be more granularity of track difficulty
     - track_visibility=* is probably useful
     - sac_scale=* is less useful as it is too specific to alpine areas
     - however, something indicating difficulty/exposure would be useful

 This came up on IRC the other day, there the suggestion with sac scale
 was it should be limited to things SAC has actually evaluated, and
 there is no equivalent body in Australia so there probably needs a
 new/different tag for difficulty ratings in Australia difficulty:au=* ?

Try Australian Standard AS 2156.1-2001 (Walking tracks -
Classification and signage)
http://infostore.saiglobal.com/store2/Details.aspx?ProductID=260163
(not free, but try e.g. the following page for some details:
http://hikingbackpacking.suite101.com/article.cfm/australian_bushwalking_track_classifications)

P.S. In Queensland, the EPA (www.epa.qld.gov.au) website used to tell
you which walking tracks fell into which class, but it seems this
site has recently been re-developed into http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/,
which seems to have lost some of this info...

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


Re: [talk-au] Residential landuse

2010-06-16 Thread Roy Wallace
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:07 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 17 June 2010 10:39, Craig Feuerherdt craigfeuerhe...@gmail.com wrote:
 I am facing the same issue in Bendigo. I have been considering suggesting a
 landuse=rural_residential tag. AS you state, these blocks are too small for

 Aren't they commonly known as hobby farms if you have a few animals
 for tax purposes?

IMHO landuse=* shouldn't map discrete things (like hobby farms, or A
rural residential block of land), it's meant to map use. What is the
land *used* for? Stephen said himself that the land is used only as
residences, so landuse=residential. If Stephen said the land was
used for hobby farming, then landuse=hobby_farming -- But that's not
what Stephen said.

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


Re: [talk-au] Residential landuse

2010-06-16 Thread Roy Wallace
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:11 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 17 June 2010 14:09, Craig Feuerherdt craigfeuerhe...@gmail.com wrote:
 I don't disagree Roy.
 I still argue that the land use isn't wholly residential and that these
 peri-urban areas are a distinct land use.

 The other alternative is another tag to help (those who want to) distinguish
 between types of landuse?

 You could always sub-type instead of a new type...

 landuse=residential
 residential=semi-rural

+1. Although I don't really see that much information is added by
residential=semi-rural, at least it stays out of the way :)

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


Re: [talk-au] Highway classifications

2010-06-13 Thread Roy Wallace
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

 Do we have any objective way of deciding what is a major through
 route within a local area vs a minor through route within a local
 area?

By definition, the definition will be dependent on the context. From
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway: description of the
importance of the highway for the road grid. To get any useful
feedback from us, I suspect you will need to give us some context, in
terms of the road grid in the location you're talking about.

Unfortunately, I think it boils down to this: make it secondary if
it's more important than nearby tertiary roads, and make it tertiary
if it's less important than nearby secondary roads. Iterate.

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


Re: [talk-au] tagging giveway signs

2010-06-10 Thread Roy Wallace
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 7:46 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:

 XAPI reports only 7 or 8 highway=giveway tags and I was wondering if
 there was something used more often.

No idea, but FWIW wouldn't highway=give_way be more consistent with
other OSM tags? i.e. separating words with an underscore...

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


Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Community Notification- Services Relocation

2010-06-09 Thread Roy Wallace
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 3:03 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 10 June 2010 14:26, David Dean dd...@ieee.org wrote:
  Looks like NearMap or us need to talk to BrisConnections about attribution.

 It might have been better to contact them privately about this before
 resorting to making a fuss publicly

talk-au is hardly public

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


Re: [talk-au] Bridges and Tunnels

2010-06-07 Thread Roy Wallace
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:47 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:

 If you can run a script over data it could also be pre-processed in a
 similar manner without needing explicit tags on the objects.

This is true. i.e. Rather than automatically adding layer=whatever to
the DB where it's missing, leave that out of the DB and assume
corresponding defaults in the client app, when the data is read from
the DB.

Or in other words, you're not adding any useful *information* to the database.

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


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging wide steps (tribune / terrace)

2010-06-06 Thread Roy Wallace
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:

 Off the top of my head I'm thinking of a line within the area that
 defines the direction. it would have to be linked to the boundary by
 using relations(?)

Yup that is how I think also. Still no complete solution, but probably
worth refining this, as a start:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Area

Note that this will still not be a perfect solution for the
semi-circular steps/terraces, because a way + area will not define the
curve in each step. To do this explicitly, you'd probably want to
map each step individually (as a curved way), with something like
man_made=embankment.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] We need urgently a clarification between place locality, farm and isolated_dwelling

2010-05-28 Thread Roy Wallace
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:

 Good to see that nobody cares about the wiki inconsistencies of 'locality'.

I didn't reply because your original email didn't ask a clear
question. Are you proposing something in particular? I'll try to
comment nonetheless:

 at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Locality:

I would delete the first sentence: All current place tags are for
either populated areas, or for larger areas of County sized or
bigger.

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place :

Seems consistent.

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Places

Seems consistent.

 place=isolated_dwelling:
 at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Places
 - missing

So?

 place=farm

 at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place:
 - A distinct identified farm at the node so tagged. In some countries the
 official type of a residential area smaller than a hamlet. Oh dear. But is
 it not isolated_dwelling now for residential area smaller than a hamlet
 ?

 at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dfarm
 - A farm can be a part of a human settlement (place=* like hamlet,
 village, town) that have buildings and land for farming, usually a few
 central buildings around a landuse=farmyard with landuse=farmland or
 landuse=meadow surrounding it. If the farm is not part of a bigger
 settlement (regarding structure not administration) and the farm and
 comprising settlement itself is not bigger than defined for isolated
 dwellings in your country, use place=isolated_dwelling.. Ah okay. If it is
 isolated, use isolated_dwelling. And if it is part of an hamlet, village,
 town, why the hell are you using a key place to name the landuse=farmland ?
 why not simply the tag name=* ? If it is a manufactory, not a farm, do you
 tag it landuse=industrial + place=manufactory ? I don't understand. It's
 probably too simple.

I suspect place=farm is used because people want to be able to tag a
farm as a *feature*, not just as the use of an area of land. I agree
that place=* is probably inappropriate for this.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [proposal] Default values in a relation definition

2010-05-28 Thread Roy Wallace
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
 I think you should rename your proposal as 'defaults' instead of
 'definition' (type=defaults).

Agreed.

 And the prefix def: is not really necessary
 in your def:key=value tags.

Perhaps not, but it does help to make it clear that these are unusual
tags with an unusual purpose.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


[talk-au] Styled Maps for the Google Maps API v3

2010-05-27 Thread Roy Wallace
Google: This new styling feature gives you full control to display and
customize the parts of the map that lets your data on the map shine.

http://google-latlong.blogspot.com/2010/05/styled-maps-and-wrapping-up-io-in-style.html
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


Re: [talk-au] General Observations.

2010-05-19 Thread Roy Wallace
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.au wrote:

 Yes, I would be *recording* what I *saw* in the field.

FWIW, I think Brendan's got a good point. It comes down to what's
verifiable. I disagree with Ross that an abbreviation mapping can only
work one way. It is possible to search for a Street and find a St just
as it is possible to search for a St and find a Street.

However, I don't think it's worth trying to change the convention at
this point. Spell Street in full, even if you only see St - only
because it's a convention that would be hard to change.

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


Re: [OSM-talk] How can we spread the tribal knowledge?

2010-05-18 Thread Roy Wallace
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 6:49 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:

 Before you all get too carried away with this extra tab idea of Ævar's
 I would just like to point out what I've said before about adding more
 tabs, namely that we already have too many and that any attempt add more
 without doing something about the layout is going to have a hard time
 getting merged.

Easy fix: Remove the GPS Traces and User Diaries tabs and add
links to these near Help  Wiki in the left column.

This would add length to the left column, but remember that the blurb
under the logo would no longer be needed - this would be moved to the
landing tab.

I like it.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] new logo

2010-05-18 Thread Roy Wallace
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Zeptomoon zeptom...@gmail.com wrote:

 Would this tell you or remind you of something?

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:OSM_Logo_World_Green.plain.png

Cool idea. Would need some tweaking to make it easier on the eyes.

The problem is that it looks nasty at the smaller scales, and it
doesn't look dynamic (this feedback from a designer friend of mine).

Anyone wanna try combining the strengths of
http://mray.de/sites/default/files/logoproposal_big.html and
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:OSM_Logo_World_Green.plain.png?

E.g. adapt the 3x3 grid and nice shading, etc. from Robert's proposal,
but replace the flag with a central puzzle piece? Just an idea...
IANAD :P

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] How can we spread the tribal knowledge?

2010-05-18 Thread Roy Wallace
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:

 Easy fix: Remove the GPS Traces and User Diaries tabs and add
 links to these near Help  Wiki in the left column.

 Yes, because we never get any complaints about things in the left column
 being pushed too far down the page so adding more things there won't be a
 problem at all.

 Those other links on the left would quite likely move to the landing page
 anyway, so wouldn't be there to be added to ;-)

Ok...problem solved then, right?

 We need to be radical, not just fiddle with the details.

No we don't - we just need a good result. I thought I addressed your
major concern with Ævar's idea (i.e. too many tabs). What else is
wrong with it?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] new logo

2010-05-17 Thread Roy Wallace
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:

 Robert Martinez wrote:
  Now, could everybody still in doubt please do a simple google
  image search for good logo and check for logos that tell a story!
  I bet you'll hardly find any.

 Robert, I think you have produced a good logo. Not an outstanding one, like
 (to quote two of my favourites) British Waterways' evocative
 bridge-and-bulrushes
 (http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/images/logo_bw.gif), or Factory
 Records' wonderfully stylised  1980s effort
 (http://seandodson.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/factory_records.jpg). But a
 perfectly decent logo.

Interesting... I think those logos are crappy. But hey, let's take
your point and run with it. So we have bridge-and-bulrushes for
British Waterways', and a factory-and-wave for Factory Records. Do we
really want map-and-magnifying-glass-and-ones-and-zeros for OSM? Or
can we break that down/simplify that a bit, so designers have some
more room to move? Maybe that would help us to find some common ground
between those emphasising the importance of story vs those emphasising
graphical/technical/appearance.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [talk-au] Broadcast tower locations

2010-05-17 Thread Roy Wallace
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 6:41 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'm still after
 suggestions on how to tag multiple transponders for the same node, I
 don't think tagging multiple nodes on the same spot is a good idea,
 using a single node + multiple relations might work I suppose, but
 that doesn't seem optimal either.

Relations should only be used for groups of objects in which each
object may take on a specific role.

I think the problem arises because it's ambiguous as to what you are
actually mapping. If mapping the *tower* (it seems you are, given
tag k='man_made' v='tower' /), then I think *transponder*
information should not be shoehorned into the same element.

I'm not sure though...

Alternatively, if you think the *transponder* information really is a
characteristic of the *tower*, another option is to use
communications_transponder:frequency=0.729;0.891. Or, you could
instead do something like
communications_transponder=0.729_5W_AM_vertical_omni;... etc.

A few options for you there.

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


Re: [OSM-talk] new logo

2010-05-16 Thread Roy Wallace
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 1:47 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:

 I would expect from a new logo to be

 1 individual and unique
 2 meet all the technical and graphical requirements for a logo
 3 tell a story / symbolize the idea of OSM
 4 possibly maintain some continuity with the current logo

 the proposed design is working only for point 2 but has nothing to do with 
 OSM.

Good points. Though personally, I believe 2 (technical/graphical) is
by far the most important, where that includes the requirement that it
look good.

4 (continuity) is unnecessary, IMHO, and 1 (uniqueness) is usually not
a big issue. 3 (story-telling) can be very difficult - but please
remember that this shouldn't be interpreted literally - i.e.
symbolizing the idea of OSM does NOT mean that there HAS to be 1's
and 0's, AND a map, AND the idea of a community, AND the idea of
freedom, etc etc.

Look at the Nike logo. Or the ubuntu logo... both very simple, and
effective because they each try to capture only one single *feeling*
that somehow represents each company.

I really like Robert's contribution. But I guess I understand, now,
that some people think it falls short on story-telling. Perhaps that
is useful feedback, that designers can take away from this. I think
it's only a matter of time before someone proposes a design that nails
(at least) those four criteria simultaneously.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [talk-au] Broadcast tower locations

2010-05-16 Thread Roy Wallace
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 1:13 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'm leaning towards producing metro and non-metro data sets and bulk
 importing the non-metro data sets and then offering the metro data
 sets on a request basis, or is there a better way to handle this and
 other similar data sets?

Splitting up the data seems reasonable. As for access, I'd suggest
supplying it via a central location on the wiki. In general, IMHO the
easier it is for people to access it and import it, the better.

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


Re: [OSM-talk] new logo

2010-05-13 Thread Roy Wallace
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'm not sure I could change your suggested logo to make it unique to my area
 and still retain links back to OSM to identify with the greater cause.

You're missing the point. A good logo isn't one that can be changed
to make it unique to your area - Go to your local Mercedes
dealership, what logo do they use? The same damn one they use
everywhere, of course.

And there is no reason why the logo HAS to visualise what OSM is
about. Think about other famous logos.

Does McDonalds have a burger in their logo?
Does Nike have a shoe in their logo?
Does IBM have a computer in their logo?
etc...

First things first - make it look simple, clean, dynamic, etc. Making
it related to the feel of the organisation is icing on the cake.
(i'm sure a graphic designer could explain this better).

IMHO the only good thing about the current logo is that it is the current logo.

I think Robert's proposal is a huge step in the right direction.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [talk-au] Nominatim gives wrong suburb?

2010-05-13 Thread Roy Wallace
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:09 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:

 Either the ABS boundaries might be wrong, or the boundary has moved
 since 2006, or where you think the boundary is, isn't where the ABS
 thinks it is, it's borderlineish though...

 http://maps.bigtincan.com/?z=16ll=-27.517,153.028layer=000B000TT

Actually, I think I know what might be going on. The property is
clearly within the suburb of Annerley, however, the property's
associatedStreet *is itself a suburb boundary*.

Maybe Nominatim is unable to deduce the suburb of such properties -
maybe it flips a coin, and in this case it got it wrong.

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


Re: [talk-au] Nominatim gives wrong suburb?

2010-05-13 Thread Roy Wallace
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:17 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 13 May 2010 23:40, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
 Actually, I think I know what might be going on. The property is
 clearly within the suburb of Annerley, however, the property's
 associatedStreet *is itself a suburb boundary*.

 If that's the case, is the street numbered?

Not sure what you mean by that. This is the example properly:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/45822724

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


[talk-au] Nominatim gives wrong suburb?

2010-05-12 Thread Roy Wallace
Gday,

On osm.org, search for Annerville Place. The Nominatim results suggest the
address is in Yeronga, however, this should be Annerley.

Can someone please check the relevant admin boundaries and let me know why
this happens?

I realise this is an unusual request about a specific example, but I'm using
this as an opportunity to learn more about how to fix these kinds of errors.

Cheers,
Roy
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


Re: [talk-au] Nominatim gives wrong suburb?

2010-05-12 Thread Roy Wallace
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:37 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:

 What's the lat/lon?

 http://maps.bigtincan.com/?z=7ll=-27.119,152.794layer=000B000TT

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-27.517456lon=153.027702zoom=18layers=B000FTF

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


Re: [OSM-talk] Using destination_sign relations for complex exit ramps?

2010-04-28 Thread Roy Wallace
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:

 Doesn't an exit exist independently of the sign? If so, is there a
 way to map it independently of a destination_sign?

 It does, but I don't see any better relation for it

What about similar to a turn_restriction relation? I.e. with a from
way, via node, and to way...

You could use type=motorway_junction + ref=*, to be consistent with
the existing highway=motorway_junction tagging.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [talk-au] Wikifiddling

2010-04-28 Thread Roy Wallace
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:

 I think that we need to put our stuff on our own wiki.

I don't see how you reached that conclusion.

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


Re: [talk-au] Wikifiddling

2010-04-28 Thread Roy Wallace
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Emilie Laffray
emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote:

 I believe that a separate wiki can be useful at cases, if not only for the
 case that it can be potentially be easier to search and to work from it.

In my opinion, this kind of fragmentation is something to be avoided
- lest we likewise end up with a separate Australian OSM database...

Liz, are you inferring that the problem is vandalism of Australian
content on the OSM wiki? Or something more subtle? I would like to
think that these problems can be handled (somehow??) without the last
resort of starting an entirely separate wiki.

That said, without knowing the details of the problems you're actually
talking about, it's hard to comment further.

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


Re: [OSM-talk] Using destination_sign relations for complex exit ramps?

2010-04-23 Thread Roy Wallace
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Konrad Skeri kon...@skeri.com wrote:

 In your case you would get 3 relations. I-70 to exit 91 (with
 destination= according to the sign at I-70), exit 91 to exit 91A, and
 exit 91 to exit 91B (with destination= accoring to the sign(s) at exit
 91 before the 91A/B fork).

It may be just me, but using type=destination_sign + ref=91 seems to
imply that 91 is a property of the sign.

Doesn't an exit exist independently of the sign? If so, is there a
way to map it independently of a destination_sign?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [talk-au] Lonely Planet

2010-04-11 Thread Roy Wallace
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
 I bought a Lonely Planet book of Oz today. I thought that I would use it for
 POIs - to try and put things on the map that are in the guidebook, as this
 would make OSM more attractive to tourists.
 I'm not starting at A and continuing to Z - just the places which I visit as I
 travel around (preferably paid).

Sorry to be a party pooper, but do you think Lonely Planet would be
okay with this kind of use of their publication?

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


Re: [talk-au] NearMap now have OSM opaque maps as well as overlays

2010-04-06 Thread Roy Wallace
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote:

 It doesn't look like the actual style files that the OSM site uses are 
 available (or if they are, they're not easy to find).

I'm guessing it's this one (?):
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/browser/applications/rendering/mapnik/osm.xml

As described on the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapnik):
The version we use on the live slippy map is probably the osm.xml
file in the SVN head:applications/rendering/mapnik/osm.xml

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


Re: [talk-au] Tagging Outback Australia

2010-04-01 Thread Roy Wallace
 I am leaving for a 5 month trip through parts of outback Australia in a few 
 weeks and I want to add to OSM as much additional detail as I reasonably can.

Sounds great :)

 should the elements be shown as separate nodes and individually tagged or as 
 multiple tags to a single node.

In my opinion, if these elements (be they tent sites, fuel pumps,
cabins, or whatever) occupy different space on the surface of the
globe, it's much better to add them each as separate nodes/areas. This
is more accurate (and it also looks better when rendered). The only
time you actually *need* to use multiple tags on a single node is
when you're describing multiple aspects of a single physical feature
(e.g. that a restaurant sells food of a certain cuisine=* and has
certain opening_hours=*).

Of course, if you don't have the time or energy to map everything
separately, whacking them all in as tags on a single feature is better
than nothing...

 Also some highways and major roads are tagged but the names are not rendering 
 so are not appearing on the map download that I have in MapSource or that I 
 load into my GPS. The tagging looks different to that shown in Potlatch 
 examples in the Wiki so I wonder if that is the reason. I am reluctant to 
 change them until I understand the system a bit better, but bringing highway 
 information up to date is one thing that I want to achieve during this trip.

Perhaps you could give an example of a particular highway or road that
seems to have this problem?

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


Re: [OSM-talk] ANNOUNCEMENT: maxspeed map

2010-03-28 Thread Roy Wallace
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:44 AM, Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de wrote:

 I never sent an announcement here so i think its time do so. I have built
 a maxspeed map - visualizing the max speed for highways.

Nice! Can you please provide a link to a key/legend? It would be nice
to know what green means, what blue means, etc.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Editor without relation-support makes sense?

2010-03-25 Thread Roy Wallace
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 6:14 AM, Tirkon tirko...@yahoo.de wrote:

 Is it possible to establish an editor, that is easy enough for
 beginners without being dangerous for OSM? I think, yes. But excluding
 the relations is not the solution.

I have suggested in the past that a new beginner-oriented editor
should exclude relation editing *and exclude most way editing*. Surely
there's plenty of fun to be had simply adding, moving and tagging
nodes, and tagging existing ways.

You are probably right - if you want an editor to deal with fully
functional *way* editing, it also needs to deal with *relation*
editing.

But it is possible to exclude both.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [Talk-ca] [Imports] User Import of Australian data

2010-03-14 Thread Roy Wallace
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Sam Vekemans
acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com wrote:

 ... it gets treated in the same way that WMS layers are 'its just
 another source of info'

Are you suggesting that someone should create a new
database/website/API to store and serve OSM-formatted data that is
directly imported from some external source?

Sounds cool. I'd use it.

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca


Re: [OSM-talk] OSM for walkers / hikers - getting it going!

2010-03-11 Thread Roy Wallace
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

 .. I'm still unclear how one is supposed to
 distinguish between a smooth, wide urban footpath and a hiking trail.

For smoothness, use surface=*
For width, use width=*

 (And similarly, how to distinguish between a bike path and a mountain
 bike track).

To indicate access restrictions, see: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access
To indicate smoothness, or width, see above.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [talk-au] Traffic Signals

2010-03-11 Thread Roy Wallace
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

 ... So far, I haven't seen
 much evidence that we have ways of aggregating excess information into
 more manageable chunks.

As others have already suggested: we need relations.

There's already proposals semi-underway here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations

They need more work, though, so... go for it!

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


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (amenity=ice_cream)

2010-03-10 Thread Roy Wallace
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Giacomo Boschi gwil...@email.it wrote:

 ... I find that the simplest way of tagging an
 ice-cream shop is the cuisine tag associated with an amenity like fast
 food or cafe, according to circumstances.

Seems reasonable to me. I generally prefer this approach of adding
more details to existing tags rather than inventing new top-level
tags, though I realise not everyone has this preference.

As for whether to use amenity=fast_food or amenity=cafe, I would
suggest using your best judgement based on the definition/examples on
the wiki.

Finally, shouldn't this be posted to the tagging@ list instead, next time?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [talk-au] Incorrectly expanding abbreviations

2010-03-10 Thread Roy Wallace
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 1:15 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:

 Does anyone have any thoughts about what to do about this?

Contact those that made the incorrect changes. Other than that...Is
there a particular wiki page that recommends names be spelt out in
full? If so, you could add a warning there against indiscriminate
corrections made in this regard. Not much more you can do...

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


Re: [talk-au] CC-BY-A data released for Victoria

2010-03-02 Thread Roy Wallace
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:47 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:

 I think making OSM
 files available to anyone and everyone is a bad idea simply because it
 only takes a couple of overly zealous mappers or people with malice
 and we really will have a problem on our hands.

I disagree! Be careful not to be condescending to other mappers, and
please don't be protective of the data that you could otherwise make
available. We're all just as sensible as you.

It's good to discuss when and how imports should be made, but not good
to discuss who should be allowed or denied access to that data on the
basis of how zealous they may or may not be.

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


Re: [talk-au] CC-BY-A data released for Victoria

2010-03-02 Thread Roy Wallace
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote:

 Another possibility is that we just say - OSM is just a repository for this
 data and we don't modify it in any way, or add to it,
 and then just do a complete bulk import every time a new version becomes
 available.

Another possibility (that I *much* prefer) is that the available data
is used in the same was as, say, aerial imagery - i.e. not bulk
imported, but used directly and interactively by mappers. This is why
I think John is wrong to be protective of data that could be useful
- I see it as analogous to being protective of, say, aerial imagery.

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


Re: [talk-au] CC-BY-A data released for Victoria

2010-03-01 Thread Roy Wallace
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 1:26 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:

 ... having bad data is
 better than no data

John I agree with your overall position, but this isn't the best way
to phrase it.

Thanks for making the data *available for import*. The method of
importing it will of course be undertaken according to the best
judgement of each mapper.

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


Re: [talk-au] CC-BY-A data released for Victoria

2010-02-28 Thread Roy Wallace
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:19 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 I've moved the previous files and all the rest of the files Mike converted 
 here:

 http://map-data.bigtincan.com/data/data.vic.gov.au/

Can you please explain if/how you would suggest regular mappers help
with the importing of this data?

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


Re: [OSM-talk] Thoughts on OSM design, and looking forward and back

2010-02-26 Thread Roy Wallace
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote:

 ... I suggest that the way to get people involved is to
 have them see the map, and use the map for the things they would
 otherwise use Google Maps for, and _then_ have the thought process
 That's wrong. Hey - I could fix it!.

Yes, or more accurately: That's wrong. Hey - I could fix it - *and
then use it*!

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] OpenEarthMap in 3D?

2010-02-26 Thread Roy Wallace
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Valent Turkovic
valent.turko...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi, please check out this video and then share your opinion it this is
 maybe start of 3D OpenEarthMap?

I'd like to know:
1) do they use OSM data, and if so, how
2) do they enable their users to contribute back to OSM, and if so, how

Last time I checked their blog this information was difficult to find.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Serious consideration of Newbie Editor

2010-02-26 Thread Roy Wallace
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Randy rwtnospam-new...@yahoo.com wrote:

 My personal preference would be to provide a little more capability,

I understand your opinion, but I expect this approach would lead to
something no more newbie-friendly than Potlatch 2.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Serious consideration of Newbie Editor

2010-02-25 Thread Roy Wallace
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:

 I would suggest that Potlatch is left alone for its devotees.

 I'd start with the following in the design brief for the Newbie Editor
 Can add nodes, label them with default tags only (other than name).
 Can add ways, again default tag list only, other than name.
 Very limited deletion ability (no clear idea yet on how to define this).

I suspect starting at even this level of complexity would cause
feature creep towards Potlatch, anyway...In particular, being able to
add/edit ways requires handling many complex concepts (as others have
brought up), like joining ways, way direction, overlapping ways, etc.

How about an even bigger step back? If starting a new editor from
scratch is to be worthwhile, surely it should be a LOT more basic than
all other existing editors. i.e. how about only these features:

1) Add POI
User specifies:
  a) where it is
  b) what it is (choose from a single list of options)
  c) the name

2) Edit Name
  e.g. add or fix the name of an existing road - this should help a
lot with noname roads


Secondly: can we please decide on the scope of before we talk about
the details of the implementation (flash/javascript/etc)?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Serious consideration of Newbie Editor

2010-02-25 Thread Roy Wallace
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:

 How about an even bigger step back?

Actually I just realised that, alternatively, perhaps we could be
looking at something like Mapzen POI Collector for the desktop?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Serious consideration of Newbie Editor

2010-02-25 Thread Roy Wallace
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Tim McNamara
paperl...@timmcnamara.co.nz wrote:

 For future discussion, once scope has been determined: Would it be an idea
 to provide a toggle between simple mode  complex mode inside of Potlatch,
 rather than build a completely new editor?

I think it first depends on what we decide we want this new editor to do.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Serious consideration of Newbie Editor

2010-02-25 Thread Roy Wallace
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 7:11 AM, silversurfer silversur...@oleco.net wrote:

 There is a similar concept on http://ae.osmsurround.org/. It is called OSM
 Amenity Editor.

Wow, that's great! How did I not know about this editor? :S

Liz, how does this compare to what you had in mind? Too simple? I
think it would be very handy to add the ability to name/rename roads,
but other than that, this looks great... I only had a quick look -
does hitting Save actually save the changes to OSM?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Thoughts on OSM design, and looking forward and back

2010-02-24 Thread Roy Wallace
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:06 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:

 On of the nicest ideas I saw was splitting openstreetmap.com and .org - what 
 you think of that? Have a nice interface on .com for newbies and then the 
 community hub etc on .org

Depends what you mean by community hub. The wiki? If so, I think a
link from the main site to the wiki is sufficient. Essentially, have
osm.org  wiki.osm.org.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [talk-au] Overmapping?

2010-02-24 Thread Roy Wallace
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Michael spam...@gmx-ist-cool.de wrote:

 The footways along Duoro Road and Harbour Street (but not the one
 between them!) do not carry any information IMHO

I disagree. They indicate that there is a footway there. If it's a
verifiable fact, IMHO it rightly belongs in the OSM database.

 but clutter the map
 display, especially on GPS units. With three times as much nodes per
 meter of the street(the actual road + 2 footways), data processing and
 editing is getting ever more resource hungry.

This, on the other hand, may well be true. But IMHO this is NOT a
reason to limit what gets entered into the OSM database, but simply to
*pre-process* the OSM data (filtering out unwanted details as desired)
prior to loading onto the GPS unit.

 For pedestrian routing, the same information can be represented by
 adding pavement=left/right/both (I think there was a proposed tag, but I
 can't find it on the map features page) to the highway and
 highway=crossing at the crossing nodes (where currently there are
 mapping errors, because the footways and highways are not connected).
 What is lost, is precision of the map display at the meter-scale, i.e.
 at the scale of GPS accuracy.

This argument comes up now and then. The conclusion is always: each to
their own. But please don't remove explicitly mapped ways and replace
them with tags if the ways are already correct.

 I don't think there is any tag that currently renders. One might imagine
 having a wider border of the road on the side of the pavement, in the
 correct color (footway/cycleway/path). This even has the advantage that
 the pavement remains visible on smaller zoom levels, where in 1:1
 mapping, the overwide drawing of the roads usually hides it.
 IIRC there was a proposed implementation for osmarender doing sth. along
 these lines a while ago.

This is a separate issue.

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


Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?

2010-02-23 Thread Roy Wallace
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:27 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:

 The only harm is if there is no way as well, or if people start joing
 roads to nature strips and making it a complete PITA to edit them
 independently of each other in future.

I think this is important, and hasn't been addressed yet.

 Also I'd only tag the way not the area with the name so that people
 only wanting the way will still get things to render properly.

The outstanding question here is whether a relation should be used to
relate the way to the corresponding area.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [talk-au] Opening hours

2010-02-23 Thread Roy Wallace
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 3:59 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:

 Third sunday of the month, from 9 until 12 can be tagged as:
 opening_hours=Su[3] 09:00-12:00

 Sunday markets on the 1st, 3rd and 5th Sundays of the month:
 opening_hours=Su[1,3,5] 06:00-12:00

These are good.

 Last Wednesday in July: opening_hours=Aug We[-1] 09:00-17:00

That's a little strange. I would have thought instead
opening_hours=Jul We[-1] 09:00-17:00. But as long as it's described
clearly on the wiki, it's fine.

 The following could be used to describe hours of operation of a school zone:

 opening_hours=Mo-Fr 08:00-09:00,14:00-15:00; SH off
 opening_hours:maxspeed=40

 Or something to that effect.

A school zone has opening_hours? Also, opening_hours:maxspeed seems
a little unintuitive, but I don't have a better solution.

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


Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?

2010-02-22 Thread Roy Wallace
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 6:11 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:

 ...Way representation is more useful for
...
 - anything that has directional information, such as oneway roads

Exactly. Mapping a way as an area is fine as long as you also
represent *the path of travel*.

 detailed information like [area]
 should be mapped *in addition* to ways, maybe similar to
 waterway=riverbank.

Yup. If you're interested in this, start another post on the tagging list!

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?

2010-02-22 Thread Roy Wallace
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Carsten Gerlach daswaldh...@gmx.de wrote:

 Yes, that's right, have a look at http://osm.org/go/0MBdEXMHO- for example.

That looks great, and so simple... highway=* for the way, AND
highway=* + area=yes for the area.

Is this a solved problem, then? Any complaints with this approach
(cause it looks damn pretty on mapnik, at least...)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?

2010-02-22 Thread Roy Wallace
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:05 AM, David Paleino da...@debian.org wrote:

 Is this a solved problem, then? Any complaints with this approach
 (cause it looks damn pretty on mapnik, at least...)

 I remember someone complaining with me that routers not supporting
 highway=* + area=yes in the same relation with a normal highway=*,
 might get confused -- and that something like landuse=road would be
 better.
 I don't know which of the two to choose though.

Hmm. I prefer highway=* + area=yes, as IMHO the area is an integral
feature of the road itself - not just a feature of the land on which
the road sits. You could argue either way, though.

As for routers getting confused, there are a couple of options:

1) the router can ignore all highway=* + area=yes areas (this also
rules out routing across open areas, but might be suitable for car
routers)
2) the router can ignore highway=* + area=yes areas IF there is also a
corresponding highway=* WAY. This requires a relation to indicate
which area corresponds to which way. I think type=area,
role=center/role=area would work [1]. Other tags describing the road
could then go on the relation, rather than the way and/or area.

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Area

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?

2010-02-22 Thread Roy Wallace
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:

 Exactly. Mapping a way as an area is fine as long as you also
 represent *the path of travel*.

 What path of travel?  There are many paths of travel, and generally none of
 them are properly represented by a line going through the middle of a
 roadway.

By path of travel, I mean what is currently represented as a
highway=* way in the OSM database. Tobias already gave 6 reasons why
this is important.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [talk-au] tennis court land

2010-02-22 Thread Roy Wallace
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:20 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

 Personally I don't think it's reasonable to map anything on a
 residential property

I wonder if any lawyer/privacy expert/etc. has written on this subject before...

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


Re: [talk-au] tennis court land

2010-02-22 Thread Roy Wallace
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

 ... I don't think it should render on the
 default mapnik. If for no other reason than we want *public* tennis
 courts to be visible, and all those private ones just create a lot of
 noise.

Just add access=private (or access=unknown, if unknown) as applicable.

A similar issue arises for amenity=parking - the blue P is hidden on
mapnik if access is specified to be something other than public.

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


Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?

2010-02-21 Thread Roy Wallace
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Niklas Cholmkvist towards...@gmail.com wrote:
 I live in a place where I feel the need to map some streets as areas. If
 I start a little of such mapping, will routing software get confused?

How were you planning to achieve this?

Mapping streets (and other linear features) as areas has been
discussed many times on the tagging list. See e.g.
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-February/001389.html

There is still no consensus that I'm aware of for how to do this
(though I personally think a possible solution is to represent a road
as an area (for e.g. rendering) AND a way (for e.g. routing), and
relate them with a relation).

I would suggest bringing this up again (if you like) on
tagg...@openstreetmap.org, rather than talk@openstreetmap.org :)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [talk-au] Tram stops and routes for Melbourne

2010-02-18 Thread Roy Wallace
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Andy Botting a...@andybotting.com wrote:

 The Director would however approve the release of the data provided
 the usual terms of our licence agreement were in place. 

They clearly just don't get it hey...

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


Re: [OSM-talk] fwd: Two thirds of mobile users want driving AND walking navigation

2010-02-15 Thread Roy Wallace
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 7:10 PM, James Stewart j.k.stew...@ed.ac.uk wrote:

 Getting back to those walkers, though. Navteq says it's identified four 
 features requested by large numbers of users when they're on foot. They are:
 public transport information including real-time data;

Well, OSM can do bus/rail stops, but no real-time data...

 “logical guidance” which can provide specific pedestrian routing and shortcuts

This is good; we're doing well with highway=path/footway

 visual cues during guidance such as landmarks

Can OSM improve on this?

 and micro maps of destinations such as airports and shopping malls

I think this is quite important, and can be one of the strengths of
OSM. e.g. Plenty of POI's waiting to be mapped here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-27.66214lon=153.04129zoom=17layers=B000FTF

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Estate_Agent

2010-02-15 Thread Roy Wallace
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 12:27 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:

 Just use it

But it would be nice to have it listed on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop - and I suspect this is
what Djam is hoping for.

Sounds good to me, I reckon go ahead and move to voting - no one will
oppose. Then put it on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop.

I know I have used shop=real_estate before - but shop=estate_agent is
fine, and at least pushing this through the approval process will have
it listed on the Key:shop page to avoid these differences.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Project of the week

2010-02-09 Thread Roy Wallace
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:

 ...Tracing just doesn't cut it.

Cut it? Cut what? I think it's perfectly suitable for what Steve's
suggesting. There's a time and a place for tracing.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Nav4All navigation shut down by Navteq

2010-02-03 Thread Roy Wallace
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
 On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Roy Wallace wrote:
 I suspect you will have opponents, though, because having physical
 characteristics that can accommodate a bike is not verifiable.

 Actually I think it is verifiable as cycleways have design characteristics
 which provide inspiration for this ability to verify on the ground.

I don't understand, but I hope you're right - look forward to hearing
your definition (in a new thread or on the consolidation wiki page).

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Nav4All navigation shut down by Navteq

2010-02-03 Thread Roy Wallace
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:

 That is 300 times more open to misinterpretation than the cycleway example.
 Yet we cope.

So you're arguing that, because you guys are able to cope, these
kind of tags are necessarily a good idea? The only thing they avoid is
a few keystrokes.

Don't get me wrong - I really like your duck test, and in general it
works really well. But as I implied before, a cycleway still isn't
defined as well as a duck. It may never be... (though I'm still
looking forward to a verifiable definition...)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Multiple Services to a Company/Building

2010-02-03 Thread Roy Wallace
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

 Are you sure it
 wouldn't be better to push for amenity=cafe;bakery;atm style
 multi-tagging instead?

IIRC, there is opposition to multi-tagging - (I can't remember
exactly who said that or why, though...I suspect it's because you then
need to parse every single value string and turn it into a vector,
rather than being able to use a much faster equality condition)

But I do know that we currently do things like bicycle=designated +
foot=designated, instead of designated=bicycle;foot. So my suggestion
is more consistent with current practice.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Multiple Services to a Company/Building

2010-02-03 Thread Roy Wallace
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Ian Mc Shane ianmcsh...@live.co.za wrote:

 From what I understand the openstreetmap.org map is purely for show and not
 meant to be THE place to view all the data... its up to other groups to show
 what they want e.g. cloudmade, cyclemap, etc...

Yup, this is absolutely right. Data first, users (including renderers!) second.

 Maybe one day we will have pipemap.org showing us the world of pipes that
 live beneath our world but that is up to pipemap.org and not necessarily
 openstreetmap.org

Funny you should mention that, because it already exists!:
http://elanor.mine.nu/daeron/kartat.php?zoom=16lat=60.19553lon=24.95806layers=B00

 I found it documented here:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FAQ#What_shall_I_do_for_roads_that_have_multiple_values_for_a_tag.3F.

Ah, well spotted.

 Multiple values separated by semicolons by far seems to me the simplest way
 to denote multiple values for a single key with less worry that keys will be
 overused.

I guess. There's advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.

 Thanks for the feedback so far, it has been a learning experience.

No problem :) Oh, by the way, I just noticed that this thread has been
on t...@openstreetmap.org. In future, for tagging-related stuff,
please post to tagg...@openstreetmap.org (so those uninterested in
tagging threads can ignore them). Cheers.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


[talk-au] google maps criticised for unreliable toll road routing

2010-02-03 Thread Roy Wallace
@ http://apcmag.com/google-maps-bug-forces-melburnians-down-toll-roads.htm

A bug in Google Maps Australia is forcing people down costly toll
roads whether they like it or not.

Just a thought - might be a nice reminder to check how we are doing on
this front in OSM?

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


Re: [talk-au] Canberra - last white spot on the map

2010-02-03 Thread Roy Wallace
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:37 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:

 It might be useful to clarify things when it comes to Coles Express
 and Woolworths locations as to what the operator/naming should be

I use name=Woolworths for Woolworths petrol stations. Have never used
the operator=* tag - should I?

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


Re: [talk-au] Canberra - last white spot on the map

2010-02-03 Thread Roy Wallace
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 7:29 AM, John Henderson snow...@gmx.com wrote:

  I use name=Woolworths for Woolworths petrol stations. Have never used
  the operator=* tag - should I?

 I haven't seen any difference to the rendering with or without the
 operator tag.

Thanks for the response, but I'm not talking about rendering.

 What I do find useful is the inclusion of a place name when looking at
 the list of outlets on a GPS.  This makes it so much simpler to ignore
 those away from my intended direction of travel.  So I use names like
 Woolworths Renmark.

Is the name actually Woolworths Renmark, though? If not, it
shouldn't be in the name tag...(right?)

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


Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Nav4All navigation shut down by Navteq

2010-02-02 Thread Roy Wallace
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:

 I will confess to being very disappointed that JOSM has now adopted the
 retarded why-use-one-tag-when-eighty-three-will-do cycleway scheme.

So you seriously think highway=cycleway is all that's needed to
describe the various flavours of cycleways worldwide? If so, I'd be
personally interested to hear your definition of a cycleway.

 I like your optimism. But people do genuinely appear to enjoy wiki-fiddling,
 too. Sadly.

What's with the wiki-fiddler hatred? (not just you, Richard, in
general) All those people advocating for a consistent/enforced/limited
tagging scheme - how do you think such a scheme should be produced?
Wiki-fiddlers (meaning those who use and edit the wiki) are the
primary people who are aiming to document the meanings of tags and
develop a more consistent tagging scheme...If you've got a problem
with the definition of highway=cycleway, why not stop complaining
about wiki-fiddlers and contribute!:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path

If, on the other hand, you think iterative/collaborative/gradual
improvement towards the goal (of a consistent tag set) by the OSM
community is *impossible*, then why even bother being involved in
OSM...?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Nav4All navigation shut down by Navteq

2010-02-02 Thread Roy Wallace
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:

 If you want to help newcomers, then make a list of features that are
 rendered on the map, and write a nice tutorial explaining them,
...
 What is so hard about this?

Forgive me for jumping in...but I think the hard part is to write a
nice tutorial explaining them, based on what is on the wiki.

The wiki is imperfect, and if it were easy to write nice
explanations for all rendered tags, then those nice explanations
would probably already be on the wiki, and the tutorial wouldn't be
necessary...

So, unless we want to defer to some higher power (???) to tell us what
to tag, we need to step up and fix the situation ourselves. What's so
hard about that? (:P)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Multiple Services to a Company/Building

2010-02-02 Thread Roy Wallace
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Ian Mc Shane ianmcsh...@live.co.za wrote:

 1)  Do you want all that detail?

Yes please :)

 For example a town/suburb website using OSM data for geo-location of
 businesses in the area would have their own database of what each business
 provides in terms of services and products...

But I don't have my own database - I want to use the OSM database...

 This can be noted in an example such as a Delicatessen... they range from
 small subset of specific foods to a whole range of different products but we
 can't detail what they sell categorically as product categories can change
 rapidly.

So does the road network :P Put it in OSM if:
1) it refers to a specific latitude and longitude
2) it's a verifiable fact
3) you want to

Whether or not it's likely to go out of date quickly is not relevant -
it just means we need more mappers...

 2)  Assuming yes, how to denote the detail:

 For instance, tanning=yes, does that mean a spa provides tanning services or
 is it related to a factory that tans leather?

Well...before you decide to use tanning=yes, check if it's already
used (tagwatch, wiki, etc.).
If not, go ahead and use it - and document your use of it on the wiki.
If someone comes along later to tag a factory, they'll need to choose
their tag carefully, and update the documentation accordingly.

Basically - for tag definitions, rely on the wiki.

 With all that said, going the route of:
 shop=beauty
 beauty=tanning
 beauty=massage
 etc.

The problem is that you can only have one value per key, i.e. you
could only have beauty=tanning OR beauty=massage.

An alternative is to use something like a namespace concept. Have a
look at how to tag amenity=parking's:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parking.  Notice the tags
capacity:disabled=*, capacity:parent=*, etc.

If you want to use this kind of scheme for the beauty example, I guess
you could probably use:
shop=beauty
beauty:tanning=yes
beauty:massage=yes
etc.

But this probably isn't necessary in this case. I'd be happy either
way, as long as it's documented on the wiki... :)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Multiple Services to a Company/Building

2010-02-01 Thread Roy Wallace
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Ian Mc Shane ianmcsh...@live.co.za wrote:

 private banking services

private_banking_services=yes

 foreign exchange

foreign_exchange=yes

 tanning

tanning=yes

 massage?

massage=yes

Note I'm just thinking aloud - but they would do the job, would they not...?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Revisited: how to edit GPX tracks?

2010-01-28 Thread Roy Wallace
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

 - Prune:

I'm in the same boat, and this is what I continue to use (on Ubuntu -
so Windows-only options are excluded for me).

 very flakey on large numbers of traces,
 pretty tedious having to work in terms of ranges,
 pretty dumb how it sequences traces in the
 order you load them, not the order of their timestamps. The OSM
 background usually dies after a few minutes. Can't export ranges
 (instead you have to delete the rest of the trace).

Agreed on all counts. Let me know if you or anyone finds something
better (that works on Ubuntu)...

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] New map feature disability description

2010-01-26 Thread Roy Wallace
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Lulu-Ann lulu-...@gmx.de wrote:

 For instance you can inform deaf people about subtitles in cinemas,

How about also using subtitles=yes (etc.)...

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [talk-au] access=destination

2010-01-25 Thread Roy Wallace
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote:

 A Local Traffic sign is a recommendation, not a law. As such, it is
 sort of the opposite of access=designated, which is designed to show
 places we would prefer certain vehicles to go, this is designed to
 show places we would prefer them not to. We don't actually have a tag
 for this at the moment, maybe we need one.

Yeah good point. Or alternatively, for motor vehicles, the way is
designated for local traffic? Some potential tags:

* motor_vehicle:local_traffic=designated
* motor_vehicle:destination=designated
...or...
* motor_vehicle:through_traffic=not_intended

 Maybe we need to do a data extract and look at how many such tags
 exist - ie how big a problem it is.  There may be few enough that we
 can do some sort of check before we do any automated changing.

FWIW, I believe access=destination ways are rendered in OSM mapnik
with a dotted blue fill, e.g.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-27.46151lon=153.09406zoom=17layers=B000FTF

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


Re: [talk-au] access=destination

2010-01-24 Thread Roy Wallace
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:

 ... I've emailed QLD gov and Brisbane CC about what the signs mean,
 though I'm not holding my breath for a response...

An email response from the Road Safety  System Management Division,
Department of Transport and Main Roads (QLD):

---

The 'Local Traffic Only' sign is an advisory sign only and is not
regulatory. An extract from the MUTCD is produced below.

20.3.3 Local traffic only (G9-40-1) The LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY sign may
be used at the entrance to a local area to advise road users that the
street is not intended for through traffic.

This sign may be installed by either The Department of Transport and
Main Roads or Local Government with the appropriate delegation.

It is an advisory sign to all road users advising the street is not
intended to be used by through traffic, however vehicles are the
primary target (bicycles and pedestrians are generally not an issue).

---

Suggestions for tagging, then?

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


Re: [talk-au] access=destination

2010-01-24 Thread Roy Wallace
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:

 Great work Roy

Cheers :)

 (not providing any suggestions)

Alright how's this

  It is an advisory sign to all road users advising the street is not
  intended to be used by through traffic, however vehicles are the
  primary target (bicycles and pedestrians are generally not an issue).

Unfortunately, this response is still a little unclear. But I would
read that generally not an issue here means excluded. Please let
me know if you disagree (in which case, you in fact aren't allowed to
*walk* through a Local Traffic Only sign, and access=destination is
the correct tag to use).

So, if everyone agrees that response means bicycles/pedestrians are
excluded, then from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access we
could use:

vehicle=destination (which - perhaps wrongly - includes bicycles), or
motor_vehicle=destination (which - perhaps wrongly - excludes a horse
and carriage).

motor_vehicle=destination seems best to me.

I'd propose, for tags in Queensland (and possibly elsewhere in AU):

1) a bulk change of access=destination to motor_vehicle=destination +
FIXME=does access=destination really apply to bicycles/pedestrians
here?
2) an update to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines
recommending the use of motor_vehicle=destination +
motor_vehicle:source=Local Traffic Only sign in these cases.

I propose a bulk update because a) I can't think of any other reason
why access=destination would be applied to ways in Queensland, other
than due to the observance of Local Traffic Only sign, and b) this
reportedly adversely affects foot routing, so it should be fixed.

  The 'Local Traffic Only' sign is an advisory sign only and is not
  regulatory.

I don't think this is important, but this could be specified using
motor_vehicle:regulatory=no (or inferred from
motor_vehicle:source=Local Traffic Only sign)

Thoughts?

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


Re: [talk-au] Boat ramp

2010-01-20 Thread Roy Wallace
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

 I would suggest tagging the way leisure=slipway. If you need to
 break the current specification to do so, then make a note on the wiki
 page.

Yeah, how strange that a slipWAY can supposedly only apply to a NODE.

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


Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

2010-01-18 Thread Roy Wallace
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:

  I think Google and others will quickly rape the PD server

 This assumes that they can find a means to import and check the data.

This is Google - it's what they do best.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

2010-01-18 Thread Roy Wallace
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 9:10 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 2010/1/19 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
 It isn't working for Google and/or TomTom - it's working for the
 public, i.e. everyone and everything (including Google and TomTom).

 If the public gives back they could already be using OSM data... why
 is it a good thing to spend time, effort, money and other resources so
 others can benefit for free when they don't wish to give anything
 back?

Some like to give without expecting anything in return.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Haiti street names

2010-01-18 Thread Roy Wallace
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net wrote:

 I've added a 1994 US military map as one of the background layers in
 Potlatch. You can use this to add street names easily.

Cool. Suggestions for a source:name=* value? source:name=1994_US_military_map?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

2010-01-17 Thread Roy Wallace
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:36 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
...
 and warning PD advocates if they edit CC-BY-SA/ODBL information and
 that the changes won't be public domain.

Nice idea, but the main difficulty I see is that contributing to
openstreetmap is a collaborative process - if you allow for different
licenses within the DB I think it will be difficult to classify even a
single node/way as having a particular license.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [talk-au] access=destination

2010-01-15 Thread Roy Wallace
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:

 Can you legally ride a bike
 through a Local Traffic Only area?

The closest I could find, for Queensland is from:
http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/T/TrantOpRURR09.pdf

97 (1) Road access signs: A driver must not drive on a length of road
to which a road access sign applies if information on or with the sign
indicates that the driver or the driver's vehicle is not permitted
beyond the sign.

However, there's no explicit mention or definition of Local Traffic
Only signs. Interestingly, the above clause applies to A driver.
This is defined as:

16 Who is a driver: (1) A driver is the person who is driving a
vehicle (except a motorbike, bicycle, animal or animal-drawn vehicle).
(2) However, a driver does not include a person pushing a motorised
wheelchair.

So this would seem to infer that motorbike riders don't have to obey
Local Traffic Only signs. Strange (and/or incorrect).

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


  1   2   3   4   5   >