Re: [talk-au] farm airstrips

[Andrew Davidson]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 7:47 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
 wrote:
>
> Especially with the "runway" apparently going through a tree & 2 fences!
>

... and a farm dam.

I've had a look at the other runways they've mapped and they almost
all look OK. There is another that goes through some fences and one or
two that are probably farm tracks.

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

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

[Andrew Davidson]

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

Re: [talk-au] Overpass question

[Andrew Davidson]

On 17/10/23 04:58, Bob Cameron wrote:> Ways only? Because the output 
data/list format is different. Nodes

are arranged by objects per co-ordinate, whereas ways are by an ID
that includes a nodes list, with a separate co-ordinate lookup table
for those nodes. My entire workflow is co-ordinate based, Bing etc
overhead, geoencoded ground level photos, plus an audio/voice
annotation, so I need a list of objects by that key. On top of that I
use simple tools to filter the list for specific tags, most often
informal=* being missing.


Don't recurse down from your search results "(._;>;);", rather use out 
center; eg: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1C3T This will return a lat and 
lon that is the centre of the bounding box (which will mostly be OK 
except for the usual doughnut and snake cases).


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

Re: [talk-au] emergency highway airstrips

[Andrew Davidson]

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

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

[Andrew Davidson]

On 6/10/23 18:14, Little Maps wrote:

Thanks Graeme, it’ll be great to hear what others think too. Cheers Ian


The first thing to keep in mind is how concentrated the AU population 
is. Sydney and Melbourne both have 20% of the population living in them. 
If we add on Brisbane we reach the 50% mark, which means the majority of 
people live in one of three cities. As a result there is not much to go 
around for the rest.


If we adopted 50,000 as the cutoff for a city we're going to more than 
halve the number of currently mapped cities. 50,000 might work for the 
US (and is also the value the UN has adopted for global comparisons) but 
it's too big for AU. At the other end 15,000 is too small, we'd end up 
creating an additional 25% of cities.


I would suggest that we adopt the ABS's threshold of 20,000. This is the 
population level at which they consider a settlement starts to have 
"gravity" and pulls in surrounding urban areas. It used to be 30,000 
back in the early days of their methodology but I assume they think 
people are more mobile so the "pull in" starts earlier now. 20,000 also 
has the benefit of not changing the number of cities we have by much. 10 
currently mapped cities would become towns and 13 current towns would 
become cities.


For towns the US threshold of 10,000 is way too crazy high. There are 
1,000+ things currently mapped as towns. If we adopted 10, this 
would drop to 101. Even 5,000 would only get that to 198.


I was thinking that we would just use the ABS's UCL list. This divides 
settlements into urban centres and urban localities. If a settlement is 
on the urban centres list and its population is over 20,000, then that's 
a city, otherwise it would be a town. In effect this is a cutoff of 
1,000, which the ABS has used for more than 50 years suggesting that 
it's getting relatively smaller over time.


The urban localities would be villages (a lower cutoff of ~200) and 
settlements not on the list hamlets.


The bigger shifts are going to be in the towns and villages. The UCL has 
(using the rules above):


72 cities
657 towns
1080 villages

but we currently have 1,000+ towns and 1,800+ villages. It is hard to be 
very precise, as these will include place nodes nested inside other 
urban centres and localities.


I looked at the ratio of CTVs from the US/CA/NZ on the assumption that 
being new world settlements the ratios should be similar. The 9 towns 
for each city in AU is similar to the others 7/9/8. What is different is 
the ratio of villages to towns. AU is 1.6 the others 2.4/4.0/2.3, which 
suggests:


1. There are a lot of villages in CA
2. Settlements in AU are more thinly spread.
3. 200 might be too high. The problem being it is a lot of work to get 
population numbers for places too small to register on the UCL.



___
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))

[Andrew Davidson]

On 5/10/23 18:01, cleary wrote:

the small central district? Or is it the much larger Tamworth LGA? I
think it would include the suburbs but not the outlying
towns/villages in the LGA. There are also city/suburbs such as "City
of Ryde" which is the name of a local government area in the Sydney
metropolitan area but the actuality is that, for all practical
purposes, Ryde is a suburb of Sydney.


The ABS has population stats at different geographical levels. For 
Tamworth we have LGA:


Tamworth Regional: 63,070

This would be the population you would put on the admin_level 6 
boundary. From the suburb and localities you get:


Tamworth: 189

This would be the population that would go on the admin_level 9 
boundary. From the urban centres and localities you get:


Tamworth: 35,415

This is the population of the settlement, which I have been adding to 
the place node. The UCL is the ABS's attempt to answer the question 
"what is the population of ?"




Leaving aside cities and suburbs, our discussion has mainly been
about non-city rural areas. While  there may be some fuzziness around
the population of the business and residential districts of a
settlement and whether the population in its surrounding areas should
be counted, I would support population numbers as a reasonably
objective and useful determinant of town/village/hamlet status.


How to subdivide an urban settlement into subdivisions is another set of 
problems.


I would prefer a system based on just population, but I got the feeling 
that we wouldn't get agreement on that, as we have mappers who want to 
adjust.


___
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))

[Andrew Davidson]

On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:50 PM David Bannon  wrote:
> I'd wonder if we are building an impossible to manage rule set. For example, 
> many small town doctor's clinic only have a doctor there one or two days a 
> week. So, a full time doctor is worth 40 points, so, a one day a week one is 
> 8 points ? Many, many "towns" have a community hall (or even a Mechanic's 
> Institute) but very many of them have fallen into such disrepair its unsafe 
> to go in. And a Hospital, thats one with an Emergency

Yeap, exactly. That's why I was suggesting only four classes of
services and only their presence or not. That way you can check them
with an Overpass query.

If it's all too hard, then the obvious solution is to just make the
definition of a village a settlement with a population greater than
200 and less than 1000.

___
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))

[Andrew Davidson]

On 3/10/23 20:40, Warin wrote:

The 'government/community services' might be ordered by there total 
numbers?


PO (including local PO agents)

Police

Doctors (theses seam scarcer than Police?_

Hospitals


OK, so there was a maths error in my example. I was suggesting that the 
population threshold for a village would be a function of the number of 
classes of services available. So:


Number of classes present   Population threshold

0  400
1  300
2  200
3  100
40

Underlying this is the assumption that there are enough dwellings to 
make it to an OSM settlement (3).


You can add or remove classes and change the upper bound. It's all just 
a rule-of-thumb. The important thing being that it's documented 
somewhere and mapper can check it.



Outliers?

The Ilkurlka Roadhouse is on the Anne Beadell Highway. Next fuel .. east 
771 km Coober Pedy or west 550 km Laverton.


Population? 1? ... ~200 at Tjuntjuntjara. the nearest aboriginal community?


So there are two classes of services available, the threshold is 200 
people. If the population is 1 then it's not a village. According to the 
wiki article there is also a small outstation there, so there may be 
three dwellings, which would be a hamlet. Otherwise isolated dwellings.





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

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

[Andrew Davidson]

On 2/10/23 21:53, Little Maps wrote:

As I understand your message, we have and/or can get population data
for a small proportion of places in Aus (probably with comprehensive
data for most larger places and less data for the many smaller ones).


There are two classes of problems:

1. Urban centres that have gown so much that they have coalesced with 
neighbouring urban centres. Some of these are easy to assign the 
population to a single place node (Gold Coast, Nowra - Bomaderry, 
Shepparton - Mooroopna). Others are not clear where you would put the 
population (Central Coast, Blue Mountains, Ocean Grove - Barwon Heads). 
There are about 90 of these out of 1800.


2. Settlements that are so small that the ABS doesn't consider them 
worthy of their own mesh block (the smallest geographic unit they report 
on). If a settlement doesn't rate a single residential mesh block I'd 
say it's not really a candidate for anything above hamlet.



This means that, if we develop a guideline based primarily on
population data we then have to develop a simple way to extrapolate
the guidelines to places without pop data. Yes?


If you can't get population data that kinda suggests it's either tiny 
or, grown so big that you have to start worrying about how to subdivide 
the urban area into suburbs etc.



As a simple starting point, I’m curious whether it’s possible to
first try to get agreement on general cut-offs for
villages/towns/cities etc using only the places that have pop data
(i.e. those you’ve mapped). We could present some different scenarios
so that everyone could see the implications of different decisions
for areas that they know.


The ABS uses a threshold of 1000 people in an urban area to identify an 
urban centre. In OSM speak this would be a town or city.


At the small end the old Natmap standard was not to show any settlements 
smaller than 200. Maybe that's the threshold for hamlet/village. 
Although I get the impression people would like to adjust that for the 
level of services available. Perhaps we could apply the Fitzpatrick 
adjustment:


add on or take off 50 people for each one of the following is or isn't 
available:


pub
shop
servo
a government service (PO/Hospital/Police)

So a settlement with pub, shop, servo, and school with a population of 4 
would be a village. A rural residential development with no services and 
a population of 750 would be a hamlet.


The cutoffs are going to be arbitrary. The important thing is to just 
choose some and make sure that there's some reasoning behind them.



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

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

[Andrew Davidson]

On 2/10/23 21:53, Little Maps wrote:


differences in what people consider to be towns vs cities. For
example, lots of regional centres in Vic have been tagged as cities
(and are indeed called ‘cities’ in Victoria), whereas many places of
similar size in other states have been tagged as towns. That points


That's only happened in the last month. Four weeks ago there were 12 
cities in Victoria:


https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1BjN

There are now 25 "cities" in Victoria. One mapper just decided to go 
through and change everything that has the word "city" in the LGA title 
to a city. I changed them back to town and they went and switched them 
all back again.


This is why I thought Graeme's question was well timed. I'd prefer that 
we had some guidelines that actually gave guidance rather than the 
alternative of edit wars based on the vibe.


___
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)

[Andrew Davidson]

On 2/10/23 12:52, Little Maps wrote:
Hi again, fyi. I was curious to see how variable city/town tags were in 
relation to population. About 1500 places spread around Aus have a 
population tag according to an Overpass Turbo search. 


You were a little too quick for me, I didn't have time to put them all 
in. I've done all of the village/town/cities that I could line up with 
the appropriate ABS UCL (or for some the appropriate mesh blocks). I 
have not included places that are inside another place or places that 
the ABS give a hyphenated name where it's not obvious which place node 
to put the population on.


You can view them on a map:

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Bhl cities
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Bhm towns
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Bhp villages

Looks like Victoria is the home of city-flation.


Using Ockham’s razor, the simplest (best?) approach would be to
start super simple and then see what we’re missing. For example, map
all locations using population (or proxy) and then overlay presence
/ absence of hospitals, schools, etc and see where and how often
anomalies occur, and then discuss how to deal with these. There may
not be many. Otherwise we end up debating local issues only, like
the merits of the Windorah coffee shop, which doesn’t get us far imo.


Whatever people come up with it's got to be:

1. Simple to apply
2. Verifiable ie: other mappers need to be able to come to the same 
conclusion

3. Consistent with the principle of least surprise


___
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)

[Andrew Davidson]

On 1/10/23 10:31, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

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


Almost as important as Croydon. No, not that Croydon, Croydon 
Queensland. Just up the road from the metropolis of Forsayth.



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

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

[Andrew Davidson]

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

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

[Andrew Davidson]

On 28/9/23 20:31, Michael Collinson wrote:

Perhaps this apocryphal Ireland solution should be used? :-)

A house - building

A house and a church - hamlet

A house, a church and a pub - village

A house, a church and two pubs - town


I think your criteria may to strict :-)

I've been looking at SA because I was curious as to why there were so 
many "towns". Turns out that the threshold is very low:


https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1BeG

In fact there were two "towns" in SA that had a population of *zero* at 
the last census.





___
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

[Andrew Davidson]

On 29/9/23 08:34, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
I was looking at 
https://profile.id.com.au/scenic-rim/population?WebID=160 
, but 


I can't figure out what ABS geographic unit that lines up with. Maybe 
it's their own?


https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/SAL32394 
 says 320 ? I guess that's "town" vs area?


That quite common in rural areas. I've encountered cases where the 
bounded locality had a population in the vicinity of 500 but the 
settlement population was less than 100.


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


I'm not sure. I was wondering if people were imagining some sort of 
scoring system. One point for each person that lives there, then plus or 
minus some value for each type of urban infrastructure that it has or 
doesn't have.


I've been doing a bit of searching to see if I can find something that's 
already been designed, but haven't been successful yet. So far I've found:


https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/standards/australian-statistical-geography-standard-asgs-edition-3/jul2021-jun2026/significant-urban-areas-urban-centres-and-localities-section-state/urban-centres-and-localities

This is what the ABS does.

https://www.health.gov.au/topics/rural-health-workforce/classifications/mmm#about-the-modified-monash-model

This is what Monash Uni has developed. It gets used to work out how 
rural somewhere is for the purposes of health based employment.


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119020300838#bib0005

Now we're in deep dive territory. This is about what the UN has 
developed for their use.


https://ghsl.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ucdb2018visual.php#

Less useful, but interesting to look at. It's a dataset of urban areas 
made by remote sensing.



___
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

[Andrew Davidson]

On 28/9/23 17:04, Michael Collinson wrote:
So, I think some sort agreed national level hierarchy of populated place 
is important in order to jive with cultural, legal, cultural and broad 
population density criteria. But to vary it locally or regionally is 
dangerous and I agree with cleary (if I am reading the quote levels right).


I'm in agreement. The current tagging guidelines are already too vague. 
I don't want to add on the idea that you can vary it across Australia, 
this will just encourage more place inflation.


I'd rather tighten up the definitions, so they are more verifiable.



___
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

[Andrew Davidson]

On 28/9/23 09:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
Against what you said, Rathdowney in SEQ, with ~1800 people, 


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.


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


Looking at the aerial imagery I'm not sure this would even count a a 
settlement. There is no clustering of dwellings, it's just farms strung 
out along a road with a school.



___
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

[Andrew Davidson]

On 28/9/23 08:21, cleary wrote:

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. 


That is the general problem, most people want to inflate the importance 
of a place so that it renders. Windorah has a population of 76 and 
Ivanhoe 202. If it's lucky Ivanhoe might rate a village but Windorah is 
most firmly in the hamlet class.



___
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

[Andrew Davidson]

On 27/9/23 16:29, Ian Sergeant wrote:
Aren't most places classified by the government authority as 
cities/villages/towns/localities/suburbs?


Not in a way that is useful for using in OSM.They tend to be classified 
under the state's local government act, which is an administrative 
arrangement not an indication of where they would fall in the OSM 
tagging system.





___
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

[Andrew Davidson]

On 22/9/23 16:37, 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.


I don't agree. OSM has a map what is on the ground principle. If the 
track exists, then it exists. We have tagging to represent the legal 
situation.


If you are going to allow one group to censor the map, then you are 
going to have to let everyone.


By the way, I have no interest in being a good corporate anything.


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

Re: [talk-au] Putting streams into OSM

[Andrew Davidson]

On 27/5/23 08:39, nwastra nwastra wrote:

I should add that I have only used the Surface Hydrology Lines from GeoScience 
Aust dataset for Qld catchments and as the data is drawn for many different 
sources across the country the perenniality may be not always be included.


I admit I've been too lazy to publish the stuff I'd already done with 
the GA dataset. Rather than making people do it all again I've finally 
got round to putting it on GitHub https://github.com/FrakGart/ga_streams


I have already imported in the named streams in NSW except for the area 
around Sydney. Mostly, again, due to laziness. As already pointed out 
the data all needs to be sanity checked against what's on the ground and 
that's really hard when it's under a city.


The data is organised by AWRC catchment, so for Sydney you are looking at:

https://github.com/FrakGart/ga_streams/blob/main/Basin_II/II12.osm.gz

which is the Hawkesbury River and

https://github.com/FrakGart/ga_streams/blob/main/Basin_II/II13.osm.gz

which is Sydney Coast-Georges River

You can use overpass turbo to see what is already mapped:

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1vpu (Hawkesbury River)
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1vpv (Sydney Coast-Georges River)


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

Re: [talk-au] Waterway data check overpass query

[Andrew Davidson]

I had a read of the wiki page on waterway relations and it seems that
you can put in unnamed tributaries (if they have a name they go in a
different relation).

This version will filter out those https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1uJc

On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 8:31 PM Little Maps  wrote:
>

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

Re: [talk-au] Waterway data check overpass query

[Andrew Davidson]

On 9/5/23 19:51, Andrew Davidson wrote:


https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1uIC

Which should be this code:

[timeout:900][out:csv(way_id,riv_name,rel_id,rel_name;true;",")];
area["ISO3166-2"="AU-VIC"]->.a;


Apologies, I should have used make rather than convert. The corrected 
version is here https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1uIF



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

Re: [talk-au] Waterway data check overpass query

[Andrew Davidson]

On 8/5/23 19:59, Little Maps wrote:

Hi all, does anyone know if it’s possible to use Overpass Turbo or another 
tool to find waterway ways for which the way has a different name to the 
relation that the way is a part of? As an example, imagine that the relation 
for Ovens River includes a way called Castle Creek. Can this be found? I’ve 
been data checking river relations and can’t work out how to make a query that 
would detect this issue. Many thanks for your help, Ian


https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1uIC

Which should be this code:

[timeout:900][out:csv(way_id,riv_name,rel_id,rel_name;true;",")];
area["ISO3166-2"="AU-VIC"]->.a;
relation["type"="waterway"](area.a);
foreach -> .rel(

  way(r.rel)(if:t["name"] != rel.u(t["name"]))->.ways;

  foreach .ways -> .reach (
convert object way_id = reach.u(id()),
riv_name = reach.u(t["name"]),
rel_id = rel.u(id()),
rel_name = rel.u(t["name"]);
out;

);
);


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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Andrew Davidson]

On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 5:21 PM Andrew Hughes  wrote:
> For the structure number, I like the look of...
>
> ref:AU:VIC:DOT:SN=SN12345
>

Does it really need to be that complicated? How many different systems
of culvert references are there in Victoria. I'd be happy with just
ref=* on the culvert.

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

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

[Andrew Davidson]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:41 AM 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.

Sounds interesting. Another OSM policy that you'll need to know about
is https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

Looking down the list of things that you are planning on doing I note
that one of the items on the list is "Tram and Bus stops". It would be
really helpful if you could get PTV to sign the required waiver
(https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates)
to let us use the data in OSM. We've got an active group of mappers in
Vic that want to do public transport mapping but are being held back
by the fact that we've been trying to get permission since 2019 to use
the data.

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

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

[Andrew Davidson]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:41 AM 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.

Sounds interesting. Another OSM policy that you'll need to know about
is https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

Looking down the list of things that you are planning on doing I note
that one of the items on the list is "Tram and Bus stops". It would be
really helpful if you could get PTV to sign the required waiver
(https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates)
to let us use the data in OSM. We've got an active group of mappers in
Vic that want to do public transport mapping but are being held back
by the fact that we've been trying to get permission since 2019 to use
the data.

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

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

[Andrew Davidson]

On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 8:57 AM Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> The terms cover data distribution, ie downloading from 
> planet.openstreetmap.org so you need to go through those terms to obtain OSM 
> data regardless of the ODbL.

Which can be found here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright

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

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

[Andrew Davidson]

On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 8:57 AM Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> The terms cover data distribution, ie downloading from 
> planet.openstreetmap.org so you need to go through those terms to obtain OSM 
> data regardless of the ODbL.

Which can be found here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright

___
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?

[Andrew Davidson]

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

Re: [talk-au] Adding intermittent to water south of Alice Springs.

[Andrew Davidson]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 6:04 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> HI,
>
> I have just add the tag intermittent=yes to several water bodies south
> of the approach road to Ayres Rock (A4 Lasseter Hwy).
>

Almost every hydrological feature in Australia is intermittent=yes. GA
has a satellite product that shows how often a water body has water in
it:

https://maps.dea.ga.gov.au/#share=s-j1nHpeX2mVRcfFHm3crnBuGUR7u

only the blue and purple areas are "perennial".

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

Re: [talk-au] Oz tagging of speed cameras

[Andrew Davidson]

On 15/8/22 08:40, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


I did wonder about that, looking at the two boxes on poles that are 
visible? Here at least, that arrangement means they are red light 
cameras only, combined red light & speed have a much larger camera box, 
& plain speed cameras are a single small unit.


They are combined functions in the one unit. This has an explanation of 
the the ones they use in SA:


https://www.police.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/2555/fixed_safety_camera_operating_practices.pdf

In OSM you'd map these as a speed camera node and an enforcement 
relation (or put both enforcements in relations 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9952073137).


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

Re: [talk-au] Oz tagging of speed cameras

[Andrew Davidson]

On 14/8/22 07:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


Thanks! But by that wiki, they should be mapped beside the camera 
location, not at the traffic lights?




A quick look round shows that the ones in SA have been mapped at the 
stop line. In VIC and NSW they seem to have been mostly mapped where the 
camera is.


There is some confusion about what the ref tag is for:

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1kZB

I doubt that is what is says on the control box.

The other odd thing is that most "speed cameras" are also red light 
cameras but they haven't been mapped that way.


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

Re: [talk-au] Oz tagging of speed cameras

[Andrew Davidson]

On 13/8/22 14:48, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
The message was to tell me that "every single speed camera in South 
Australia is already on the map" & can be viewed on OT, that "they are 
placed on the roads that they target exactly like traffic lights are 
placed. This is a standard that is agreed upon in the Australian OSM 
community", & that they've "deleted all the duplicate ones that you have 
added".


It doesn't look like this was ever discussed. However, looking at how 
they are mapped now the most common approach is to connect the 
speed_camera to the way or to include it in an enforcement relation. 
There are 801 speed_camera mapped in AU and 165 of them are not 
connected to a highway or enforcement relation:


https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1kYC

Checking a number of EU countries indicates that this seems to be the 
most common way of modelling this (80~90% of cases).


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

Re: [talk-au] Adopting "AU" Prefix on Network tags

[Andrew Davidson]

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 2:18 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
 wrote:

> & how would we work "Highway 1", with its myriad of alternative designations 
> & names?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_1_(Australia)
>

How much of "Highway 1" is actually left? As far as I know only the
bit in Western Australia is still sign posted "1".

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

Re: [talk-au] Adopting "AU" Prefix on Network tags

[Andrew Davidson]

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 1:37 PM Ben Kelley  wrote:
>
> I think we'll need a state component in the network (for state roads).
>
> I'm guessing more than one state has an A40.
>
> ref=A40, network=AU won't be enough for that.
>

That seems to be fairly standard in other countries. So
network=AU:QLD, AU:WA etc...

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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Gazetted Road Routes (National, State, Regional...)

[Andrew Davidson]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 11:48 AM Andrew Hughes  wrote:
> Some worldwide/geographic tagging guidelines exist, that are based on a 
> combination with the "network" tag: see 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Road_routes
>

Have you read 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads#Routes
?

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "secret" facilities?

[Andrew Davidson]

On 27/7/22 17:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote:


If something is not really verifiable at location (anonymous note may be 
lying!)


It's more amusing than that. They left the blinds open and put up the 
Bat Signal:


https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jul/21/pink-sky-mildura-victoria-australia-medicinal-cannabis-marijuana-plant

The site is so "secret" you can view any number of aerial obliques on 
their website to figure out where it is:


https://www.canngrouplimited.com/facilities

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

Re: [talk-au] Re-naming multi-site conservation reserves

[Andrew Davidson]

On 17/5/22 18:19, Little Maps wrote:

Andrew, of all the options that have been suggested, is cleary’s
approach the one you’d most recommend? And thanks again for importing
the reserve boundaries. If you never did anything else on osm you’d
still be my hero for this alone - plus maybe the admin boundaries.
:) Cheers.


I think it's the neatest way to do it. It keeps the relation for the 
whole area while letting you put names on the sections that you know.


It's not just me doing the CAPAD stuff, I know that Nev W has done a lot 
of work on this too (and I'm sure there are others). Also don't forget, 
Mr Harvey did all the heavy lifting on getting us access to the PSMA 
data and writing the scripts to get it ready for import.





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

Re: [talk-au] Bicycle access tags in Victoria and other edits edits

[Andrew Davidson]

On 16/5/22 23:38, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote:

Can I please clarify "using highway=cycleway should only be used where 
there are signs allowing"?


That is how I've always used it in urban areas.



This would only apply in NSW/VIC. In other jurisdictions putting up 
signs has become pointless because you can ride anywhere. In Canberra 
almost none of the shared path system has explicit signage. I use 
cycleway to tag "primary" routes and footway for "secondary" routes.


So this would be a cycleway:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Bike_path_in_Dickson%2C_Canberra%2C_Australia.jpg/576px-Bike_path_in_Dickson%2C_Canberra%2C_Australia.jpg

and this is a footway:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Footpath_in_Hackett%2C_Canberra%2C_Australia.jpg/576px-Footpath_in_Hackett%2C_Canberra%2C_Australia.jpg


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

Re: [talk-au] Re-naming multi-site conservation reserves

[Andrew Davidson]

On 17/5/22 15:36, cleary wrote:

I presume that a single closed way for an area would work  - I think I might 
have done it somewhere but I don't recall where.   The Hiawatha precinct was 
memorable because of its unusual name.


It will work. Some validators will complain about a 1 member relation, 
but it is a cleaner approach than putting duplicate tags on the ways of 
the "parent" relation.


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

Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org

[Andrew Davidson]

On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 9:31 AM Sam Wilson  wrote:
> And it sounds like there is a plan to at some point enable new posts via
> email, and when that time comes we will need a category (so it can have
> its own email address). Maybe we should go ahead and request an
> Australia category now?

Sounds like a good idea.

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

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12

[Andrew Davidson]

On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 8:49 AM Anthony Panozzo  wrote:
> traffic lights:” which is 100% incorrect, you can only do a u-turn if there 
> is a sign permitting you to do so.

That rule only applies at intersections with traffic lights:

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_reg/arr210/s40.html

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

Re: [talk-au] U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6)

[Andrew Davidson]

On 3/5/22 08:18, Anthony Panozzo wrote:
Well this is the situation, TheSwavu is directly emailing me telling me 
it is perfectly legal to do u-turns at intersections


Gmail will send an email to both the mail list and the original sender 
by default on reply. You will have noticed the list email address in the 
CC:. Or maybe you didn't notice?


By the way, the link you sent me off-list:

https://samotor.raa.com.au/do-you-know-the-u-turn-road-rules/

says exactly the same thing I was trying to explain to you. Perhaps this 
video might make it clearer:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0SzfStP1nE

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

[talk-au] U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6)

[Andrew Davidson]

On Tue, 3 May 2022, 03:02 Anthony Panozzo,  wrote:

>  I would like to report theswavu for this edit Relation History: 13736691
> | OpenStreetMap 
> he deleted a restriction I put there to prevent u-turning from the service
> road.
>

I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is with this edit. The
road rules in South Australia allow you to do a u-turn around the end of a
median at an intersection provided that there is no sign prohibiting it or
traffic lights:

https://www.approveddrivingschool.com.au/mastering-u-turns-3-point-turns/

There is no sign or traffic lights at this intersection so you are allowed
to do a u-turn, provided that you adhere to the other associated rules:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1365151817189473

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

Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org

[Andrew Davidson]

On Mon, 2 May 2022, 13:04 Sam Wilson,  wrote:

> It's growing in use, I think (not with Australia-specific discussion).
>
> It feels like a pretty good site, I check the headlines most days, and I
> think one
>

How do we get a category we can interact with through email? I haven't used
Discource enough to picture how it works.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44)

[Andrew Davidson]

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, 11:53 Andrew Davidson,  wrote:

>
> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/14044389
>
>
> Cut and paste error there. The existing no u-turn restriction is:
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13909088
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44)

[Andrew Davidson]

On 30/4/22 00:45, Anthony Panozzo wrote:

This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know 
more than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing 
correction this account comes along and “fixes” it based on “knowledge” 


Some terminology before we start. To be valid a turn restriction 
relation needs to have:


1. A way with the role "from"
2. A way with the role "to"
3. One or more "via" s that can be either a node or one or more ways
4. The members must connect in a way that you can travel

When I say "broken" I mean that one of the rules is broken and when I 
say "knowledge" I mean I know what a valid turn restriction should be.


from the notes, let me just say I looked over some of the edit this 
account does and it breaks the routing for the most part, Changeset: 
120344373 | OpenStreetMap 


This changeset deleted this turn restriction:

https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13905961

which you added in changeset 118257827 and then broke in 118293106 (it 
only had a node via member). When I reviewed this one I decided to 
delete it because it would only duplicate this turn restriction:


https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/14044389

which you added in changeset 119769921, if I fixed it.

 and Changeset: 
120198383 | OpenStreetMap 


This intersection had 15 broken turn restriction relation in it:

https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477255
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477256
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477257
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477258
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477260
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477261
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477263
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477268
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477269
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13557714
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761157
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761161
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761169
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761170
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13991446

You broke 14 and added one new broken relation (13991446). While I was 
deleting these I noticed that the intersection had some sort of 
cross-your-heart thing going on with added ways for turn lanes, so I 
simplified it to a standard traffic light box intersection:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.76387/138.59277

You can turn right from each arm which means we don't have to have any 
no-right turns. There are 4 no-left turns because each approach has a 
slip lane. Since it's SA and at traffic lights then there are four no 
u-turns to cover that. This is exactly the same routing information that 
was there before, but now in a simpler easier to maintain format.


 
are two examples of this account breaking routing, ive been wasting my 
time spending hours and hours fixing routing just for this shitty bot to 
come along and fuck it all up over and over again, I would like to ask 
DWG to take a real close look at this account and see if it can be 
banned from any further edits under the bot edit policy or straight out 
vandalism!


I am not a bot. Just a mapper with overpass, the JOSM validator, the 
to-do plugin, and many hours of puzzling over the question of what a 
broken turn restriction relation was supposed to be doing.


A couple of years ago I spent quite a bit of time fixing all the turn 
restrictions around AU, but I have to keep coming back every couple of 
months, as 100-200 newly broken ones get created every month. Mostly 
because iD will quietly break existing turn restrictions or let you 
create invalid ones and then upload them to OSM. I used to put changeset 
comments on the ones that had broken them until a user asked me how they 
could stop doing it and I discovered that there isn't a way to do that 
in iD.


My fixes should not be changing any routing outcomes as they are almost 
all deleting turn restrictions that iD didn't clean up after a mapper 
reconfigured an intersection. None of the examples you have pointed to 
have changed the routing outcomes as I check to make sure I understand 
what someone was trying to map before I fix it.


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

Re: [talk-au] Queensland railway stations

[Andrew Davidson]

On 9/4/22 10:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Thanks Richard, we'll check them out.

Thanks

Graeme



Well that proved to be a very tedious job. After reviewing hundreds of 
these about 240 of them have been converted to "no longer a station". 
Which leaves about 300 active stations in QLD.


It seems that a guy in the UK has made it their life's work to list 
every railway stop that ever existed...and another's to add them to OSM.


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

Re: [talk-au] admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?

[Andrew Davidson]

On 8/4/22 21:57, Dian Ågesson wrote:

Hey Andrew,

I don’t believe anything was decided with regards to ACT districts. 
However, after looking into the details I don’t think they actually fit 
in the administration boundary set up at all; seems closer to 
parishes/counties on other states than a “council” or locality.




I was going to suggest that they get moved to admin_level 5 which could 
be also used for counties in other states (that still have them).


Otherwise no problem with getting rid of level 7 and moving suburbs to 9.

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

Re: [talk-au] Map Note Flood

[Andrew Davidson]

> On looking at the notes added in Australia, they do seem to be an automated 
> script comparing what’s in OSM to an external source.
>
> The notes added to Nhulunbuy, Groote Eylandt and Maningrida don’t seem to be 
> coming from a suitable NT give source. One of the notes suggests a street 
> name for a road I was only able to find in Google Maps.
>

That's the weird bit. They seem to be a mix of stuff from Google Maps
and completely fictional stuff. Maningrida as far as I can tell
doesn't have street names.

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

[talk-au] Map Note Flood

[Andrew Davidson]

Just a heads up to let you know that someone is currently trying to
bypass the import requirements of OSM by creating thousands of
anonymous map notes.

Seems to have started in the US and Canada:

https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-country?c=United%20States
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-country?c=Canada

and has now includes Australia:

https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-country?c=Australia

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

Re: [talk-au] NSW school zone markings

[Andrew Davidson]

On 19/3/22 16:36, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


The yellow box says 40. Is that to indicate the start of the school 
zone, or is it just a general limit for that street?


I think it indicates a school zone rather than just a 40 zone:

https://www.nsw.gov.au/topics/roads-safety-and-rules/road-lanes-lines-markings/road-lines-markings

as there are a range of other exciting rules you can break in a school zone:

https://bvt.dcs.dcs.skpr.dev/sites/default/files/2021-11/School_zone_offences.pdf



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] Another highway classification question. This time in Adelaide.

[Andrew Davidson]

Found another highway classification map note:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2734030

This one asking if North Main Road should be classed trunk rather than 
primary.


Do we have any Adelaidean mappers that could answer this question?


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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping shared driveways

[Andrew Davidson]

On 16/3/22 21:47, Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au wrote:
 > I was wondering if you would take the same approach to similar shared
driveways  that lead to commercial properties as per ways in residential 
areas?

Refer to examples below:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/698542896 



https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/595212641 





I wonder why they ever got names? If we check off the list you find:

1. Kerb crossings
2. Privately maintained concrete driveways
3. Gates

I would go with service + driveway

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping shared driveways

[Andrew Davidson]

On 16/3/22 16:56, Andrew Harvey wrote:


generally a shared driveway
- will break the highway=* gutter with a kerb ramp
- usually won't have a kerb
- usually on private land
- usually maintained by the owners
- letter boxes and garbage bins usually need to be taken out to the 
street and not along the shared driveway

- not part of the public road network



I'd also add:

- Has some sort of access control (gate or boom) or
- Has some sort of go away signage or
- Has a sign with terms and conditions about entering

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

Re: [talk-au] Special event clearways and lane=*

[Andrew Davidson]

On 14/3/22 21:26, Andrew Harvey wrote:


Where did you find the wiki suggesting lanes:conditional?



I didn't. The thought was based on how people were tagging other 
variable lane counts: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gSc


Maybe I am overthinking it. If you go with what the wiki says, then 
lanes=* is just a literal count of how many lanes are painted on the 
ground regardless of how often you can use them.


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

Re: [talk-au] Looking for some Brisbane based mapper support.

[Andrew Davidson]

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 12:45 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
 wrote:
>
> Brought that same question up a little while back, but no response.

Ah yes, sorry about that. My interest in highway classification is so
low I don't think your email even registered with me.

Had a read through the wiki on highway classification and it is pretty
useless for deciding what to do in urban areas.

Anyway let's give a week or so and then we can close that issue with a
note that nobody has an opinion on the subject.

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

[talk-au] Looking for some Brisbane based mapper support.

[Andrew Davidson]

Is anyone able to help with this map note?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1985557

Which asks why so many of the streets in the Brisbane CBD are classified 
as secondary. Answering the question requires way more local knowledge 
than I have of Brisbane roads.



Thanks.

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

[talk-au] People's views on duplicating ref=* on the ways in a route relation.

[Andrew Davidson]

There are a bunch of map notes in the NT flagging issues with route 
numbers changing to alpha-numerical (eg 34 -> B34). The routes have been 
mapped with a ref tag on the ways, which will also have to be changed.


Is this duplicate tagging something we want? I can see it causing 
problems where there are overlapping route numbers. On the other hand, 
looking around, it seems to be a very common style in AU.


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

Re: [talk-au] OSM Notes

[Andrew Davidson]

On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 4:09 PM Stéphane Guillou via Talk-au
 wrote:
>
>> Nevertheless, I want to say that I really appreciate the time that was 
>> invested in the recent note-closing work. It's great to see so many small 
>> improvements happening all around the map, and the activity on the notes 
>> themselves might bring new contributors in, or even just motivate them to 
>> open new notes.

There have been some gems in there but it is like mining for diamonds
you've got to sort through a lot of ore to find them. Particularly
interesting has been WA where entire mine sites or other industry has
just appeared (and you can switch back and forward between image
supplies and see before and after).

The listings from onosm.org have been a little sad as a not small
fraction of them are for businesses that have gone bust in the time
between posting and getting around to mapping them. So many of them
are annoying because you quickly realise that when you go and try to
verify their street addresses you know they're not going to tell you.

I also am a bit ambivalent about adding businesses because you realise
after a while that for every add note there is a note about a business
that has gone. I've been trying to add a website or social media link
to each one I add so that at least there is the hope that when they go
out of business their links will go dead and get flagged by KeepRight.

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

[talk-au] People's views on naming on and off ramps.

[Andrew Davidson]

It appears that people like to make up names for on and off ramps. By 
made up I mean the "names" don't appear on other maps nor are they 
signed. Normally I just don't pay attention to them but we have a note:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3064262

asking what "name" should be on an off-ramp and I don't know what the 
answer is.


Do people have a view on how these should be mapped? Are they something 
we should be using the destination tagging for rather than using names? 
Could we come up with some words to go in the guidelines?


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

Re: [talk-au] Complaint re OSM navigation

[Andrew Davidson]

So common it's got a wiki entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_GPS

On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 6:17 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
 wrote:
>
> Also just spotted this note:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3063323
>
> I've asked them for further details so we'll see what they say?
>
> They have just added the track details to the track they were using, & to be 
> honest, you'd wonder why you'd be driving along there not knowing what was at 
> the other end?
>
> 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] Lakes around Mungo National Park

[Andrew Davidson]

On 21/2/22 18:25, Warin wrote:



To my way of thinking they are lakes, dry most of the time, not wetlands.


Thoughts? In particular the rendering of the DCS Topo map ... what is 
their meaning?





They are (like almost every inland lake in AU) dry lakes. There was an 
unsuccessful proposal to tag them as playa:


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Playa

Someone started working on an alternative proposal to tag them dry_lake:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dry_lake

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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging a house name

[Andrew Davidson]

On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 9:55 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> Interesting photo of one house in that article:
> https://www.houzz.com.au/photos/summerlees-a-living-piece-of-australian-history-traditional-garden-sydney-phvw-vp~7570749
>
> Address out the front is 219 over 7207?
>
> Never seen an Aussie numbering scheme like that before?
>

219 was probably the old number before they introduced the new rural
addressing system in NSW. Later photos only have the new number:

https://goo.gl/maps/abXKsz9oRohAk4nZ9

and a different spelling

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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging "boundary" roads with addr:*

[Andrew Davidson]

On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 1:42 PM Andrew Hughes  wrote:
> In the interest of stirring up a hornets nest (jokes). I'd like to know what 
> could be said for tagging ways (streets/roads) with add:suburb (or 
> addr:county...) where the suburb (or other region/area) the road "belongs" to 
> can NOT be spatially determined (i.e. typically runs along or forms the 
> boundary of the suburb/area).
>
> I'll leave it at that (purposely open ended).

The addr:* namespace is for recording physical addresses ie: along
with a house number. What you are looking for is the is_in:*
namespace.

I will leave it up to the reader to figure out how useful this type of
tagging is.

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

Re: [talk-au] boundary=aboriginal_lands ( Was Re: admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?)

[Andrew Davidson]

On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 2:03 PM Andrew Harvey  wrote:
>
> If this is not disputed, it would be nice to update 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Australia.E2.80.99s_First_People
>  with this information otherwise it'll get lost over time in the archives 
> here.

I am basing my interpretation on the tag proposal
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:boundary%3Daboriginal_lands
which says:

"This proposal is for mapping the official reservation boundaries of
recognized aboriginal / indigenous / native peoples"

and explicitly states that it doesn't include:

"Lands outside of reservations that are owned by aboriginal groups,
but which do not have special legal status"
"Areas outside of reservations where aboriginal groups may have
special rights, such as traditional fishing or hunting grounds"

The question would be how different from regular land titles would
something have to be to make it "special"?

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

Re: [talk-au] The ACT Place Names Advisory Committee has a sense of humour

[Andrew Davidson]

On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 9:05 AM Michael Collinson  wrote:
>
> Phew, Coombs must have been a ruthless place previously.
>

Nice. Did not occurred to me that the ruthfulness had gone up.

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

[talk-au] The ACT Place Names Advisory Committee has a sense of humour

[Andrew Davidson]

So we have a new park in Coombs that needs a name. A name based on the 
suburb's theme of notable public service:


https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/View/di/2021-260/current/html/2021-260.html

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

Re: [talk-au] admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?

[Andrew Davidson]

On 30/11/21 09:55, Andrew Harvey wrote:


Since we don't have formally defined boundaries for 
place=region,district,city,quarter,neighbourhood,city_block should we be 
adding an admin_level at all?


So should we remove 7/5?


I'd be happy to get rid of admin_level 7. It never really had a good 
definition. The ACT district boundaries are currently 7 so we'd have to 
move them. Maybe to 5, or move 6 to 7 and make 6 the "county" level. We 
currently don't have anything at 5.


I checked via the overpass wizard query "admin_level=8 in AU" and there 
are no results, so no australia post borders are mapped that way, and 
I'm not aware of any.


I think that was an accident of history. boundary=postal_code was 
created after someone chose admin_level=8 for AU post codes.


So I'm supportive of removing Australia Post Postode Border from 
admin_level=8.


I second that.

That leaves should we move localities from 9 to 8? I don't think it 
really matters much to be honest.


Looking at other countries 8 appears to be things that have some form of 
administrative body. We should get rid of either 9 or 10 we don't really 
need both. Maybe move localities up to 9?


We should ask the Nominatim team before we go making any changes. We 
don't want to break their stuff.


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

[talk-au] boundary=aboriginal_lands ( Was Re: admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?)

[Andrew Davidson]

On 30/11/21 17:51, stevea wrote:


This is REALLY going to be different in Oz than USA, but please consider boundary=aboriginal_lands. 


boundary=aboriginal_lands is not applicable to Australia for at least 
two reasons:


1. Australia does not have a system of "reservations". Before the 1960s 
there were Aboriginal reserve 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_reserve). But these no longer 
exist for fairly obvious reasons.


2. Where Indigenous land rights have been recognised in Australia 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_land_rights_in_Australia) this 
is done by issuing a communally owned freehold or leasehold title. In 
effect this is the same as anyone else who owns land in Australia.


The other concept that seems to confuse mappers is the Indigenous 
Protected Area 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Protected_Area). This is an 
area protected by indigenous people rather than for protecting 
indigenous people. The areas have a IUCN protection category so should 
be protect_class 1-6.


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

Re: [talk-au] Importing 200 emergency markers?

[Andrew Davidson]

On 27/11/21 12:27, Ewen Hill wrote:


    It might be worthwhile obtaining the standard waver from PBR which 
could confirm the status of the markers as well. As they are not 
standard, perhaps consider adding a few more fields, colour=white, 
source= and if they are all on the telephone poles, perhaps identify 
this as well as man_made=utility_pole, utility=telecom.


I had also pondered if it would be better to map them as poles, with a 
ref tag that has what the sign on the pole says. This would make more 
sense to a member of the general public.




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

[talk-au] Weird tag (Was Re: Importing 200 emergency markers?)

[Andrew Davidson]

On 25/11/21 22:52, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote:


   


Technically correct but I have added it to the list:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Counterintuitive_key_names

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

Re: [talk-au] Importing 200 emergency markers?

[Andrew Davidson]

On 26/11/21 18:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote:

Hi,

The markers were installed by the railway, and are maintained by the 
railway. They are pole numbers attached to each telegraph pole along the 
railway. 


So they are pole reference numbers that are being used as emergency markers?

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

Re: [talk-au] Splitting Ways for small roundabout traffic islands

[Andrew Davidson]

On 15/11/21 22:14, Andrew Harvey wrote:
Splitting makes the data more complicated than it needs to be, and 
doesn't add more value or accuracy compared to simply tagging the 
traffic island as a node. One with a gap for pedestrians gets tagged as 
crossing:island=yes, without a crossing maybe traffic_calming=island, or 
some other tag.


I didn't recall seeing this type of tagging, so I took another sample. 
This time 50 single carriageway roundabouts without split flares in 
BNE/SYD/MEL/ADL. After looking at 200 roundabouts I couldn't find any 
that have used traffic_calming=island to model the split. I think that 
we have a consensus that if you do model a roundabout's flares you split 
the ways, rather than tagging the island. What we don't seem to have is 
a consensus on what constitutes a "small" roundabout that doesn't need 
to have the flares modelled.


What I'd like to hear is from those who do split, is why? Is it just 
because you're trying to follow the documented rules, or is there a 
reason for splitting being better? Ideally we'd document the community 
preferred approach along with the reasons for.


Personally I spilt the ways to model the flares. The reason I do this is 
because I started mapping in CBR and that's how they are mapped here. I 
assume that is the style here because our roundabouts are larger than 
you find in other cities.


I wouldn't have thought of using traffic_calming=island as this makes me 
picture this 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Trafficcalming-island.jpg type 
of thing. However, the wiki does suggest you can use it to model the 
roundabouts islands.


The wiki also has an example of how to map a roundabout which shows the 
ways split. There was also a JOSM plugin that semi-automated the mapping 
of a roundabout and it also split the ways for you.


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

Re: [talk-au] Dedicated Indigenous Protected Areas 2020 dataset available for OSM

[Andrew Davidson]

On 21/11/21 18:10, nwastra nwastra wrote:

I am of the opinion that because we are only adding two extra IPAs and 
the marine parts to the existing IPAs, it is probably not necessary to 
go through the imports mailing list as we would follow the same 
procedure as that was used with CAPAD will a minor change to the source.


Sounds fine to just update. These will appear in CAPAD 2022, so if you 
do them now there will be less work when we do the update then ;-)


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

Re: [talk-au] Splitting Ways for small roundabout traffic islands

[Andrew Davidson]

On 15/11/21 18:18, Dian Ågesson wrote:


Is there a preferred approach, or does it not really matter? If 
splitting ways, are u-turns restrictions required?


I think it's a style question. I just took a random sample of 50 
roundabouts in city and the number of roundabouts with islands, single 
lane roads, and has the flares split are:


Sydney 15%
Brisbane 20%
Adelaide 30%
Melbourne 60%
Canberra 80%

To summarise: Melbourne, love 'em; Sydney, no thanks; Canberra, the 
job's not done till the paper work is finished.


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

Re: [talk-au] Splitting Ways for small roundabout traffic islands

[Andrew Davidson]

On 15/11/21 20:38, Warin wrote:


I have yet to see a 'no U turn' on them and they do make a good safer 
place to do a u turn if you do the correct thing.




I thought we were talking about where the entry and exit flares join.

Fun fact, there is at least on roundabout with a no u-turn sign

https://www.google.com/maps/@-33.8726936,151.0872361,3a,75y,13.05h,82.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAF1QipNkpe2axzsJkD_wBY5Nh9-XdL9JSVBN2dbxEpHP!2e10!7i7680!8i3840

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

Re: [talk-au] Is it a fence?

[Andrew Davidson]

On 15/11/21 20:28, Warin wrote:

What else would you call it? A tall fence?

I'd tag it barrier=fence height=40


I'd also say fence. But that's a 6 story apartment block, which would be 
about 20m tall, so somewhat less than 40.


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

Re: [talk-au] Proposed features/Snow chains

[Andrew Davidson]

On 14/11/21 18:30, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Hi
My impression in Victoria is that the chain fitting and chains required 
locations move up and down the mountain with the weather and that 
there's very little that can be mapped.

Tony


snow_chains:conditional=required @ snow; required @ ice

Apparently... almost as useful as:

headlight:conditional=required @ dark

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

Re: [talk-au] Are letter boxes art?

[Andrew Davidson]

On 14/11/21 14:29, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
As we've been driving around, especially in the bush, I'm sure we've all 
spotted the occasional really good letterbox, much like this one:
https://goo.gl/maps/McSEgmTTLEHRhmxH8 



Would they classify as public art?


I can see us going down the "what is art?" rabbit hole.

If Ned's slot was welded shut I'd say it was art, otherwise the primary 
purpose is a receptacle to hold received mail. The fact that it is made 
to look like something else doesn't automatically make it art.


But, as I asked at the start, what is art?

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

Re: [talk-au] Suburbs: Nodes, Areas, or both?

[Andrew Davidson]

On 6/11/21 20:30, Simon Poole wrote:

Yes, Gruyère is a cheese, it's named after the town of Gruyères see 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruy%C3%A8res, very nice place BTW. That's 
why I was wondering :-), but I suppose the dairy industry explains it.


I think Wikipedia is wrong on this one. It's probably named after the 
town because that's where one of the early big landholders was from:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_de_Castella

Turns out the de Castella family is still in the wine industry:

http://www.jeanpaulsvineyard.com.au/

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

Re: [talk-au] Suburbs: Nodes, Areas, or both?

[Andrew Davidson]

On 5/11/21 18:06, cleary wrote:

Sorry.   I should have written   ...add the place node to the relation and its role 
would be "label".



Done: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2428804

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

Re: [talk-au] Vic State Forest Boundary Files

[Andrew Davidson]

Sun Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 9:06 AM  wrote:
>
> Hi
> Is there any chance, or point, of including
> https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/esta-emergency-markers in an ambit
> request?
> Tony

That one might be a tough ask as it is licensed CC BY-NC 3.0. If they
give us a waiver then everyone else can just download it from OSM
under ODbL and bypass the no commercial purposes clause in their
licence.

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

Re: [talk-au] Source material.

[Andrew Davidson]

On 19/10/21 8:37 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 20:11, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


It does not have 'State Forests' ... unfortunately.

Ah I confused "State Park" with "State Forest".


I think State Forests can be found in:

https://www.land.vic.gov.au/maps-and-spatial/spatial-data/vicmap-catalogue/vicmap-crown-land-tenure

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

Re: [talk-au] Monitoring admin boundaries Was: Re: Mapping tree cover

[Andrew Davidson]

On 9/10/21 10:54 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:


Andrew Davidson has been keeping an eye on changes and doing some 
updates. I've updated a few I noticed changed in NSW.


I checked the existing boundaries in NSW/SA/ACT/TAS last year before the 
other states were imported.


Geoscape (aka PSMA) put out new versions of their admin boundary product 
every quarter, along with a report that lists the diffs from the 
previous release. I've been using these to update the boundaries when 
they change (at least the ones that other mappers haven't already done).


I'm not aware of something up and running spitting out differences, but 
we could code something up with some tolerance to ignore boundaries out 
by a little bit.


The boundaries aren't exactly the same as the official versions as they 
have been modified slightly to match up at state borders (and some 
mappers have used coastlines, rivers, roads when they imported the 
boundaries).


It might be worth having a service that reports on when and how much an 
admin boundary changes in OSM to let other mappers have a chance to 
check if this is a real change or an oops.



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

Re: [talk-au] Way errors in Quilpie Qld

[Andrew Davidson]

On Sat, Oct 2, 2021 at 10:46 PM Thorsten Engler via Talk-au
 wrote:
> I would assume that the lot boundaries recorded in DCDB are "exact" and any
> discrepancy between them and the physical world come down to the margin of
> errors the surveyors did when placing boundary pegs at some point.

I tried to check against any survey marks that you might be able to
locate on the imagery. Unfortunately there are no survey marks in
Quilpie from the GNSS era of surveying. I did manage to find one near
town that you can just make out where it would be on Bing:

https://qspatial.information.qld.gov.au/SurveyReport/SCR183342.pdf

> Bing is almost right: -0.15; 1.79

I get -0.10;1.50 which, considering that we are looking at aerial
imagery with a pixel size of ~0.15m, is the same thing. This is all
based on GDA94, so in theory all of the GPX traces will be offset by
about 1.63 m

I have done a best-fit and moved the town about 11 m to the west.
There are some things (e.g. the rail line near the sale yards) that
need to be better traced. I will have a look at these later.

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

Re: [talk-au] Another Melbourne intersection for review

[Andrew Davidson]

On 21/9/21 6:54 pm, Andrew Davidson wrote:
guidance. This is just a standard roundabout except for the fact that 
you need to be in the left lane to turn left on some of the arms.


OK, brain not working. I mean you need to be in the right lane to go 
straight through.


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

Re: [talk-au] Another Melbourne intersection for review

[Andrew Davidson]

On 18/9/21 9:04 pm, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote:


Andrew, are you familiar with this intersection from travelling through it?



No, and it may be some time before I could visit in person :-(

I came across this one because it had a broken turn restriction. Based 
on what had been mapped I assumed that someone was trying to give lane 
guidance. This is just a standard roundabout except for the fact that 
you need to be in the left lane to turn left on some of the arms.


OSRM and Graphhopper will give you correct directions (ie take the nth 
exit on the roundabout) but OSMAnd fails to notice you are going to 
drive through a roundabout. The first two routers are getting the 
correct answer by accident because the fake slip roads have been tagged 
as _link, as a result the router prefer to follow the main road into the 
roundabout.


It had occurred to me that the same outcome (lane guidance) could now be 
given using turn and change tagging.


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

[talk-au] Another Melbourne intersection for review

[Andrew Davidson]

I came across this:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.79462/145.24176

which is no doubt causing routers all sorts of headaches.

I'm thinking of combining the roundabout part of the intersection into a 
single roundabout and adding some lane tagging.


Does anyone have an objection to this proposal?


Thanks.

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

Re: [talk-au] In-water fences?

[Andrew Davidson]

On 18/9/21 2:49 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
Just reading this article: 
https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2021-09-18/plan-to-improve-water-quality-richmond-river/100466282 

Most of it has nothing to do with mapping, but there's a photo there of 
a log "fence" to protect against boat wash.


The "snag hotel" is better known as a fish crib. The second thing is a 
revetment.



There is a seamark:obstruction:category=crib with a grand total of 7 
uses and man_made=revetment with 37.


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

Re: [talk-au] Data challenges in Maproulette for AU territories

[Andrew Davidson]

On 21/7/21 5:14 am, Oisin Herriott (Insight Global Inc) via Talk-au wrote:

Hi all,

The Microsoft Open Maps team has created and posted some 
MapRoulette challenges in ACT, TAS, and VIC territories (MapRoulette 
).




I think there may be a problem with your MalformedRoundaboutCheck 
challenges. It appears that every roundabout in the ACT and VIC has been 
flagged. I've checked about 15 so far and none of them have any issues.


Could you have forgotten that roundabouts are clockwise in AU?

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

Re: [talk-au] Australian road review

[Andrew Davidson]

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 1:35 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
 wrote:
>
> & I meant to ask ...
>
> Is it OK to pass it on to other groups / sites / forums?
>

Crikey, I hope so. Already put it into weeklyOSM ;-)

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

Re: [talk-au] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)

[Andrew Davidson]

On 20/6/21 10:03 am, Adam Horan wrote:


/"Lineage:  The production process commences with textual matching 
between the Australia Post database and the attribute fields of the 
spatial Localities theme of the Administrative Boundaries dataset. 
Detailed analysis is then required of duplicate named Localities within 
VIC, NSW, and QLD to ensure that these Localities and their Postcode are 
neighboured to other Localities with the same Postcode. The next 
production stage involves the examination and allocation of Postcodes to 
gazetted Localities that either have no delivery service or have not yet 
been assigned a Postcode within the Australia Post database. This 
requires liaison with state-based Postcode controllers and in turn 
state-based delivery operations. This is an ongoing process and as a 
result, Postcode Boundaries will always be subject to change according 
to the needs of delivery operations. Locality boundaries are 
subsequently Dissolved/Aggregated based on the Postcode attribute. "/

/
/
They do also say this: /"Postcode Boundaries is produced through a 
partnership with Australia Post and *provides the official 
representation of postal delivery areas across Australia*."/


Those two statements are interesting when read together. It does suggest 
that Australia Post is moving away from postcode boundaries that spilt 
gazetted localities.


Maybe there is so little hand addressed mail now that they can OCR the 
entire address and code it down to the delivery route level; all the 
postcode does is differentiate between localities with the same name.


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

Re: [talk-au] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)

[Andrew Davidson]

On 20/6/21 10:03 am, Adam Horan wrote:

They do also say this: /"Postcode Boundaries is produced through a 
partnership with Australia Post and *provides the official 
representation of postal delivery areas across Australia*."/


I don't understand your point. Are you saying that Australia Post is not 
getting a cut of the licence fee? Or is this one of those semantic 
arguments where the problem is I should of said: the local postal 
service will sell you a copy through their partnership with Geoscape 
Australia?


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

Re: [talk-au] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)

[Andrew Davidson]

On 17/6/21 7:14 pm, Andrew Harvey via Talk-au wrote:


This does sound like addr:postcode on each address object is the way
to go and correctly capture the postcode of each address. We can
still have postal_code's on admin boundaries where the the vast
majority of addresses within that boundary have that postcode.


Vicmap has post code boundaries for Victoria:

https://vgls.sdp.sirsidynix.net.au/client/search/asset/1288956/0

why can't we use those?

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

Re: [talk-au] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)

[Andrew Davidson]

On 19/6/21 3:54 am, stevea wrote:


In the USA (in OSM) we say rather bluntly "ZIP codes are not
boundaries."  (ZIP codes are USA postcodes).


The situation in Australia is different. Over here they *are* boundaries 
and our local postal service will sell you a copy of them:


https://geoscape.com.au/documentation/postcode-boundaries-metadata-statement/

The paradox I was referring to is why would I buy a copy?

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

Re: [talk-au] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)

[Andrew Davidson]

On 19/6/21 9:48 am, Ewen Hill wrote:

and who sends a letter nowadays ;)


You make a good point there. So why are we putting postcodes into OSM?

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

[talk-au] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)

[Andrew Davidson]

On 14/6/21 10:28 pm, Ewen Hill wrote:


With regard to postcodes. The proprietary nature and no formal 
notification of change to postcodes makes the whole process of getting 
data less than optimal. 


This is the weird thing about postcodes in Australia.

On one hand they are designed to be used on mail, so that it can be 
delivered efficiently. We're expected to know what the postcode of the 
address we're mailing is and to add it.


On the other hand postcode boundaries are proprietary and you are 
expected to pay for them:


https://geoscape.com.au/documentation/postcode-boundaries-metadata-statement/

So how does that work? How am I supposed to know what to put on the 
letter? Better still, what is the market for paying for a postcode 
boundary dataset? Given that it is secret then your customers are not 
going to be using the same thing as you.


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

Re: [talk-au] Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion

[Andrew Davidson]

On 14/6/21 10:28 pm, Ewen Hill wrote:


Suburbs are a little different however I can't see the issue of adding 
the suburb/locality. It makes life so much simpler for a lot of people 
with not a lot of significant issues. Where suburbs are split (like 
Fraser Rise) then there will be few properties involved as this is done 
before the creation of these new estates.


There is a basic OSM principle that mappers are our most valuable 
resource. This means that if there is more than one way to map the same 
information then we choose the option that reduces the work for the mapper.


The data consumer is expected to post-process OSM data. You can't get a 
list of addresses out of OSM without doing some sort of post-processing. 
As a minimum you are going to have to possess enough programming skill 
to write an Overpass QL query. This is the problem I have with our 
hypothetical user who, apparently, possesses enough technical skill to 
write Overpass QL but doesn't have enough skill to run a program to 
download what they need. I estimate that the total number of users in 
this category would be zero.


Maybe there is a user requirement to generate a list of addresses from 
OSM. I have been pondering why you would want to do that, but other than 
printing out a "gazetteer" I can't think of one. If someone could 
explain how they would use one then we could think about what the best 
way to provide this. There could be a need to replace OpenAddresses, as 
they now require you to be a donor to download in CSV format. Otherwise 
you have to download GeoJSON and post-process.


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