Hi,
Lately a mapper has been adding heaps of fords in SE QLD bushland along
with more creeks/streams, however I've noticed quite a lot of the fords
aren't actually fords based on my local knowledge of the area. I tried
commenting on a changeset (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/58540304)
2
>
> I would say both of these should be mapped as bridges.
>
I'd like to, but the problem it causes is that trails in national parks and
bushland are usually named, and MTB trails have other tags including
difficulty ratings. By splitting these trails to add tiny bridges it makes
it harder to
>
> If you 'jump across it' I'd go for ford. Reason ... it is not a bridge,
> nor a culvert both of which require infrastructure.
> The ford to me give warning that I might get wet feet, and that if flooded
> I may have to wait.
> So that is the 'best fit' where the crossing has nothing other than
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:34 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30/05/18 16:03, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>
> I would say both of these should be mapped as bridges.
>>
>
> Problem: Personal discussion being shown on public list..
> If you want more than
sly mapped ford (and
I'll reconsider).
Thanks
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:25 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23/05/18 00:56, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Lately a mapper has been adding heaps of fords in SE QLD bushland along
> with more creeks/streams,
To clarify, both Google Maps and Strava routing can't do this either, I was
trying to work out if OSM could do this.
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:10 AM Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote:
> In the past I've mapped exactly what I've surveyed on the ground in local
> parks,
In the past I've mapped exactly what I've surveyed on the ground in local
parks, however I've recently been using the OSM routing feature rather than
from other services and I've discovered it can't route directly across a
park that is just grass.
In the following example, I've mapped:
- the
It appears that this is a long standing enhancement request for GraphHopper:
https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/82
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:17 AM Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote:
> To clarify, both Google Maps and Strava routing can't do this either, I
>
Great to hear Joel, I was actually wondering last night if you'd already
sent this off.
I'm not an expert in this area so happy for others to correct me, however
my reading of your description of the second section that DNRM needs to
waive doesn't explain to someone not familiar with what we are
better and see if a rudimentary
implementation is possible. I can already see how hard it is, how do you
know you can get from a residential road to a park for example.
Thanks again, Jono
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:18 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01-Feb-18 03:35 PM, Jonat
the problem .. they don't see it as
> an urgent issue as there are not many people using pedestrian routing.
>
>
> On 01-Feb-18 01:45 AM, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>
> It appears that this is a long standing enhancement request for
> GraphHopper:
> https://github.com/graphhoppe
Looks like the discussion on the tagging list has gone quiet, did you
settle on what to tag these?
On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 11:02 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> On 30 June 2018 at 09:57, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> To avoid future misuse of the tag there needs to be 2 tags
>>
>>
I also want to make use of the QLD DCDB and was going to start a new thread
on the mailing list about it today to work out how to get out of this
stalemate after Andrew Davidson informed me last week.
It appears Andrew Harvey just recently had great luck with Victoria DELWP
signing the waiver and
l be
CCBY licensed, and the OSM data would be a mix of ODbL and CCBY licensed
data?
/cc Simon Poole
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:19 PM Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote:
> I also want to make use of the QLD DCDB and was going to start a new
> thread on the mailing list about it
Joel,
Did you get a response from DNRM? Are you still in talks with them?
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:07 PM Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote:
> Great to hear Joel, I was actually wondering last night if you'd already
> sent this off.
>
> I'm not an expert in this area s
caine.ninja> wrote:
> Yeah pretty much, I interpret it as "We will not deviate from CC-BY 4.0".
>
> On 12/03/18 14:37, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>
> Is that (second sentence) word for word the same response you got the
> first time, where they thought they'd have to relicense
now of other dataset from different agencies which is also CC-BY 4.0.
>
> Also is it really needed to redact all that DCDB stuff? That was imported
> back when we had permission right?
>
> On 12/03/18 17:07, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>
> I'm glad you mentioned that Ian, because I st
this
to them and request they edit the Contributions page?
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote:
> It appears so, and they just have a boilerplate response to these types of
> questions now.
y one arm of the government, about data owned by another arm,
> and we relied on that in good faith. We stopped when we had information
> suggesting anything to the contrary.
>
> Ian.
> On 12 March 2018 at 17:41, Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Andre
land Government policy, our data is provided under a
> CC:BY 4.0 licence. The Department will not provide the data under an Open
> Database licence. It is our belief that a CC:BY licence is sufficient for
> use of our data
>
>
> On 12/03/18 14:27, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>
>
2018 at 3:30 PM Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeap, this has already been covered before:
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2017-March/011291.html
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com>
> wrote:
>
>
g/search?q=Environment+and+Resource+Management#values
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=dcdb#values
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 5:02 PM Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote:
> Thanks Ian, that makes sense, glad to get a few more people involved in
> this discussion.
>
> With the
.
@AndrewH that looks great, once the page has got a heap of green it'll be
useful. I noticed you are missing the BCC datasets, although I've not used
them.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:57 PM Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote:
>
> Am 12.03.2018 um 11:47 schrieb Jonathon Rossi:
>
> Sor
Sorry Simon, I really didn't intend to make things more complicated. I just
wanted to ensure someone else doesn't get caught in the future after
thinking I was doing the right thing, and no one else has done this each
time this has come up in the past.
I've made your suggested change to the page
>
> On 13/3/18 10:32, Simon Poole wrote:
> > you are assuming that
> > data.gov.au received the data from the states on the same terms as
> > everybody else, that really doesn't have to be so.
>
> What makes you think I'm assuming anything? To publish data on
> data.gov.au an organization has to
o believe they may have been
> able to do. If they were including the datasets owned by the states and
> territories they would have required us to state "Contains data from
> Australian Government and state and territory governments public
> information datasets".
>
>
>
> No, that was a deliberate attempt to take this discussion off-list as
> I'm not sure that there is much point in raking over old mistakes
> unless we are trying to learn from our mistakes.
>
I know at least I am learning a lot about the whole licensing area and from
these past mistakes here
>
> I'll reach out to them to see if we can get the waiver completed tomorrow,
> in the meantime I've added it too the list.
>
This isn't intended to sound rude, but why do you think they would have a
different opinion on the CC BY 2.5 waiver and not just get the same
response Joel received?
It
bane City Council data you mentioned not
> DNRM.
>
>
> On 15 Mar. 2018 12:26 am, "Jonathon Rossi" <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote:
>
> I'll reach out to them to see if we can get the waiver completed tomorrow,
>> in the meantime I've added it too the list.
>>
>
Throughout the Gold Coast Hinterland (including Lamington and Springbrook
National Parks) there are pathogen control stations. These are designed to
be used by humans to reduce soil and other contaminates being carried on
shoes between sections of the national parks.
Many have big brushes
they say.
>
> Note .. it may well not render/show up on the maps for sometime even
> once there is a tag and there are a few 100 mapped.
>
>
> On 28/06/18 21:49, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
> > Throughout the Gold Coast Hinterland (including Lamington and
> > Springbrook
I'd use "barrier=bollard" on a way, it prevents passage by some traffic but
not being continuous I wouldn't call it a fence.
Even though it is 3m long I see it a bit like those large concrete
temporary bollards (the size of a standard pallet placed by forklift) that
are used to block vehicles
>
> In iD for me at least, paths next to roads are called "Pavement". I
> agree with this terminology the most and think it was a mistake for OSM
> to adapt the footway=sidewalk tag.
>
>From my experience "pavement" in the road transport industry commonly
refers to the road pavement or road
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 1:00 PM Andrew Harvey
wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 12:43, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>
>> I guess lawyers don't want to authorise and public servants don't want to
>> sign anything that isn't written there, the reference material is all
>> useful
I agree that neither side is likely change their position.
Could we propose (to OSMF) new wording for an updated waiver that makes it
clearer, the attribution half doesn't seem like a problem, its the second
half which mentions ODbL even though the cover letter block explains it
they aren't
019 at 11:48, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>
>> I agree that neither side is likely change their position.
>>
>> Could we propose (to OSMF) new wording for an updated waiver that makes
>> it clearer, the attribution half doesn't seem like a problem, its the
>> second h
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:55 PM Andrew Harvey
wrote:
> I have no reason to think otherwise, but would it really matter...?
>
Was just wondering if some sort of department policy was written up to
handle likely multiple emails about this topic with a templated email
response, or if the decision
Thanks for jumping in Simon. Saves me digging through heaps of old threads.
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 6:53 PM Simon Poole wrote:
> Why doesn't anybody else (outside of OSM) have an issue with the terms
> that we are asking to be waived? Because they simply ignore them.
>
> I have yet to see any
Personally I add fixmes and notes fairly often when mapping at my computer
when I hit the limits of my survey, rather than out in the field. Notes to
explain why something isn't quite consistent with everything else or a way
that ends abruptly; and fixme for myself (or someone else if they desire)
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:53 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 14:23, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Existing;
>>
>> amenity=community_centre
>> community_centre:for=men
>> name=North Sydney Men's Shed
>>
>>
>
>> name=Parramatta District Men's Shed
>> office=charity
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 4:14 PM Sam Wilson wrote:
> I think amenity=community_centre makes sense, and I think there’s enough
> in Australia to warrant a specific community_centre=mens_shed (or maybe
> community_shed, which Wikipedia suggests as the generic term).
>
I think shed (sometimes)
Aggregate, that's the word I was after.
Do we have tags for big stockpiles of iron ore, coal, etc at mines or
ports? These tend to be pretty permanent and with heaps of loading
equipment around them.
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 7:30 PM Andrew Davidson wrote:
> On 17/2/20 7:13 pm, Jonathon Ro
What about a stockpile? And material=gravel/dirt/sand/...?
I have seen piles like that before, however I've not heard them called a
gravel pit, and my first thought was a quarry.
There appears to be people mapping stockpiles, but without any tag:
Search is powered by Nominatim:
https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=W=625658428=highway
It returns:
Computed Postcode 3192
This page describes the process for computed postcodes, basically the
center point of all elements with a postcode. There is an Overpass query
here
44 matches
Mail list logo
