rom my last
> holidays), so I can go through these and revert them. Any objections?
>
> Mark P.
>
> On 9 Feb 2024, at 9:57 am, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> We do have permissions to use this data it's listed in
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources#New_
We do have permissions to use this data it's listed in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources#New_South_Wales,
however from looking at their changeset history, it looks like
1. They are conducting an import by en-mass blindly adding and replacing
existing data with the
If there is a general park notice "stay on marked tracks only" combined
with the "End of track" I would say that's sufficient to imply you can't
continue further and therefore access=no.
Without the general park notice but simply "End of track", to me that just
means it's the end of
On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 16:35, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> Tried a test message from an outside e-mail but doesn't seem to have come
> through.
>
> Do you have to be subscribed to the list to be able to post to it?
>
Yes
___
Talk-au mailing list
Due to the structure of OSM, we don't have a single "Liaison Officer", so
it's best if they join the list here and join the community discussion. I'm
happy to engage directly with them if they prefer a single point of
contact, but I'd need to stress that no single person is an authority
within OSM
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023, 11:12 pm Andrew Harvey,
wrote:
>
>
>> Do they say that the data is supposed to be
>> updated weekly?
>>
>
> That order was set as a weekly recurring order.
>
I just got the reccuring email for my orders, so this appears
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 at 00:25, Yuchen Pei wrote:
> This is the URL
>
> https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/cl-isd-prd-datashare-s3-delivery/Order_FDBZT5.zip
>
> Is it from the DELWP?
Yes
> Do they say that the data is supposed to be
> updated weekly?
>
That order was set as a weekly
rather if you can submit a Merge Request on GitLab (or Pull Request on
GitHub).
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 20:53, Yuchen Pei wrote:
> On Mon 2023-10-16 15:35:13 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 15:16, Yuchen Pei wrote:
>
> >> On Mon 2023-10-16 14:51:00
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 12:13, Phil Wyatt wrote:
> Personally I think it should be suburb and postcode (drop the country)
>
https://gitlab.com/alantgeo/vicmap2osm#inclusion-of-addrsuburb-addrpostcode-and-addrstate
It was noted that there is not a consensus within the community, therefore
I
That's okay. I created https://github.com/alantgeo/vicmap2osm as a mirror
of the GitLab code, happy to collaborate via Issues and Pull Requests there.
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 15:49, Yuchen Pei wrote:
> On Mon 2023-10-16 15:35:13 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> > [... 86
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 15:16, Yuchen Pei wrote:
> On Mon 2023-10-16 14:51:00 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 at 20:40, Yuchen Pei wrote:
>
> > [... 38 lines elided]
>
> > mr2osc.mjs is used in Stage 2 (replacing street_number=
On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 at 20:40, Yuchen Pei wrote:
> On Tue 2023-10-03 19:51:13 +1100, Warin wrote:
>
> > [... 14 lines elided]
>
> > OK, what is needed to be done for "Stage 2 - Set unit from
> > housenumber"?
>
> > Further testing of the upload script. The changes themselves
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 11:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> In regard to Strava, it would be very handy if they read OSM access data &
> removed traces from their map when tracks are changed to access=no.
>
And they or anyone else can't do that if we just delete the way completely
as some are
On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 14:19, Ben Ritter wrote:
> I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something
> should exist in OSM.
>
> This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I think
> it should be represented with:
>
>- highway=* because it is clearly a
On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 23:48, Yuchen Pei wrote:
> On Mon 2023-10-02 21:42:01 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> > [... 15 lines elided]
>
> > It's been a while since I worked on this, but I believe it was the
> > matching of existing OSM addresses to Vicmap, and tha
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 00:10, Yuchen Pei wrote:
> On Mon 2023-10-02 21:35:10 +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>
> > While OSM doesn't have layers, https://openaddresses.io/ more or less
> > acts as the address layer. The datasets there aren't all ODBL, but
> > they are generally open. It includes
On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 at 23:16, Yuchen Pei wrote:
> > The preparation and planning is well progressed in my view. There is
> > always going to be a long tail of corner cases and I was attempting to
> > handle more of these in the code and that never got finished. We
> > probably would be better to
On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 at 12:34, Yuchen Pei wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I read in a 6-year old post[1] that the Netherlands had an address
> coverage of over 99%. This made me curious what would be the Australian
> number. G-NAF boasts 15M addresses[2], whereas according to
> metrics.improveosm.org there
On Sun, 1 Oct 2023, at 8:25 PM, Yuchen Pei wrote:
> The repo for the vicmap importing project, vicmap2osm[1] seems to be
> missing a license, could you add one please? Thank you.
package.json declares it as under the MIT license, but I've added a dedicated
LICENSE file now for clarity.
> I
On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 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
On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley wrote:
> I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS has
> deleted some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers National
> Park).
>
> These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion were
> reverted.
Hi Robert,
To preface, I'm not a lawyer and your should seek your own independent
legal advice, but as I understand:
1. the department has made a decision to adopt OSM as your data source,
accepting the terms this data is licensed under
2. you will adapt, modify, enhance, correct or extend OSM
On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 at 08:11, Tom Brennan wrote:
> There are an increasing number of places/features in NSW that are
> getting dual (aboriginal) naming.
>
> For example:
> - Booraghee / Bradleys Head
> - Cooyoyo / The Castle
> - Fort Denison / Muddawahnyuh
>
> From the point of view of the
On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 at 14:05, OSM via Talk-au
wrote:
> Since the coastline tag is also supposed to represent the high water mark
> then I would say that they should be snapped together (since they then
> represent the same feature - that is, the high water mark). This would mean
> that the
Personally I'd prefer to snap them, it makes it easier for us to maintain,
better for data consumers, and overall cleaner data.
I speculate these departmental GIS teams are creating the boundaries from
their own coastline datasets anyway, so why not just have them match OSM's
coastline?
I think
There was positive support for the proposal on Discord #oceania and no
issues identified here so we've started working through the challenge and
invite anyone interested to join in.
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 at 16:04, Andrew Harvey
wrote:
> I've prepared an import proposal at
>
appear to just be "crossings" for example -
> https://maproulette.org/challenge/38490/task/155740397 - no lights/etc.
> Worth mapping, but a fair bit different!
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 3:40 PM Andrew Harvey
> wrote:
>
>> I've prepared an import proposal at
>&g
I've prepared an import proposal at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/VIC_Traffic_Lights#Import_Data
for missing traffic lights from DTP data.
The import has been prepared as a MapRoulette challenge at
https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/38490.
Any feedback or issues
This is great news!
On Thu, 16 Mar 2023, 4:47 pm Robert Potter via Talk-au, <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> Hi OSM-AU,
>
> It is with great pleasure and personal satisfaction that I can today
> announce that an appropriately appointed officer has signed the CC BY 4.0
> wavier for DTP
I hope this passes your legal Rob. My takeaway is that your implementation
shouldn't rely on the OSMF's APIs or data downloads being available, so
your operations and use of OSM data would not be impacted if these services
weren't available or were returning unexpected responses.
On Tue, 7 Mar
On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 14:46, Josh Marshall
wrote:
> A tangent, but I'm rather happy that iD _*finally_* fixed their English
> description for =track (it included "unmaintained" for a long time; many
> were quite annoyed at the original change to include that)... and I can't
> find any
Echoing what cleary said about reliance on the DCS Base Map, it's not our
goal to recreate their label format.
In my opinion it's more important to have branch and ref tagged as it gives
more flexibility to data consumers on how they choose to label it, eg. they
could choose,
{branch} FS
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023, 2:09 am Greg Troxel, wrote:
> rob potter writes:
>
> As others pointed out those are website terms. You want to use the
> data, not the website, and you should read the Open Database License.
>
The terms cover data distribution, ie downloading from
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023, 2:09 am Greg Troxel, wrote:
> rob potter writes:
>
> As others pointed out those are website terms. You want to use the
> data, not the website, and you should read the Open Database License.
>
The terms cover data distribution, ie downloading from
. Surely
other emergency services organisations are using OSM data without issue.
On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 at 12:24, Andrew Harvey
wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Interesting point you raise!
>
> While on the surface you'd think terms (from the OSMF Terms of Use
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wik
Hi Rob,
Interesting point you raise!
While on the surface you'd think terms (from the OSMF Terms of Use
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#III._Unlawful_and_other_unauthorized_uses)
only ask you not to use OSMF services like the website, API for those
purposes and not the data, it
Hi Rob,
Interesting point you raise!
While on the surface you'd think terms (from the OSMF Terms of Use
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#III._Unlawful_and_other_unauthorized_uses)
only ask you not to use OSMF services like the website, API for those
purposes and not the data, it
Exactly. It looks like the website might also show "cycle friendly" streets
which on the ground may have no infrastructure or signage, so not something
we would map.
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 10:52, Ben Kelley wrote:
> Practically, using this data would be difficult I think.
>
> Partly because
On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 at 12:44, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>
> Looking good. Given...
>
> Node: traffic_sign=AU:R6-22
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3227568911
>
> Way: low_gears:hgv=designated
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/245284221
>
> Question:
>
> The tagging of the way does not
Yep you'll reach Victorian and Australian mappers better on talk-au as some
might not join the global talk list ->
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au.
I'll echo other's comments here, if you are planning or have done the
conflation I'd suggest sharing those results so the community
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 18:25, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> Hi Ben, Andrew, Graeme,
>
> Agree 100%, the hazard is the "steep descent" (or similar), which most
> likely (but not always) coincides with the include/gradient sign such as
> "15%" (and we might see "incline=-15" tag used as well).
>
>
Good point. If it's a restriction, it should be more like the maxspeed tag,
maxspeed:hgv=*
So something like low_gears:hgv=designated rather than using the hazard key.
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 11:25, Ben Kelley wrote:
> Just one thought on this:
>
> The "use low gears" it not itself the hazard.
Extending on what Phil said see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_sign. While I still think
we should have a separate hgv low gear tag, tagging the traffic sign would
be okay.
traffic_sign=AU:R6-22
traffic_sign=AU:R6-23
On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 20:10, Phil Wyatt wrote:
> Hi Folks,
Yep you'll reach Victorian and Australian mappers better on talk-au as some
might not join the global talk list ->
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au.
I'll echo other's comments here, if you are planning or have done the
conflation I'd suggest sharing those results so the community
On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 at 18:18, Josh Marshall
wrote:
> Are there any concerns on me taking the idea and running with it? It would
> be good at least to flesh out the wiki page on what tags can or should be
> applied. I already have a spreadsheet from the grommie on the various
> attributes of a
On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 16:49, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 13:17, Andrew Harvey
> wrote:
>
>>
>> We should explicitly tag every motorway with bicycle=yes/no because some
>> motorways allow bicycles and others forbid them.
&
On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 12:26, Little Maps wrote:
> Hi folks, is there any consensus on how to tag cycling on motorway
> shoulders?
>
> In some places, the simple tag bicycle=yes (or no) is used.
>
We should explicitly tag every motorway with bicycle=yes/no because some
motorways allow bicycles
The hazard tag https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hazard seems like a
good fit to warn of crocs.
On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 at 01:57, Bob Cameron wrote:
> The Gregory River Doomadgee Road crossing near Tirranna Springs Qld has
> a "not on foot" warning sign as the water over the causeway runs
On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 at 08:15, Tom Brennan wrote:
> > natural=point only has some ~400 uses world wide, no wiki page so .. low
> > uses = no rendering. Choosing one of the additional tags will get
> > rendering .. but it should be appropriate to the feature not just
> > 'tagging for the render'
>
On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 11:58, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> The other awkward one is when the POI's address is Level 5 of This
> Building. Should we include that as part of the address, usually under Unit
> Number, or just as level=*?
>
You should do both,
level=5 for indoor mapping to know
I wouldn't worry about trying to map that because, if there is a bus stop
then the bus will always be able to stop to drop off / pick up customers
regardless of the no_stopping. Given this would likely be a general law or
regulation it wouldn't warrant specific tagging.
On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 at
OSM never really had a good tag for truly shared foot/cycle paths, so it's
been long standing practice to use highway=cycleway + foot=designated +
bicycle=designated + segregated=no for shared paths. So by adding the
foot=designated and segregated=no tags they change highway=cycleway from a
Thanks that's great. I changed them to use a caption, and tweaked the text,
but if you feel that's worse feel free to revert or let me know and I will.
On Mon, 16 May 2022 at 16:58, wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have edited
>
>
A highway=track without any other access tags is ambiguous, so you should
always tag either access=* or foot=*. An agricultural track on private
property should have access=private to prevent trespassing. A fire trail
which only authorised emergency services and land management vehicles can
use
Yeah that looks good, I added some wiki and operator tags too
https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/4049692
On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 19:19, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> I have made some tagging changes to 'The Gabba'
>
>
> Firstly I think this refers to both the
Did you see
https://github.com/osmlab/maproulette3/wiki/Cooperative-Challenges and
https://github.com/maproulette/mr-cli#generating-cooperative-tasks-with-tag-only-fixes
?
I referred to those guides previously for
https://gitlab.com/alantgeo/vicmap2osm/-/blob/master/bin/findAbbrStreets.js
which
The organised editing guidelines at
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines should be
followed if the whole team is working together on mapping activities in a
coordinated way. Any questions feel free to ask.
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 14:30, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> Hi All,
On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 at 20:28, Bob Cameron wrote:
> Good stuff Dian!
>
> I don't know how widespread the problem is, but Garmin GPS navigation
> devices see no road surface tag as sealed. This can create routing stress
> for the driver and possibly safety issues. Might be worth mentioning that
>
On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 14:58, Dian Ågesson wrote:
> Hey Andrew,
>
> I’m chiming in as I encountered this issue documenting the “cleaned up”
> Roads tagging guidelines. (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads)
>
>
> The tagging guidelines (both prior to, and
In addition to other suggestions, see also informal=yes/no
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal. Meaning it exists but
never specifically designed and built for that purpose and likely is not
officially maintained.
Generally I'd say that informal=yes would imply there is no operator=*,
How about your suggestion, assigning defaults based on urban/rural, which
you may be able to roughly assign based on buffering highway=residential?
Otherwise I think this will always be lacking in OSM until those maxspeed
tags are set.
In NSW we have some open data
> (Personally I do have a whole bunch of country, state and even
> county-specific adaptions for cycle.travel's routing, but I'm very aware
> that I'm the outlier. And I've never even heard of "def:*" tags.)
>
For example https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316593
has
On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 15:31, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> Was going to mention a couple of days ago - it worked!!! :-)
>
> Was able to successfully create my lake with an island in it & have also
> added islands to other lakes already mapped as MP :sunglasses" :-)
>
> So thanks everybody for your
On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 14:53, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 12:50, Andrew Harvey
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I think this is getting too much into mapping regulations, we could just
>> have no bicycle tag and leave it to data consume
On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 07:37, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 17:54, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bicycles are allowed on footpaths in Victoria . . .
>>
>
> Which, to me, means that all footpaths should be bike=yes, as "some"
> people are allowed to ride on
On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 09:33, Dian Ågesson wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> Resurrecting this thread to see if there are any objections to
> implementing the following changes as part of the cleanup:
>
>
> -Removing admin_level=7
>
Was there a resolution for Andrew Davidson's comment about ACT districts
Hi Tony and Sebastian,
There's a lot to take in here, but it does look like both of you care
deeply about cycle mapping in Melbourne and working with the best
intentions to make OSM data as accurate and complete as possible. You're
both engaging in discussion of the actual changes so to me
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground
on the ground should come first unless it's a typo (yes street signs
sometimes have typos) and other names in use as the alt_name.
On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 07:11, Bob Cameron wrote:
> This might have been covered before..
property
> (as it is a retirement village)
> I would have thought that access=private would have been a better tag to
> use in lieu of destination.
>
>
>
>
> regards,
>
> Sebastian
>
> On 21 Mar 2022, at 1:44 pm, Andrew Harvey
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
Which ones? The first three
Location SA Topographic Basemap
Location SA Imagery Imagery
Location SA Basemap
aren't listed as CC BY, and in Nov 2019 they confirmed these weren't under
CC BY, I can't see anything that says that's changed.
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 15:52, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 10:22, wrote:
> Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit
> traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the
> access=destination tag.
>
> Have I got it right? Right enough to revert any tagging that does not
> conform?
>
See also
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 11:42, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> Personally, yes, these & similar are the only times I would use that e.g.
> https://goo.gl/maps/ACMTnn6gQJTLz5NF6 (& as always, for illustration
> only!)
>
That sign looks like hgv=no. So no heavy goods vehicles, but anyone else
can use
Correct that the license is not compatible so we would need a specific
permission to use it. For starters the license is revocable, which is a
non-starter for OSM.
I have not requested it, I could try asking.
On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 at 10:33, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> Suggestion was made on a
Correct, it's a school zone, not a general 40 area. See also
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#School_zones
On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 at 19:28, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> On 19/3/22 16:36, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> >
> > The yellow box says 40. Is that to indicate the
I don't think we are going to have a single rule that always applies, but:
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
In the global community it's still disputed, see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:service%3Ddriveway#Pipestems
and my proposal to have this as an editor preset
https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/pull/239 where the
tagging question is still not resolved.
I've actually
On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 at 07:17, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> I didn't. The thought was based on how people were tagging other
> variable lane counts: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gSc
Yeah and I think that's correct for reversible/tidal flow lanes where the
lane count in either direction or even in
Looking at the note and the imagery I would say it's definitely
lanes=4 (if no one was parked there then you could use all 4 lanes for
driving)
psv:lanes=designated|yes|yes|yes ("Bus Lane")
access:lanes=no|yes|yes|yes (you can't use the left lane, unless you are a
psv)
I'm not referring to any specific note here, but probably the most common
use of the Notes feature is when something needs confirmation on the
ground, so resolving it without actually going there on the ground to check
goes against what it was opened for, and generally I think should be left
open
I agree that the ways should only be split for a physical separation, and
turn lanes should use turn:lanes and legality of changing lanes
change:lanes as Thorsten points out.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 at 17:16, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 1:46 PM Andrew Harvey
> wrote:
>
> > For example,
>
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2684418 a street library won't be
> visible on aerial imagery, you either need to confirm on the g
o why they've reactivated them? I wonder if some people think
> that they have to have a note on the map to show that "this is here"?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 at 19:08, Andrew Harvey
> wrote:
>
>> While there has been a lot of good work go
While there has been a lot of good work going on with these notes, I would
like to point out that many are there because they need a ground survey to
check. So the goal should not be to get open notes to zero only from
airchair mapping. If it's not something that's actionable without a survey
then
Something like "Mickleham Road Offramp" sounds like a description to me
rather than a name. Unless the ramp has a special name just for the ramp
that is different to either road, then I think we should leave off the
name, and as you suggest use the existing destination tag and/or
destination_sign
What would you like them to do? A fixme tag is very low impact, though I
agree at a certain point adding fixmes en masse is not helpful when you
could already assume from the data that it's incomplete.
There was a suggestion to add this to StreetComplete
Sounds good to me, if there's anything that could be controversial like
specific tagging recommendations then feel free to either raise on the talk
page or on this list.
On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 18:03, Dian Ågesson wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The wiki contains loads of really good information, but it's a
Sounds like it should be tagged as a destination then
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination rather than as a
road/track name.
On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 at 13:45, Mark Rattigan wrote:
> Further to my last, the note/sign is likely in reference to the Pinus
> radiata forest planted by the
Yeah I tend to agree that sometimes the road is more appropriately tagged
based on it's hierarchy (eg. highway=service + service=parking_aisle,
highway=service + service=alley, etc) rather than living_street just
because it's signed as a shared zone.
For shared zone signs you should always add
base or its location
> on a map. The 'Stand x' though is not something that can be determined by
> lat/lon/location.
>
>
> The reference number is handy in getting a route from the web route
> planner - the from and too fields can be used with the ref number rather
> than typing the
Going by https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:covered and
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shelter I would say yes.
On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 at 14:31, Mat Attlee wrote:
> Whilst surveying around Sydney I've noticed that many bus stops are
> already tagged as having a shelter. However many
The tag suggestion is done by iD from the entry in the name suggestion
index (NSI) at
https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/blob/3563775a990e3bc4e57d1656c87807124e39c3bc/data/operators/amenity/fire_station.json#L555-L568
On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 at 13:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> Just
I think either awtgs= or hiking_scale:awtgs= are fine, I'd say just pick
one and start a wiki page describing the tag and how it's used.
As I raised before I'm still not sure about how it would apply to
individual ways vs route relations and if it's only tagged based on
officially assigned values
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1128912626 is an okay example, with ref
being the Stop ID, and name being the stop name with the stand number
appended to the end.
So in your case,
ref=20
name=Kings Cross Station Darlinghurst Rd, Stand A
I don't think this is perfect but probably the best
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 15:27, stevea wrote:
> But to conflate two wholly different semantics into one key, mmm, not
> generally a good idea.
>
But that's exactly what the AWTGS does, it conflates a bunch of independent
variables together, it generally works where the harder trails are longer
The awtgs= tag looks fine on it's own, a simple wiki page with basic info
about the tag would help people know how to use it and less likely someone
will misunderstand it like your German friend.
1. Would the tag be reserved for tagging officially assigned AWTGS values?
Or when not officially
I would be fine with this kind of bulk edit, so long as you confirm each
value and you're sure it's really a suburb and not a city (you can just
select all with the same value, then check that). As far as I'm aware
Australia only uses suburb / locality for addressing and not the city.
On Mon, 31
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 09:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
> & to clarify, we only need to include the street address for anything, &
> not the suburb / town / city?
>
Assuming the suburb / locality boundaries have been mapped (which they
should not be Australia wide from an import), then data
On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 16:53, tabjsina wrote:
> In this case I intend to specifically only update tags that already have
> a state field defined, rather than populating the empty ones. Andrew, do
> you think that adjusting the existing tag values to match the VIC
> majority would go against the
Many people would be mapping because iD has a template which includes
state, so people see an empty field and try to enter more complete
information. Many people new to OSM don't know that addresses inherit state
and suburb from the existing boundaries.
>From the VIC address import work there was
In JOSM you can select by tag using Search, and then update tags bulk
accordingly (after checking to make sure you're only modifying those
intended), not sure if you can do this in iD.
On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 15:48, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> Just working on notes & one of them took me here:
>
1 - 100 von 946 matches
Mail list logo
