Re: [talk-au] Highway route number prefixes for QLD and NT
Hi Ross and Micheal, Fair enough. Perhaps instead of trying to change the refs to include prefixes, they should be removed for routes that are numerical only to align with your recommendation. Basically: - in Tasmania: change "NH1" to "1" - in Victoria: change all "S x" to "x" - in West Australia: change all "Sx" to "x" To separate shield types, a comprehensive network of route relations would be implemented using the networks codes assigned in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Custom_Highway_Shields#Australia This would require a large amount of effort however, unless it was automated which I know a lot of people do not like. (Sorry Ross for the duplicate email, I realised I forgot to hit reply all) Thanks, Leith Bade le...@mapbox.com On 10 November 2015 at 18:46, Ross <i...@4x4falcon.com> wrote: > To me your proposed changes appear to be a lot like tagging for the > renderer: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer > > If the states are not doing alphanumeric then they should not be rendered > that way. > > I'd suggest linking to the routes you are proposing to change and see what > opinions you get. > > I'm sure this has been discussed before and I think the general consensus > was "only tag with alphanumerics where it is signposted as such". > > You may also want to have a look at these: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_road_routes_in_Queensland > > There is a similar wikipedia page for each state. > > Cheers > Ross > > > > On 10/11/15 16:19, Leith Bade wrote: > > Hi, > > I work for Mapbox as their only southern hemisphere contractor based in > Canberra. > > Recently we begun a project to enhance our maps with highway shield images. > > Most of Australia has been fairly straightforward to develop shield > selection rules for thanks to the alphanumeric system. > > However there are a states where no prefix is used with numeral only > routes. Particularly Queensland (which has a mix of numeral and > alphanumeric systems due to ongoing transition), the Northern Territory, > and West Australia (which have not adopted the alphanumeric yet). > > In other states prefixes are used to separate National Highways (green and > gold shields), National Routes (white shields) and State Routes (blue > shields). > > Notably in Melbourne a "S xx" and West Australia a "Sxx" prefix is used > for blue shield routes. Also in Tasmania "NH1" is used for the only > non-alphanumeric route. > > For national consistency I would like to change all state routes in the > Northern Territory and Queensland to use a "Sxx" prefix. Additionally in > West Australia and Northern Territory to change all national highways to > "NHxx" prefix. > > There is no use of a prefix currently anywhere for a national route, > however changing the few remaining routes in West Australia, Northern > Territory and Queensland to use a "NRxx" prefix would be useful. > > Finally I found state route 24 in Northern Territory is highway=trunk when > at most it should be highway=primary to match the rest of the state. Also > in Queensland national route 1 from Cairns heading out west is also trunk > when at most it should be primary since it does not connect to a major city. > > I welcome any feedback or suggestions. > > Thanks, > Leith Bade > le...@mapbox.com > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing > listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > > ___ > 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] Highway route number prefixes for QLD and NT
Hi, I work for Mapbox as their only southern hemisphere contractor based in Canberra. Recently we begun a project to enhance our maps with highway shield images. Most of Australia has been fairly straightforward to develop shield selection rules for thanks to the alphanumeric system. However there are a states where no prefix is used with numeral only routes. Particularly Queensland (which has a mix of numeral and alphanumeric systems due to ongoing transition), the Northern Territory, and West Australia (which have not adopted the alphanumeric yet). In other states prefixes are used to separate National Highways (green and gold shields), National Routes (white shields) and State Routes (blue shields). Notably in Melbourne a "S xx" and West Australia a "Sxx" prefix is used for blue shield routes. Also in Tasmania "NH1" is used for the only non-alphanumeric route. For national consistency I would like to change all state routes in the Northern Territory and Queensland to use a "Sxx" prefix. Additionally in West Australia and Northern Territory to change all national highways to "NHxx" prefix. There is no use of a prefix currently anywhere for a national route, however changing the few remaining routes in West Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland to use a "NRxx" prefix would be useful. Finally I found state route 24 in Northern Territory is highway=trunk when at most it should be highway=primary to match the rest of the state. Also in Queensland national route 1 from Cairns heading out west is also trunk when at most it should be primary since it does not connect to a major city. I welcome any feedback or suggestions. Thanks, Leith Bade le...@mapbox.com ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Highway route number prefixes for QLD and NT
Hi Alex, That was what I originally going to implement. However we will need to keep a list of individual routes for QLD NT and WA since there is no way to separate national and state routes in those states to give white or blue shield respectively. The engineers pushed back against this as we much prefer leveraging OSMs rich data model to do this sort of thing automatically. To understand the reason, say a state one day changes the designation. If we hard code the list of routes some one has to remember to go and update the list. If we just rely on OSM tags then this will be picked up automatically when a local user updates the ways. On 10 Nov 2015 8:41 pm, "Alex Sims" <a...@softgrow.com> wrote: > Hi Leith, > > I’d second the finger waggling for tagging for the renderer, however a way > out would be to transform the data in Mapbox on a state by state basis to > get what you want. So OpenStreetMap records what is on the ground. When > your rendering your map you can easily intersect polygons of the states > with each highway link to take account of each states variation to make it > look consistent nationally inside Mapbox. > > At least the states are internally consistent. :-) and South Australia is > all fine :-) :-) > > Alex > > On 10 Nov 2015, at 6:46 PM, Leith Bade <le...@mapbox.com> wrote: > > Hi Ross and Micheal, > > Fair enough. Perhaps instead of trying to change the refs to include > prefixes, they should be removed for routes that are numerical only to > align with your recommendation. > > Basically: > - in Tasmania: change "NH1" to "1" > - in Victoria: change all "S x" to "x" > - in West Australia: change all "Sx" to "x" > > To separate shield types, a comprehensive network of route relations would > be implemented using the networks codes assigned in > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Custom_Highway_Shields#Australia > > This would require a large amount of effort however, unless it was > automated which I know a lot of people do not like. > > (Sorry Ross for the duplicate email, I realised I forgot to hit reply all) > > Thanks, > Leith Bade > le...@mapbox.com > > On 10 November 2015 at 18:46, Ross <i...@4x4falcon.com> wrote: > >> To me your proposed changes appear to be a lot like tagging for the >> renderer: >> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer >> >> If the states are not doing alphanumeric then they should not be rendered >> that way. >> >> I'd suggest linking to the routes you are proposing to change and see >> what opinions you get. >> >> I'm sure this has been discussed before and I think the general consensus >> was "only tag with alphanumerics where it is signposted as such". >> >> You may also want to have a look at these: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_road_routes_in_Queensland >> >> There is a similar wikipedia page for each state. >> >> Cheers >> Ross >> >> >> >> On 10/11/15 16:19, Leith Bade wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I work for Mapbox as their only southern hemisphere contractor based in >> Canberra. >> >> Recently we begun a project to enhance our maps with highway shield >> images. >> >> Most of Australia has been fairly straightforward to develop shield >> selection rules for thanks to the alphanumeric system. >> >> However there are a states where no prefix is used with numeral only >> routes. Particularly Queensland (which has a mix of numeral and >> alphanumeric systems due to ongoing transition), the Northern Territory, >> and West Australia (which have not adopted the alphanumeric yet). >> >> In other states prefixes are used to separate National Highways (green >> and gold shields), National Routes (white shields) and State Routes (blue >> shields). >> >> Notably in Melbourne a "S xx" and West Australia a "Sxx" prefix is used >> for blue shield routes. Also in Tasmania "NH1" is used for the only >> non-alphanumeric route. >> >> For national consistency I would like to change all state routes in the >> Northern Territory and Queensland to use a "Sxx" prefix. Additionally in >> West Australia and Northern Territory to change all national highways to >> "NHxx" prefix. >> >> There is no use of a prefix currently anywhere for a national route, >> however changing the few remaining routes in West Australia, Northern >> Territory and Queensland to use a "NRxx" prefix would be useful. >> >> Fina
Re: [talk-au] Highway route number prefixes for QLD and NT
Hi Mark, Interesting, I will have a look at that. We hope in the future to also make use of route relations, however the key piece of software (osm2pgsql) we use to work with OSM does not support them. One of my colleagues has been working on a replacement for that software. Thanks, Leith Bade le...@mapbox.com On 12 November 2015 at 08:22, Mark Pulley <mrpul...@lizzy.com.au> wrote: > On 10 Nov 2015, at 8:51 pm, Leith Bade <le...@mapbox.com> wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > That was what I originally going to implement. > > However we will need to keep a list of individual routes for QLD NT and WA > since there is no way to separate national and state routes in those states > to give white or blue shield respectively. > > The engineers pushed back against this as we much prefer leveraging OSMs > rich data model to do this sort of thing automatically. > > To understand the reason, say a state one day changes the designation. If > we hard code the list of routes some one has to remember to go and update > the list. If we just rely on OSM tags then this will be picked up > automatically when a local user updates the ways > > Many highway routes include a network tag, e.g. a state route would have > network=S, ref=xx - would using the network tag work to get the correct > shield? > > Mark P. > > > ___ > 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] Cities in Australia
Hi, I have been working in OSMI to tidy up Australia's places. My goal is to try and get it roughly in line with the quality in New Zealand. There are a few places with non-numeric population tags, a few labelled "town" but the population is tiny (100-200). I have been trying to work out a reasonably consistent methodology for City vs Town. I am thinking of ensuring that all "City" councils are listed as a city. Additionally every "City" should have a recent population tag which I have been taking from the 2011 Census. This makes it easier for people making maps from the data as they can differentiate large/small cities. As for very small "towns" the situation is less clear. Most towns don't have a population tag so OSMI does not flag them, the few that do get flagged. I think we will just have to leave those as is since the local community will have a better sense of if the locals consider a place to be a town or a village. Thanks, Leith Bade le...@mapbox.com ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cities in Australia
Hi Ross, Yeah I finished adding population tags (and updating old ones) to all cities in Tasmania and NSW using the 2011 Census. It has seemed to help improve the map a bit. I will also continue adding population to the other "Significant Urban Areas" that are towns as defined by Census. Hopefully these get picked up. However maybe these significant towns should be made "cities" for the purposes of OSM to remain consistent. E.g. Port Macquarie is technically still a town, but is bigger than a number of regional NSW cities. Thanks, Leith Bade le...@mapbox.com On 13 November 2015 at 22:24, Ross <i...@4x4falcon.com> wrote: > Hi Again, > > This has been discussed before: > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#City.2C_Town_or_Village.3F > > I'd suggest searching/reading the wiki to see what's been accepted and why > things are as they are. > > Adding a population key is probably a good idea though. > > Cheers > Ross > > > > On 13/11/15 18:42, Leith Bade wrote: > > Hi, > > I have been working in OSMI to tidy up Australia's places. My goal is to > try and get it roughly in line with the quality in New Zealand. > > There are a few places with non-numeric population tags, a few labelled > "town" but the population is tiny (100-200). > > I have been trying to work out a reasonably consistent methodology for > City vs Town. > > I am thinking of ensuring that all "City" councils are listed as a city. > > Additionally every "City" should have a recent population tag which I have > been taking from the 2011 Census. This makes it easier for people making > maps from the data as they can differentiate large/small cities. > > As for very small "towns" the situation is less clear. Most towns don't > have a population tag so OSMI does not flag them, the few that do get > flagged. I think we will just have to leave those as is since the local > community will have a better sense of if the locals consider a place to be > a town or a village. > > Thanks, > Leith Bade > le...@mapbox.com > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing > listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > > ___ > 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] Import boundary of Googong Foreshores
Hi, I would like to add the boundary of the Googong Foreshores reserve which is located near the ACT but in NSW. It is a Commonwealth Land managed by the ACT government (however NSW law applies) and primarily provides a drinking water catchment and dam that supplies the ACT and Queanbeyan NSW. The reserve is also managed as a conservation area with many walking, mountain biking trails and allows fishing and kayaking in the dam lake. The area is quite large with a 56km boundary and short of trying to walk the enitre boundary with GPS, or try to locate all the fences via aerial imagery I decided it was easier to just import the boundary. I initially emailed the ACT government to ask if they had the boundary in GIS format but had no response. However I then realised the NSW cadastral data shows the boundary as the reserve is all located in a single lot. Can I import this data? I note there is already permission from NSW to import topographical data into OSM and has been done extensively for other NSW nature reserves and national parks. What tags should I use? leisure=nature_reserve or one of the boundary=protected_area? If protected area, which level should I use? What other tags should I add? I was going to add name=Googong Foreshores, source:geometry=NSW LPI Base Map and source:date=2017-11-27 I checked in JOSM and the boundary appears to align well with other existing features, e.g. a fence and the other adjoining nature reserves. Thanks, Leith Bade le...@bade.nz ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Import boundary of Googong Foreshores
:-( looks like not much progress has been made on supporting protected_area - https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/603 Thanks, Leith Bade le...@bade.nz On 29 November 2017 at 07:48, Leith Bade <le...@bade.nz> wrote: > Does the renderer support the protected area tag? It has not shown up on > the map. > > I note that state forests also fail to render the border, but the name > still shows. > > > Thanks, > Leith Bade > le...@bade.nz > > On 28 November 2017 at 23:20, Leith Bade <le...@bade.nz> wrote: > >> Thank you both, I will use Andrew Davidson's suggestion as it is indeed >> primarily a water catchment reserve. >> >> >> Thanks, >> Leith Bade >> le...@bade.nz >> >> On 28 November 2017 at 14:01, Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 28/11/17 12:08, Andrew Harvey wrote: >>> >>>> Sounds fine to me, especially given most NSW national parks have >>>> already been imported via the LPI Base Map as you pointed out. >>>> >>>> You can use both leisure=nature_reserve and boundary=protected_area. >>>> I'm not familiar with that reserve but you'll need to pick the closest >>>> protect_class you think it matches http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/ >>>> wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area. >>>> >>> >>> Googong Foreshores is not a nature reserve so don't use >>> leisure=nature_reserve. It was set up to protect water quality so the best >>> match is: >>> >>> boundary=protected_area >>> protect_class=12 >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> 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] Using "national_park" rather than "protected_area" tags where appropriate
I agree as I recently encountered this issue. Following the GitHub issue on the protected area tag, it seems support in the renderer is a still the source of a large amount of debate and argument because of the large number of clases and regional variations in use of the tag. Thanks, Leith Bade le...@bade.nz On 7 December 2017 at 10:54, cleary <o...@97k.com> wrote: > There are long-standing problems in relation to the rendering of > protected areas in OpenStreetMap. This is not surprising as there many > protection classes (there is provision for up to 99) including > nature-protected, resources-protected and social-protected areas. > Presumably various types of protection classes would warrant different > rendering but currently none seem to appear on the map unless certain > additional tags are used. > > Currently some nature-protected areas operated by Australian state > national park organisations are tagged as "protected areas" and are not > rendered on the map. These are large and significant areas missing from > the map. > > Nature-protected areas could be identified with the alternate "national > park" tag. The wiki page on "boundary=national_park" states "A national > park is a relatively large area of land declared by a government (just > as boundary=administrative are declared/recognised by governments), to > be set aside for human recreation and enjoyment, as well as the > protection of the natural environment and/or cultural heritage of an > area. This would normally also come with restrictions on human activity, > particularly development, for the protection of wildlife and scenery." > It proceeds to explain that the words "national park" do not need to > appear in the name but the area, however named, should satisfy the above > definition. > > Many Australian areas whose titles include nomenclature such as "State > Conservation Area" or "Nature Reserve" or "Wilderness Park" could all be > encompassed under the "boundary=national_park" tag. > > I understand arguments about not mapping for the renderer. However, in > this instance, there appear to be two acceptable forms of tagging but > only one is reliably rendered. Therefore I propose that the Australian > Tagging Guidelines be modified to encourage preference for nature > protected areas, which satisfy the above definition of "national park", > to be tagged as such. At some time in the future, if there is progress > in the rendering of protected areas, this guideline could be revised if > warranted. In the interim, using the option of "boundary=national_park" > would be consistent with the guidelines for that tag and would permit > these significant areas to appear on the map. > > Protected areas will be rendered on the map if the tag > "leisure=nature_reserve" is added. However not all nature protected > areas are open for leisure purposes (depending on one's definition of > "leisure"). Access may sometimes be restricted to research or > educational purposes or similar. It seems preferable that such areas be > tagged as "national_park" accompanied with an "access=restricted" or > similar tag. > > ___ > 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] Using "national_park" rather than "protected_area" tags where appropriate
I also find it interesting that state forests in Australia are treated quite differently then state forests in the US. In the US they get borders which are thinner then national parks, whereas here they just show up as a forested area (even if the entire state forest is not actually covered in trees). I haven't dug into how they are tagged in the US. Thanks, Leith Bade le...@bade.nz On 7 December 2017 at 12:20, Leith Bade <le...@bade.nz> wrote: > I agree as I recently encountered this issue. Following the GitHub issue > on the protected area tag, it seems support in the renderer is a still the > source of a large amount of debate and argument because of the large number > of clases and regional variations in use of the tag. > > > Thanks, > Leith Bade > le...@bade.nz > > On 7 December 2017 at 10:54, cleary <o...@97k.com> wrote: > >> There are long-standing problems in relation to the rendering of >> protected areas in OpenStreetMap. This is not surprising as there many >> protection classes (there is provision for up to 99) including >> nature-protected, resources-protected and social-protected areas. >> Presumably various types of protection classes would warrant different >> rendering but currently none seem to appear on the map unless certain >> additional tags are used. >> >> Currently some nature-protected areas operated by Australian state >> national park organisations are tagged as "protected areas" and are not >> rendered on the map. These are large and significant areas missing from >> the map. >> >> Nature-protected areas could be identified with the alternate "national >> park" tag. The wiki page on "boundary=national_park" states "A national >> park is a relatively large area of land declared by a government (just >> as boundary=administrative are declared/recognised by governments), to >> be set aside for human recreation and enjoyment, as well as the >> protection of the natural environment and/or cultural heritage of an >> area. This would normally also come with restrictions on human activity, >> particularly development, for the protection of wildlife and scenery." >> It proceeds to explain that the words "national park" do not need to >> appear in the name but the area, however named, should satisfy the above >> definition. >> >> Many Australian areas whose titles include nomenclature such as "State >> Conservation Area" or "Nature Reserve" or "Wilderness Park" could all be >> encompassed under the "boundary=national_park" tag. >> >> I understand arguments about not mapping for the renderer. However, in >> this instance, there appear to be two acceptable forms of tagging but >> only one is reliably rendered. Therefore I propose that the Australian >> Tagging Guidelines be modified to encourage preference for nature >> protected areas, which satisfy the above definition of "national park", >> to be tagged as such. At some time in the future, if there is progress >> in the rendering of protected areas, this guideline could be revised if >> warranted. In the interim, using the option of "boundary=national_park" >> would be consistent with the guidelines for that tag and would permit >> these significant areas to appear on the map. >> >> Protected areas will be rendered on the map if the tag >> "leisure=nature_reserve" is added. However not all nature protected >> areas are open for leisure purposes (depending on one's definition of >> "leisure"). Access may sometimes be restricted to research or >> educational purposes or similar. It seems preferable that such areas be >> tagged as "national_park" accompanied with an "access=restricted" or >> similar tag. >> >> ___ >> 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] Increased precision options for Australia - QZSS, SBAS or Galileo
If you want to do RTK you can do it for less then $1000 now. The company I work for makes one of these lower cost options https://www.swiftnav.com. RTK enabled centimetre level positioning with a good $600 antenna. If you want to use the SBAS trial you need a receiver that allows you to select the SBAS satellite PRN ID of 122 and will allow a good receiver to get about ~1.5m accuracy. For example the Ublox receivers will work, as will most standalone GPS receivers Galileo is still under development, will offer similar performance to GPS. It will be another 2 years before this system is complete with all 24 satellites. Android devices are hard-coded by the manufacturer as far as the GPS settings so you would need to wait for an Android update that knows about the Australian satellite and QZSS (which might take several years to be common place). My recommendation is to look at standalone GPS receiver like a Ublox M8 based device, that uses an external magnetic antenna you put on your car's roof. Thanks, Leith Bade le...@bade.nz On 12 June 2018 at 12:39, Alex Sims wrote: > Hi, > > > > I’m really wanting to have better accuracy from GPS for use with > Openstreetmap. I can use survey marks and a laser rangefinder, but having a > portable GPS would make so much easier to fix errors where objects have > been armchair mapped or even GPS mapped with errors up to 3 meters. > > > > I have tried three approaches > >- QZSS – I can see this on my Android mobile phone but it doesn’t seem >to be used. It seems as though I need a Japanese market device and even >then I’m not sure I’ll get an increase >- Galileo – looks promising but when I’ve tested on supported devices >(friends who have recent phones) the accuracy isn’t delivered. Further >investigation shows that there aren’t enough satellites in service yet most >of the day to give 4 visible. (Using GNSS View http://qzss.go.jp/en/ >English text) >- Lastly the SBAS trial from Geoscience Australia - >http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/positioning- >navigation/positioning-for-the-future/satellite-based- >augmentation-system > > <http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/positioning-navigation/positioning-for-the-future/satellite-based-augmentation-system> >- nothing magical has happened with any of the consumer grade devices I >have access to. Also not sure how to test on an Android device if it is >being used. > > > > Has anyone obtained sub-meter accuracy from any of these approaches, it > must be possible? > > > > Please discuss. > > > > Alex > > ___ > 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] Increased precision options for Australia - QZSS, SBAS or Galileo
Yes the Emlid unit should work if you don't find the initialisation time. They are internally using Ublox so will even be able to be configured for the Australian SBAS. The AUSCORS link are the stations I use here in Canberra. All the Geoscience Australia owned ones are free to use. however a number in NSW, Victoria, and Tasmania can only be used via a commercial RTK network reseller who has a licence to use those state's infrastructure. GA is working hard to improve this however and a lot of the funding announced in the budget is to allow them to purchase these stations from the states and open them up to the public, so expect things to be much better next year. Thanks, Leith Bade le...@bade.nz On 12 June 2018 at 20:34, Grant Slater wrote: > Hi All, > > I have 2 of these for RTK GNSS receivers: https://emlid.com/reachrs/ > > 1 ReachRS unit becomes the RTK static "base" and you needs a very > accurate position measurement and good signal. To get the most > accurate measurement I use my base and connect it to another base > using an NTRIP network. I'm in the United Kingdom and I connect to the > free NTRIP network available here: http://www.euref-ip.net/home . I've > also used the South African free NTRIP network trignet.co.za > Geoscience Australia seem to offer a NTRIP network here: > https://www.auscors.ga.gov.au/ > Note that max workable distance between base and rover is only around > 20km. I've got it to work at 80km, but needs exceptionally clear area > (unobstructed sky) and a lot of patience to get the position fix. > > Once I have my static ReachRS measured, I then connect it up to the > 2nd ReachRS as a roving unit via built-in radio or Cellphone. A > reasonable maximum distance between Base and Rover is around 20km. > > The rover is good for measuring points, but starts to struggle if > moved above walking pace or has an obstructed sky (read: trees etc) > Repeatable accuracy is <10cm horizontal and similar vertical. > > It is possible to do the above with a single unit if you can rely on > an existing NTRIP network, but I believe you then cannot then use the > GLONASS network for getting a fix due to different antenna types > between base and rover. > > The ReachRS is a single frequency receiver and needs better signal and > is slower to sync than a dual frequency receiver. In the next year or > 2 there are likely to be more dual frequency receivers from the likes > of u-blox. The swiftnav.com unit looks interesting. > > The ReachRS receiver uses a u-blox Neo-M8T chip and the rtklib > software. A homebrew alternative would be to use > http://www.csgshop.com/product.php?id_product=257 and rtklib yourself. > See: https://www.blackdotgnss.com/2017/03/25/u-blox-neo-m8t-part-i/ > > Interest? Highly recommend blog: https://rtklibexplorer.wordpress.com/ > > Kind regards, > > Grant > > > On 12 June 2018 at 10:58, Leith Bade wrote: > > If you want to do RTK you can do it for less then $1000 now. The company > I > > work for makes one of these lower cost options https://www.swiftnav.com. > RTK > > enabled centimetre level positioning with a good $600 antenna. > > > > If you want to use the SBAS trial you need a receiver that allows you to > > select the SBAS satellite PRN ID of 122 and will allow a good receiver to > > get about ~1.5m accuracy. For example the Ublox receivers will work, as > will > > most standalone GPS receivers > > > > Galileo is still under development, will offer similar performance to > GPS. > > It will be another 2 years before this system is complete with all 24 > > satellites. > > > > Android devices are hard-coded by the manufacturer as far as the GPS > > settings so you would need to wait for an Android update that knows about > > the Australian satellite and QZSS (which might take several years to be > > common place). > > > > My recommendation is to look at standalone GPS receiver like a Ublox M8 > > based device, that uses an external magnetic antenna you put on your > car's > > roof. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Leith Bade > > le...@bade.nz > > > > On 12 June 2018 at 12:39, Alex Sims wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> > >> > >> I’m really wanting to have better accuracy from GPS for use with > >> Openstreetmap. I can use survey marks and a laser rangefinder, but > having a > >> portable GPS would make so much easier to fix errors where objects have > been > >> armchair mapped or even GPS mapped with errors up to 3 meters. > >> > >> > >> > >> I have tried three approaches > >> > >> QZSS – I can see thi
Re: [talk-au] Increased precision options for Australia - QZSS, SBAS or Galileo
Our receivers work fine in Australia as I live in Canberra and work for the Swift Navigation engineering department. Using one of the free CORS stations here I can get 2cm positions from my car. Mind you the setup cost ~$2000. Australia has only moved 1.8m since 1994. http://theconversation.com/australia-on-the-move-how-gps-keeps-up-with-a-continent-in-constant-motion-71883 Unfortunately OpenStreetMaps only uses "WGS84" as it's datum which is not that well defined compared to a surveying datum like GDA94/2020 or ITRF, and most existing data has only been measured to a few metres (at most). So I wouldn't worry too much about the drift as there are other larger sources of error in OpenStreetMaps. The SBAS trial is available to anyone with a receiver that can be set to use PRN 122 (e.g. Ublox devices). Thanks, Leith Bade le...@bade.nz On 12 June 2018 at 12:56, Andrew Harvey wrote: > If you use RTK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_kinematic you > should get centimeter accuracy, but expect to pay $10k+. > > https://www.swiftnav.com seems like a cheaper option but not sure if it > works in Australia and it not a consumer device, seems they just sell the > boards. > > ...once you obtain sub-meter accuracy, keep in mind the whole continent is > moving so even if you had no error in your GPS, a node someone entered in > OSM in 2007 from GPS would be almost a meter out from someone entering it > into OSM today. > > The SBAS trial was only aviable to selected people as part of the trial, > does anyone know if it'll will work on regular devices, or will we need to > run additional software, for Android, iOS? > > On 12 June 2018 at 12:39, Alex Sims wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I’m really wanting to have better accuracy from GPS for use with >> Openstreetmap. I can use survey marks and a laser rangefinder, but having a >> portable GPS would make so much easier to fix errors where objects have >> been armchair mapped or even GPS mapped with errors up to 3 meters. >> >> >> >> I have tried three approaches >> >>- QZSS – I can see this on my Android mobile phone but it doesn’t >>seem to be used. It seems as though I need a Japanese market device and >>even then I’m not sure I’ll get an increase >>- Galileo – looks promising but when I’ve tested on supported devices >>(friends who have recent phones) the accuracy isn’t delivered. Further >>investigation shows that there aren’t enough satellites in service yet >> most >>of the day to give 4 visible. (Using GNSS View http://qzss.go.jp/en/ >>English text) >>- Lastly the SBAS trial from Geoscience Australia - >>http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/positioning-navigatio >>n/positioning-for-the-future/satellite-based-augmentation-system >> >> <http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/positioning-navigation/positioning-for-the-future/satellite-based-augmentation-system> >>- nothing magical has happened with any of the consumer grade devices I >>have access to. Also not sure how to test on an Android device if it is >>being used. >> >> >> >> Has anyone obtained sub-meter accuracy from any of these approaches, it >> must be possible? >> >> >> >> Please discuss. >> >> >> >> Alex >> >> ___ >> 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 mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Increased precision options for Australia - QZSS, SBAS or Galileo
The GA claim is bit exaggerated. An cell phone is unlikely to ever get 3cm as you just can't build a good GPS antenna in the form factor. Future self driving cars however will be designed to meet this specification with mass market RTK receivers (think sub $100) and correctly integrated antennas. I think it will be 5 or more years before cm level car positioning is common place. Yes you can map to within 0.3cm, but what reference frame? E.g. the Canberra imagery I've seen is in GDA94 which is ~1.8m away from the current WGS84 reference frame. So I guess locally it might be accurate street-to-street. But if you were to survey the road compared to data in NSW it could all be shifted by a metres. Thanks, Leith Bade le...@bade.nz On 12 June 2018 at 20:29, Andrew Davidson wrote: > On 12/06/18 20:04, Leith Bade wrote: > >> Our receivers work fine in Australia as I live in Canberra and work for >> the Swift Navigation engineering department. Using one of the free CORS >> stations here I can get 2cm positions from my car. Mind you the setup cost >> ~$2000. >> > > This is the bit I'm a bit dubious about. The blurb on GA suggests that we > are going to be getting 3cm accuracy from our smart phones, but I'm > wondering how the development of GPS antennas small and cheap enough to go > into phones is coming along. > > > Unfortunately OpenStreetMaps only uses "WGS84" as it's datum which is not >> that well defined compared to a surveying datum like GDA94/2020 or ITRF, >> and most existing data has only been measured to a few metres (at most). So >> I wouldn't worry too much about the drift as there are other larger sources >> of error in OpenStreetMaps. >> > > Reminds me of a paper I read on the the subject where the author pointed > out that anyone who says they are mapping to "WGS84" doesn't know what they > are talking about. However, I do think you are being a little pessimistic. > So long as there is good aerial photography or some external dataset > available it's possible to get closer. In Canberra, provided that the > mapper traces carefully, you can easily map things to within 0.3m. > > > ___ > 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
