Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

I feel, as though discourage or discouraged is already an advisory term (you can't advise a recommendation if advise is a synonym of recommend). So I would think "motor_vehicle=discouraged" would be most appropriate. Just my thoughts. Ben On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 18:12, Luke Stewart wrote: >

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

Perhaps "motor_vehicle=discouraged"? >From the wiki: A legal right of way exists (see yes ) but usage is officially discouraged (e.g., HGVs on narrow but passable lanes). Only if marked by a traffic sign (subjective otherwise). Although that

Re: [talk-au] New imageries in AU

*Nemanja,* Thank you for all the hard work. I am not a huge fan of using the Wiki as a basis as it will require a lot of work to keep it updated and if Alice Springs is updated, who will notice? Unless we could visualise the latest imagery by dates automatically, I would suggest that you just

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

I guess https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access does say "Access values describe legal permissions/restrictions. What happens on the ground may be different: for instance, many footpaths are used as de facto bike paths, without a legal right to do so. (Various 'greyzone' tags have been

Re: [talk-au] New imageries in AU

Active mappers who regularly check out the different imagery layers can usually tell when one gets refreshed with new imagery, but it does vary a lot based on location. What if we had a wiki page, that tried to loosely track imagery freshness. eg. just a list of cities Sydney with info like

Re: [talk-au] Melbourne Missing Maps/OSM rep?

Hi Vitva, If you don't get any other volunteers, I'll be happy to come along and answer questions/talk ad hoc but not prepare a talk. I'm not familiar with Missing Maps but have previously served on the OSM Foundation board. Cheers, Mike Michael Collinson On 2019-11-08 13:13, Vilppola,

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

There is one group of roads with these kinds of signs. As they are on Forestry Commission property and would be maintained by them I would think they have some control over who uses them. On 08/11/19 10:24, Andrew Harvey wrote: The fact that they are not legally enforceable I think is

Re: [talk-au] Melbourne Missing Maps/OSM rep?

I'll be in New Zealand for FOSS4G SotM Oceania , but keep me posted for the next one as I would love to help out. On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 13:14, Vilppola, Ritva wrote: > Hi Team, > > > > WSP is holding a Missing Maps Mapathon next Thursday 5-8pm and we’re just >

[talk-au] Melbourne Missing Maps/OSM rep?

Hi Team, WSP is holding a Missing Maps Mapathon next Thursday 5-8pm and we're just wondering if there is anyone in Melbourne available to rep for OSM/Missing Maps for the evening? We will also be getting in a speaker from MSF to attend so it would be great to have someone from OSM promote

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

As far as I have read, these signs are not enforceable by councils, nor do they appear in the NSW (or Australian) Road Rules. So unless the road itself is on private property and this sign is present, the access would still be public and it has the same meaning as discouraging the use of the

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

The fact that they are not legally enforceable I think is irrelevant, after all you can always tell your router to ignore access=destination if you like. Rather this tagging accurately reflects the officially signposted "recommendation". I agree they are targeted at vehicles, so that's why I'd

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

I disagree with this one 1. I'm pretty sure they are not intended to have any effect to cyclists and pedestrians. Who are generally encouraged to use these kinds of streets. I wouldn't like to think we're putting access restrictions that are going to cause walking/cycling routing issues. 2. I'm

[talk-au] New imageries in AU

Hi all, Do we have any possibility to be informed once there is a new imagery published by other providers (Maxar, Esri, Mapbox, etc.)? We are trying to develop the process which will involve constant update of AU map, but we are not sure how to focus to areas which might have most recent

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

I would agree with David on this. In that way you will avoid routing thru these streets unless your destination is there. Sent from my phone On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, 12:33 David Wales wrote: > I would use access=destination > > On 7 November 2019 10:21:26 pm AEDT, Sebastian Spiess > wrote: >> >>

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

access=destination, or better yet motor_vehicle=destination (since it probably shouldn't affect foot traffic) The wiki it says "Only when travelling to this element/area; i.e., local traffic only." which is what this imlies that if you're going to somewhere along here you can travel, but not if

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

I would use access=destination On 7 November 2019 10:21:26 pm AEDT, Sebastian Spiess wrote: >Hello List, > >how do you map a 'local traffic only' sign as this one? >https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/FkY8gmlGX2NmhUARyveMQw > >Following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access states

[talk-au] local traffic only

Hello List, how do you map a 'local traffic only' sign as this one? https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/FkY8gmlGX2NmhUARyveMQw Following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access states "...Note that "access only for residents" is private..." Would this not break navigation in apps etc?