I think it is still usual practice to have a label node as part of the relation
for the boundaries of each suburb. Ideally this label node is placed at the
business or residential centre of the area even if it is not the geographical
centre. For example see Hillgrove NSW (near Armidale)
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 12:16, Andrew Harvey
wrote:
>
> Assuming the suburb / locality boundaries have been mapped (which they
> should not be Australia wide from an import), then data consumers can infer
> the rest of the attributes. Check out Nominatim,
>
On 3/2/22 09:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 22:18, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au
wrote:
update a short section of road there with access=no.
=no or =private, because work crews can still drive in there to do
repairs?
Either would be fine as far as I'm concerned. Both
I have used highway=construction where road was completely closed for a year or
so. I also added a note about the the reason and anticipated duration.
In such situations, sometimes sections of road near the closed section might
remain open for restricted access by residents. If you are aware
On Feb 2, 2022, at 2:23 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> So you're standing in the pub having a cold beer & the two blokes beside you
> are talking.
> ...
> Does that count as Local Knowledge?
Graeme, I'm not an attorney / solicitor, but what you describe is called
"hearsay" and is not usually
Hi,
On 3/2/22 09:34, Phil Wyatt wrote:
…. and then work on getting the def:syntax incorporated as defaults
into the database somehow?
That would be good, but I'm not sure how to do it.
One place to start would be to mention on
Thanks for the feedback everyone.
- There are indeed numerous sources that say the road is closed, for
more than one year.
- To avoid routing yes I could pick a likely spot and make in Access:No
- Livetraffic also have a text view that is end points specific, so any
Google Maps issue are
Hi Thorsten,
Many thanks for that detailed explanation.
Sounds like your request is to at least update the footway/bicycle restrictions
in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
to at least what is listed in the state relations, even
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 22:18, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> update a short section of road there with access=no.
>
=no or =private, because work crews can still drive in there to do repairs?
> This achieves the main objective of stopping OSM from routing along
As I mentioned in my previous post, it’s extremely unlikely any data consumer
is making use of that information.
But, there is, as far as I’m aware, no other attempt at defining expected
defaults in the OSM database.
That, despite the fact that, as can be seen at
On 02/02/2022 11:36, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote:
On 2/2/22 21:45, Phil Wyatt wrote:
Is there somewhere to view those defaults for Tasmania? I assume its
not usually editable by mappers?
See https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2369652
Specifically the tag:
I rarely map things that aren’t urban footpaths.
So generally footway or cycleway. As I’m generally mapping in Queensland, where
there isn’t much if any legal distinction between general footpath and a signed
“shared path”, I’m using footway or cycleway depending on how cycle friendly
What I'll often do is map what I can verify in person and is useful to
others, even if it isn't complete.
In this situation, the practical use to most others is that the road
should no longer be routeable for through trips. If you know one end of
the closure then update a short section of
Tasmania: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2369652
There seems to be only a single default key defined for Tasmania currently:
"def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=yes
There are no default values defined on Australia:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/80500
Now, it’s worth
On 2/2/22 21:45, Phil Wyatt wrote:
Is there somewhere to view those defaults for Tasmania? I assume its
not usually editable by mappers?
See https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2369652
Specifically the tag: def:highway=footway;access:bicycle = yes
While it appears to be editable just
Hi Thorsten,
Is there somewhere to view those defaults for Tasmania? I assume its not
usually editable by mappers?
Cheers - Phil
From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 9:00 PM
To: 'OSM-Au'
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway
That table
On Feb 2, 2022, at 1:50 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The 'facts cannot be copyright' may be a USA thing that does not work
> elsewhere. Don't know but I would not rely on it alone.
While I am reasonably certain this is true in the USA, I don't believe that
makes it necessarily
So how do YOU decide which to use when the track is for ‘exclusively for foot
traffic’ or do you just mix it up on a whim, change each week, go with whatever
is similar around the object you are mapping?
Cheers - Phil
From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February
That table is just the suggested defaults.
We actually have default values specified on the state boundaries currently I
think using the format specified here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Defaults I think.
Any use of explicit access tags will override defaults.
In the end, the only thing that counts is what is tagged on the objects in the
database, and the OSM database API does not impose any restrictions about that.
I believe even iD allows you in the end to just freely specify any tags you
like on any object?
I’m sure it’s possible to work
It can be anything you want, as long as you add enough explicit access tags.
From: Phil Wyatt
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 17:20
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au; 'OSM-Au'
Subject: RE: [talk-au] Path versus Footway
Thanks Thorsten,
So reading from that chart and in regard
On 2/2/22 20:20, stevea wrote:
On Feb 2, 2022, at 12:41 AM, Bob Cameron wrote:
MR358 or Coulsons Creek Road between Willow Tree and Merriwa NSW is closed for repair of
major slippage as it crosses the Liverpool Ranges. "Livetraffic" (Traffic for
NSW govt site) says not reopening until late
Thanks Tom - all opinions welcome and yours seems to partly equate with the
current reality in OSM (at least in Australia)
-Original Message-
From: Tom Brennan
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 8:27 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway
I suspect it
I suspect it might be hard to come up with definitive criteria, but I
think you could come close.
I agree that there do tend to be some edge cases - typically:
1. Dirt/roughly paved paths in urban areas - I prefer "path" for these,
as they might be less suited to people with mobility issues
2.
On Feb 2, 2022, at 12:41 AM, Bob Cameron wrote:
> MR358 or Coulsons Creek Road between Willow Tree and Merriwa NSW is closed
> for repair of major slippage as it crosses the Liverpool Ranges.
> "Livetraffic" (Traffic for NSW govt site) says not reopening until late 2023.
> A reference on that
On 2/2/22 18:24, cleary wrote:
I suggest leaving the bus stop ID number in the format that Andrew initially
stated, ref=20 (rather than ref:stand=A)
As a regular used of buses (pre-covid), I think "Stand A" etc needs to be part of the
name. At some locations, the stands are a block or
MR358 or Coulsons Creek Road between Willow Tree and Merriwa NSW is
closed for repair of major slippage as it crosses the Liverpool Ranges.
"Livetraffic" (Traffic for NSW govt site) says not reopening until late
2023. A reference on that to a local govt site is devoid of any current
27 matches
Mail list logo
