[talk-au] Road corridors with no road - what access?

[Adam Horan]

When comparing satellite imagery and various maps on Vic Maps, you can find
what seem to be road corridors that don't have roads in them. (I'm looking
on https://vic.digitaltwin.terria.io/ and
https://mapshare.vic.gov.au/mapsharevic/ and when you show parcel data you
can see these linear areas that extend off the end of roads, usually in
rural areas. These linear areas do not show parcel information, unlike the
surrounding blocks)

They tend to be visible in sat imagery too as scrubby or rougher land
compared to the fields and paddocks around them.

I would love to be able to legally (and safely) use these as walking and
running routes in my  surrounding countryside, and also allow others to do
so. They're attractive as they're traffic free.

I'll link to some examples below, but I'll ask my questions here:
1. How can I validate if these are unbuilt roads, and how can I check what
the access is?
1a. I guess as these aren't main roads that they belong to the local
council?
2. If a path is already present then I can map that as a simple path, but
how could I map and tag the land?

Cheers,

Adam

Example 1 :  Lambert Road, Pearcedale
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-38.1829/145.2334
If you look on VicMap you can see the corridor extends to the west to meet
with Middle Road.
https://vic.digitaltwin.terria.io/#share=s-2TIhhoK5rNdNfc4m2WxVtMMraiG
https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=-38.182821%7E145.233097=17.8=h
This one seems pretty clear to me as there's a nice clear wooded line, when
I recently passed this on Middle Rd you could see an unfenced section.

Example 2 : NW extension of 'Favorite Hill Rd' to North Road

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-38.17566/145.23470
https://vic.digitaltwin.terria.io/#share=s-5PIrhAi6EP5M1ivchIyH9lfyGxF
https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=-38.174379%7E145.236276=17.3=h

This one is visible on sat imagery, however it does seem to be fenced off
from the established road.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping tracks from Strava heatmap

[Adam Horan]

This page
https://support.strava.com/hc/en-us/articles/216918877-Strava-Metro-and-the-Global-Heatmap
says that "The Global Heatmap shows 'heat' made by aggregated, public
activities *over the last year.*"

So it's possible there were routes showing when the original mapper mapped
this but they've expired now.


On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 at 22:10, Adam Horan  wrote:

> My view is also that Strava heatmaps are insufficient on their own to
> prove a track. They do show that a reasonable number of people have passed
> along a particular route in recent times. They don't prove a path or track,
> and they give no indication of permissions.
>
> However I did look for details of way 963735356 in the Strava heatmap, and
> there's very little in Strava in that area. It's possible the user did have
> the heatmap open in iD but didn't trace all the routes from there. Some
> might be 'local knowledge'.
>
> I do make use of the strava heatmaps frequently to refine the route of
> known tracks, especially if there's lots of tree cover and you can't see
> the tracks too well in imagery.
> 10s or 100s of averaged GPS tracks is better than a single GPS track which
> you might record yourself.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 at 18:24, Tom Brennan  wrote:
>
>> Do people have a view on the armchair mapping of tracks from Strava
>> heatmaps?
>>
>> I can see a bunch of tracks in Kanangra-Boyd NP that have been mapped by
>> an overseas mapper off Strava heatmap.
>>
>> They almost certainly don't exist on the ground. They are known
>> bushwalking routes (off track), but would be very unlikely to have a
>> track even in good times, let along after the fires and 3 years of La
>> Nina!
>>
>> Example:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/952248376
>>
>> cheers
>> Tom
>> 
>> Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
>> Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Mapping tracks from Strava heatmap

[Adam Horan]

My view is also that Strava heatmaps are insufficient on their own to prove
a track. They do show that a reasonable number of people have passed along
a particular route in recent times. They don't prove a path or track, and
they give no indication of permissions.

However I did look for details of way 963735356 in the Strava heatmap, and
there's very little in Strava in that area. It's possible the user did have
the heatmap open in iD but didn't trace all the routes from there. Some
might be 'local knowledge'.

I do make use of the strava heatmaps frequently to refine the route of
known tracks, especially if there's lots of tree cover and you can't see
the tracks too well in imagery.
10s or 100s of averaged GPS tracks is better than a single GPS track which
you might record yourself.

Adam



On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 at 18:24, Tom Brennan  wrote:

> Do people have a view on the armchair mapping of tracks from Strava
> heatmaps?
>
> I can see a bunch of tracks in Kanangra-Boyd NP that have been mapped by
> an overseas mapper off Strava heatmap.
>
> They almost certainly don't exist on the ground. They are known
> bushwalking routes (off track), but would be very unlikely to have a
> track even in good times, let along after the fires and 3 years of La Nina!
>
> Example:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/952248376
>
> cheers
> Tom
> 
> Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
> Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com
>
> ___
> 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] suspicious edits in Victoria need reverting?

[Adam Horan]

There's a small chance that they're proposed roads, but most likely they're
made up. I think all 3 changesets from this user need reverting.
However the names are suitable for the areas where they've been added, so
someone has put some work into it.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1082655836 Bunurong Road
This cuts through a marsh, the water treatment works, and a cemetery. It
parallels existing major roads which have had recent upgrades and are still
being upgraded.

This adds two major new roads in the east and west.
https://osmcha.org/changesets/124296506/
And a road through the centre of Melbourne.

I imagine the Church of Dave isn't real either
https://osmcha.org/changesets/124295493




On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 at 08:56, nwastra nwastra  wrote:

> Hi
> there is some recent mapping around southern Victoria and the greater
> Melbourne area that seem to be incorrect and need reverting but I am not
> familiar enough with the area to be sure.
> The new roads seem fictitious but could be proposed approximate new routes
> I suppose.
> Could mappers more familiar with the area have a look at these edits.
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/eggsbenedict/history#map=8/-37.981/146.195
> The two with road comments are of most concern.
>
> https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=124295896
> https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=124296506
>
> Thanks, Nev
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Water tanks as buildings?

[Adam Horan]

Water tanks are a pain to tag, especially large ones that you'd like to be
represented clearly on the map.

I've done, this which gives you a visual indication of the size of the
tank: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/47785839
building = storage_tank
content = water
man_made = storage_tank

I've also done this, which gives you an invisible way and a puny little
water tank symbol in the middle. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/968604177

area = yes
content = water
man_made= storage_tank

But small residential ones probably don't deserve mapping, however if
people are happy to map small garden sheds then it's not much different to
map these...


Adam

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 16:27, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> …and rather ironically, Emergency Water Tank does not have the building tag
>
>
>
> content=water
>
> emergency=water_tank
>
> man_made=storage_tank
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
>
>
> *From:* Phil Wyatt 
> *Sent:* Sunday, 30 January 2022 4:15 PM
> *To:* 'Graeme Fitzpatrick' ; 'OSM-Au' <
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Water tanks as buildings?
>
>
>
> Hi Folks,
>
>
>
> That’s the standard tagging for a water tank in ID editor. The project was
> a SSSI project in Australia. They had access to high res imagery for the
> project.
>
>
>
> building=yes
>
> content=water
>
> man_made=storage_tank
>
>
>
> There will be 1,000’s of them across the globe I suspect
>
>
>
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/7587
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
>
>
> *From:* Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> *Sent:* Sunday, 30 January 2022 3:44 PM
> *To:* OSM-Au 
> *Subject:* [talk-au] Water tanks as buildings?
>
>
>
> Just working on notes & one of them took me here:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-35.73637/137.59784
>
>
>
> Started wondering what the little "reservoirs" were along the beach?, then
> noticed that the same mapper who did them, has also tagged all the
> rain-water tanks around the houses as man_made=storage_tank, but also as
> building=yes.
>
>
>
> All done a year ago as part of the HOT Fire project, & they apparently
> haven't mapped since.
>
>
>
> Backyard water tanks definitely aren't buildings, so is there any easy way
> of fixing this, without just deleting the buildings one by one?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Graeme
> ___
> 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] Stealth import of beach names?

[Adam Horan]

In the last 2 weeks a handful of users have added or edited 182 beaches in
Victoria.

Each changeset contains 1 beach, there's a closed way for the beach and
there's a name.
The changeset will reference Bing or Esri World Imagery (Clarity) Beta as
the imagery, and iD is used.
The beach drawn typically doesn't match the imagery, although sometimes it
does.
There's no clue on the source of the name - you can't get the name from an
aerial photo...

This is the query I used https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1dGR if you run it
note that the updates are limited to VIC.

There's a handful of users doing this, and they're all fresh accounts with
'realistic' names, and all they've done is add beaches.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Ryan__Williams/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Finnegan%20BARNES/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Elly%20Gresle/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/alana%20labagnara/history

What to do?

Adam
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Importing 200 emergency markers?

[Adam Horan]

Are these emergency markers created and maintained by the Puffing Billy
Railway?

If not they might be sharing a dataset with you that they don't have
permission to share for this purpose?

Adam

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 16:24,  wrote:

> Maybe just create a simple page on the wiki describing what you intent to
> do along with a link to information about the received permission? Just to
> make it easier to find in the future if there are any concerns.
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew Harvey 
> *Sent:* Friday, 26 November 2021 13:46
> *To:* Kim Oldfield 
> *Cc:* OSM-Au 
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Importing 200 emergency markers?
>
>
>
> That sounds fine to me, this email consulting with the community,
> informing of your plan and what steps you've taken is enough in my opinion.
>
>
>
> I would ask if you could share more information about the permission you
> obtained? So long as you have sufficient rights to submit the data under
> the OSM contributor terms.
>
>
>
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 04:56, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au <
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a list of 200 emergency marker locations along 22km of the
> Puffing Billy Railway which were provided to me by the railway with
> permission to include them in OSM.
>
> I've been reading through https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import -
> most of which appears to be geared toward larger imports and using
> publicly available data with various licenses. The data for my import is
> not publicly available, and was provided to me when I asked to import it
> into OSM.
>
> I've searched overpass-turbo and there are no
> highway=emergency_access_points, name~"PBM", or ref~"PBM" near the list
> of nodes I have to import. This indicates that none of the nodes are
> already mapped.
>
> Based on the example file on
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM_file_format I've converted the
> emergency marker list into xml, the start of which looks like:
>
> 
> 
> 
>
>
> 
> ...
>
> In JOSM I can import this file and merge the layer. I'm intending to
> then upload this with appropriate an comment noting that the data was
> provided by Puffing Billy Railway with permission to include it in OSM.
>
> I'm proposing to import this as a one off, single change set under my
> existing OSM username.
>
> Is this a reasonable way to do this import? Is there anything else I
> should do?
>
> Regards,
> Kim
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] M11 naming

[Adam Horan]

@Dian where were the roadsigns that you saw? Maybe someone can get out and
take some pictures.

>From VicNames it seems that south of Springvale Road it's called Mornington
Peninsula Freeway, but north of Springvale it's Mordialloc Freeway.
Continue further south and it's Peninsula Link, and then further it's back
to Mornington Peninsula Freeway.

I'm sure the signs on Peninsula Link still say that, but I have seen
newer/adjusted signs in this northern area which refer to MPF.
Unfortunately I can't remember exactly where I saw them...

The only consistent thing is the M11 numbering :)


On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 15:56, Brendan Barnes  wrote:

> Unfortunately the Major Road Projects Victoria website is not compatible
> with the ODbL, as "no part may be reproduced or used for any commercial
> purposes whatsoever". The press release on their site has no other
> licencing information, so we should treat it as copyright and not use it as
> a source for OSM data.
>
> The Engage Victoria website is CC BY 4.0 (State of Victoria (Department of
> Premier and Cabinet)), but unfortunately we don't have a waiver for.
>
> To ensure data in our database is sourced correctly, we need to collect
> street naming from on-the-ground surveys, compatible imagery providers, and
> any other compatible licence sources.
>
>
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 00:07, Adam Horan  wrote:
>
>> The existing southern end of this road which was known through
>> construction as 'Peninsula Link', and is mapped as such now, should
>> probably also be called 'Mornington Peninsula Freeway.'
>> See relation
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12622680#map=12/-38.1791/145.1193
>> and ways within.
>> Here is a VicRoads doc referring to upgrades on the southern part, and
>> calling it Mornington Peninsula Freeway https://engage.vic.gov.au/mpfu
>> However roadsigns along the road seem to call it Peninsula Link still.
>>
>> re the Mordialloc end - the project page is clear that *"The 9km long
>> Mordialloc Freeway connects the Mornington Peninsula Freeway in Aspendale
>> Gardens to the Dingley Bypass in Dingley Village..."*
>> https://roadprojects.vic.gov.au/projects/mordialloc-freeway
>> The press release for opening it calls it Mordialloc Freeway
>> https://roadprojects.vic.gov.au/news/mordialloc-freeway-open
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 22:51, Brendan Barnes 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Nice work from the community surveying and mapping so quickly since
>>> early opening.
>>>
>>> There's no KartaView imagery of the extension, and Mapillary isn't
>>> loading for me right now, so it's hard to weigh-in as an armchair mapper.
>>>
>>> On sampling some of the ways (example
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/913115111), both name=* and
>>> official_name=* appear to be sourced correctly and follow the "map what's
>>> on the ground" good practice.
>>>
>>> My only suggestion would be alt_name=* being the same as official_name=*
>>> is probably redundant.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 21:11, Dian Ågesson  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> There has been a flurry of activity in South-East Melbourne surrounding
>>>> the opening of the brand new M11 extension. Unfortunately, it seems as
>>>> though sources vary on the name of this new section of road.
>>>>
>>>> The construction has been heavily advertised and promoted as the
>>>> 'Mordialloc Freeway'. That is the name of the road on Vicnames as well.
>>>>
>>>> Every roadsign I've seen in the area though uses 'Mornington Peninsula
>>>> Freeway'. Wikipedia (currently) uses that name as well, but the editors
>>>> there seem unsure what to call it as well.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Dian
>>>> ___
>>>> 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
>>
> ___
> 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] M11 naming

[Adam Horan]

The existing southern end of this road which was known through
construction as 'Peninsula Link', and is mapped as such now, should
probably also be called 'Mornington Peninsula Freeway.'
See relation
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12622680#map=12/-38.1791/145.1193
and ways within.
Here is a VicRoads doc referring to upgrades on the southern part, and
calling it Mornington Peninsula Freeway https://engage.vic.gov.au/mpfu
However roadsigns along the road seem to call it Peninsula Link still.

re the Mordialloc end - the project page is clear that *"The 9km long
Mordialloc Freeway connects the Mornington Peninsula Freeway in Aspendale
Gardens to the Dingley Bypass in Dingley Village..."*
https://roadprojects.vic.gov.au/projects/mordialloc-freeway
The press release for opening it calls it Mordialloc Freeway
https://roadprojects.vic.gov.au/news/mordialloc-freeway-open


On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 22:51, Brendan Barnes  wrote:

> Nice work from the community surveying and mapping so quickly since early
> opening.
>
> There's no KartaView imagery of the extension, and Mapillary isn't loading
> for me right now, so it's hard to weigh-in as an armchair mapper.
>
> On sampling some of the ways (example
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/913115111), both name=* and
> official_name=* appear to be sourced correctly and follow the "map what's
> on the ground" good practice.
>
> My only suggestion would be alt_name=* being the same as official_name=*
> is probably redundant.
>
>
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 21:11, Dian Ågesson  wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> There has been a flurry of activity in South-East Melbourne surrounding
>> the opening of the brand new M11 extension. Unfortunately, it seems as
>> though sources vary on the name of this new section of road.
>>
>> The construction has been heavily advertised and promoted as the
>> 'Mordialloc Freeway'. That is the name of the road on Vicnames as well.
>>
>> Every roadsign I've seen in the area though uses 'Mornington Peninsula
>> Freeway'. Wikipedia (currently) uses that name as well, but the editors
>> there seem unsure what to call it as well.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Dian
>> ___
>> 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] Is it a fence?

[Adam Horan]

The golf fence is 14-15 times higher than the white fence along the bottom
(counting pixels). If the bottom white fence is 2m high, then the golf
fence is ~30m high.

I'd agree that it's a fence. However it's also a net in the sky... so
perhaps skynet?




On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 at 20:50, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> On 15/11/21 20:28, Warin wrote:
> > What else would you call it? A tall fence?
> >
> > I'd tag it barrier=fence height=40
>
> I'd also say fence. But that's a 6 story apartment block, which would be
> about 20m tall, so somewhat less than 40.
>
> ___
> 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] Lifeguards & "Swim Between the Flags"

[Adam Horan]

I think I see.

The lifeguards are where the flags are.
The flags are somewhere on this beach.
There'll be flags/lifeguards at certain times.




On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 17:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Agree entirely but I'm not trying to map the flags, I was trying to work
> out a way of saying that the lifeguards are where the flags are?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 15:49, Adam Horan  wrote:
>
>> Flag position will vary daily based on weather conditions, tides, rips,
>> proximity to the toilets, other stuff?
>>
>> I think you'd just need to mark the whole beach.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 15:04, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks everybody!
>>>
>>> In response to a couple of points ...
>>>
>>> No, I'm not trying to mark that the lifeguards are "in this spot", I
>>> just thought that some way of indicating where on the beach (i.e the flags)
>>> they would be would be good.
>>>
>>> & yes, we're all taught to swim between the flags, but is that standard
>>> teaching everywhere?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Graeme
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 12:26, Simon Slater  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, 20 October 2021 9:54:22 AM AEDT Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>>>> > A little while back, I put the emergency=lifeguard proposal through,
>>>> > together with lifeguard=yes to describe those times when there is a
>>>> > lifeguard/s on the beach, but they may not be in a fixed location.
>>>> >
>>>> 
>>>> > Or do we just not worry about it, & work on the idea that =yes is
>>>> > sufficient?
>>>> >
>>>> When I were a lad, we were taught to always look for the flags when
>>>> going to
>>>> any beach to swim, teaching personal responsibility and obey the flags
>>>> because
>>>> the lifesavers know that beach better.  Therefore, actual flag
>>>> positions need
>>>> to be known as variable.
>>>>
>>>> However, tagging a beach that does have a SLSC is good because those
>>>> unfamiliar with the area, tourists say, or families with young
>>>> children, can
>>>> then preferentially choose such beaches.  Similarly, the more
>>>> adventurous, or
>>>> those desiring solitude, can preferentially choose alternate locations.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Regards
>>>> Simon Slater
>>>>
>>>> Registered Linux User #463789 @ http://linuxcounter.net
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> 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
>>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Lifeguards & "Swim Between the Flags"

[Adam Horan]

Flag position will vary daily based on weather conditions, tides, rips,
proximity to the toilets, other stuff?

I think you'd just need to mark the whole beach.

Adam

On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 15:04, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Thanks everybody!
>
> In response to a couple of points ...
>
> No, I'm not trying to mark that the lifeguards are "in this spot", I just
> thought that some way of indicating where on the beach (i.e the flags) they
> would be would be good.
>
> & yes, we're all taught to swim between the flags, but is that standard
> teaching everywhere?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 12:26, Simon Slater  wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 20 October 2021 9:54:22 AM AEDT Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>> > A little while back, I put the emergency=lifeguard proposal through,
>> > together with lifeguard=yes to describe those times when there is a
>> > lifeguard/s on the beach, but they may not be in a fixed location.
>> >
>> 
>> > Or do we just not worry about it, & work on the idea that =yes is
>> > sufficient?
>> >
>> When I were a lad, we were taught to always look for the flags when going
>> to
>> any beach to swim, teaching personal responsibility and obey the flags
>> because
>> the lifesavers know that beach better.  Therefore, actual flag positions
>> need
>> to be known as variable.
>>
>> However, tagging a beach that does have a SLSC is good because those
>> unfamiliar with the area, tourists say, or families with young children,
>> can
>> then preferentially choose such beaches.  Similarly, the more
>> adventurous, or
>> those desiring solitude, can preferentially choose alternate locations.
>>
>> --
>> Regards
>> Simon Slater
>>
>> Registered Linux User #463789 @ http://linuxcounter.net
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Emergency markers licence?

[Adam Horan]

The original changeset that introduced this marker and at least one other
is from 12 years ago and unsourced.

In changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/1630681
MOR549  https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/429407301
MOR507 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/429407299

In https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/1618012
PNP401 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/429089079
PNP101  https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/429090789
PNP505  https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/429110571/

Not sure how much we can trust any of these. I assume these markers are
visible signs/posts at the roadside and can be surveyed?

Adam


On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 12:42,  wrote:

> Hi
> I think that, because its a emergency marker, its important to get it
> right.
>
> Its a HighRouler edit so we will have to decide what, if anything, to
> do with it.  Its been at London Bridge for 12 years, recently moved to
> a point 100m north. But I am not allowed to "know" that the two
> locations are 30km from the  location according to the Emergency
> Services Telecommunications Authority.
>
> Thanks
> Tony
>
> > I don't think that's a compatible source, for starters that page lists it
> > as Creative Commons Non-Commercial.
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 10:22,  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> I want to put the emergency marker MOR507 where I think it belongs
> >>
> >> MOR507 node=429407299
> >>
> >> not London Bridge (in either of its two recent locations)but
> >> LATITUDE-38.473502 LONGITUDE 144.92752 Bushrangers Bay car park
> >>
> >> Is
> >>
> >>
> https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/esta-emergency-markers/resource/44add10f-a478-4ab0-a6fa-227493663b28
> >> an allowable
> >> source?
> >>
> >> Tony
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Talk-au mailing list
> >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> >>
> >
> > _
> > This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
> > see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Lifeguards & "Swim Between the Flags"

[Adam Horan]

Surf Lifesaving have a website and app that contains this information along
with much more. When things are patrolled, risks, facilities etc

https://beachsafe.org.au/beach/qld/rockhampton/yeppoon/yeppoon

On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 11:05, Ben Kelley  wrote:

> Hi.
>
> In my experience, the actual location of flags on any given day can vary a
> lot (according to the conditions). I don't think there is any benefit in
> trying to mark on the map where the flags are.
>
> I think it is useful to know that this beach may have a lifeguard, as
> opposed to knowing that this beach never has a lifeguard.
>
>  - Ben Kelley.
> On 20/10/21 09:54, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> A little while back, I put the emergency=lifeguard proposal through,
> together with lifeguard=yes to describe those times when there is a
> lifeguard/s on the beach, but they may not be in a fixed location.
>
> Have just started actually using them while I've been fixing GC beaches &
> realised that it's not quite right.
>
> Rather than just lifeguard=yes to show that there's a lifeguard here
> somewhere, we should have some way of saying that the lifeguards are where
> the flags are i.e. "Swim Between the Flags".
>
> How?
>
> Would lifeguard=yes @ flagged_area / red_and_yellow_flags work?
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Or do we just not worry about it, & work on the idea that =yes is
> sufficient?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> --
> Ben Kelley
> ben.kel...@gmail.com
> Sent from my Psion
> ___
> 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] Path discussion tagging guidelines

[Adam Horan]

I'd say it does, except I think there was a desire not to universally tag
bicycle=yes/no on footway, given it's broadly redundant information. This
should be derived from tags applied at a State level.
But retaining bicycle=no if there was an explicit sign forbidding cycling.

The only other difference was a general ambivalence on how shared paths are
tagged. The wiki says highway=cycleway & foot=designated, people here were
also happy with highway=footway & bicycle=designated. Two sides of the same
coin I guess, and depends on which camp you're in. 

Adam

On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 17:49, Brendan Barnes  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> There's been great discussion over the past few weeks about cycling and/or
> footpath tagging. Personally, it's been hard to keep up with all the
> messages.
>
> Does the tagging guidelines wiki reflect a summary of what has recently
> been discussed?
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Urban_Footpaths_and_Cycleways
>
> Thanks.
> ___
> 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] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Adam Horan]

Is this something that could be pushed to maproulette? Not as reversions,
but tasks to validate or update OSM entries that match a pattern - eg
edited by this user and now has bicycle=no, highway=footway etc?


On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 16:56, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> I guess there would be nearly 0% chance that you would be able to cleanly
> revert without dealing with conflicts. It can get complicated when
> conflicts are detected by the JOSM reverter, you need to both know about
> the OSM data model well (nodes, ways, relations, tags), know about the data
> you're reverting and an understanding of the area you're working in so you
> can decide how to handle the conflict and what final state you like.
>
> Tony since you know the data and area well, did you want to work on this
> together with me? I can help out with any technical roadblocks, maybe on a
> screen share?
>
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 16:32,  wrote:
>
>> While I'm normally all for "you made the mess, you clean it up", this
>> might
>> be something better tackled by someone with extensive experience in
>> reverting multiple changesets?
>>
>> Have we got any experts in that?
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: stevea 
>> Sent: Wednesday, 13 October 2021 14:13
>> To: fors...@ozonline.com.au
>> Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
>> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths
>>
>> I did my best to help Sebastian, but near the point where we got the first
>> launch of JOSM (he DID install Java, he DID have to move the .jar file to
>> his Applications folder, he apparently was NOT using a capital A in
>> Applications...) he suddenly went "radio silent" on me and didn't answer
>> any
>> more email ping-pongs.
>>
>> I had all primed my next email how to install a reverter, but didn't send
>> that because it seems he remained in a low gear, and running a JOSM
>> reverter
>> is for those who are, um, "in a higher gear."
>>
>> Good luck getting your data in shape, there, mates.
>>
>> SteveA
>> (where it is getting to be bedtime Tuesday night)
>>
>> > On Oct 12, 2021, at 9:06 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
>> >
>> > Adam
>> >
>> >> Spotting these
>> >> and knowing how far back to revert to might be tricky I guess?
>> >> eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/47771844/history
>> >
>> > Yes. I have never been involved in a reversion so complex and it worries
>> me too. I presume they should be reverted in reverse date order, ie most
>> recent first. And acting in a timely manner is important, before others do
>> edits on the same objects.
>> >
>> > Taking your example, the first reversion is important and the following
>> two swapping between path and footway make little difference.
>> >
>> > Tony
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > 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
>>
> ___
> 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] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Adam Horan]

I can't help with JOSM on mac, or with reverting specifically.

I would suggest caution with the reversion process though, there are plenty
of ways that have been edited multiple times by HighRouleur. Spotting these
and knowing how far back to revert to might be tricky I guess?
eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/47771844/history

Adam

On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 13:14,  wrote:

> Hi
>
> Sebastian wants to assist with correction of his tagging errors, I
> recommended the JOSM reverter plugin. However at
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111016252 he writes: "I tried
> to install JOSM but it’s not signed for the latest Mac OSX so
> won’t let me install it"
>
> Can a Mac user please assist him?
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Mapping tree cover

[Adam Horan]

There is another aspect to your question, which is how to map woods/trees
after a fire?

You're right it looks like someone has mapped the wooded areas as a
relation with holes for non-wooded areas
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9300964/history

Some of the current gaps might be due to recent fires, and I don't know if
they should be mapped as something else. Depending on the fire severity
then it's possible the woodland will regrow quickly, slowly, or not for a
long time. I assume there's some precedent & convention based on the large
fires in the east a couple of years back.

Adam







On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:33, Adam Horan  wrote:

> I think you're asking the same question as Andrew, but you possibly have
> different viewpoints or opinions on it.
>
> I see the map as a painting that's becoming more detailed and accurate as
> time progresses. In the beginning the map was blank, and people added large
> areas of landcover just to get something down. Mappers took conveniences
> like marking a national park as all desert or all trees.
>
> However now that all the basics have been done mappers are adding more
> detailed, accurate information and using more sophisticated tagging schemes.
>
> I think it's entirely right that we map what's on the ground. If there's a
> 20m gap in the trees for a road, or significant fire break, or there's been
> clearing, then people should map that in detail if they have time and
> inclination.
>
> Also the trees tend not to respect administrative boundaries, it's almost
> like they don't know they're there... Tree cover extends beyond the
> National Parks in a continuous run, and similarly there are clearings,
> lakes, meadows, moorlands within the parks.
>
> However the first step in mapping this detail is to remove the blanket
> landcover from the admin boundary.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 09:22, EON4wd  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Further to Andrew Parkers question about forested areas.
>>
>> I am also a casual user for uploading data and I also create my own maps
>> from the data.
>>
>> My interest is in 4wd tracks.
>>
>> The Grampians has had the ‘landcover – tree’ ‘areas’ changed which in my
>> opinion is now not correct.
>>
>> See
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=16/-37.1268/142.3867
>>
>> The Grampians is a National park and is covered in trees.
>>
>> There are a number of rocks and rocky outcrops (lots actually) and a few
>> lakes and roads plus some swamp and rock quarries, but generally speaking
>> it is completely covered in trees, everywhere, including the rocky outcrops.
>>
>> I suspect that some well meaning person has mapped what they could see
>> via a satellite image after a fire went though.
>>
>> Question, How can I identify this person so that I can contact them to be
>> able to find out what they are thinking?
>>
>> Traditionally, the whole area is mapped as tree cover and then other
>> features are added on top, such as the lakes and roads.
>>
>> Also towards the SA border there are other treed areas that have been
>> very carefully traced out. Yet traditionally the whole area is set with the
>> fence lines and tracks then marked on top.
>>
>> Not necessarily wrong, but tracing the exact line of where the trees
>> finish and the road side has been cleared, is not really helpful. Or is it?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Ian Winter
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Basic question

[Adam Horan]

Yep,
although you do see lots of natural=wood and natural=water overlapping. I
usually see this as a temporary hack until someone wants to put in the
effort of creating a relation with a hole in it and moving the tags there.

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:52, Sam Wilson  wrote:

> Yes, good point. And equally, it'd be unlikely for natural=wood and
> natural=scrub to overlap.
> On 8/10/21 8:36 am, Adam Horan wrote:
>
> That's probably a good rule of thumb, although with the addition of same
> type and 'level'.
>
> Admin boundaries overlap and nest all the time, but you wouldn't normally
> expect two of the same type and level to overlap.
> LGA within State within Country etc
>
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:31, Sam Wilson  wrote:
>
>> My understanding is that areas should not overlap only where they are of
>> a similar type. Areas of natural=wood and boundary=national_park aren't
>> similar and so it's fine for them to overlap.
>> On 8/10/21 6:25 am, Adam Horan via Talk-au wrote:
>>
>> "Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a forested area
>> are not the same."
>>
>> I'd say that this is common and expected, and should be handled with
>> separate areas.
>>
>> I feel it's very much the old style of mapping to put 'natural=wood' on a
>> park admin boundary.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 08:38,  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>> If you were told this by changeset comment, can you give the URL?
>>> Tony
>>>
>>> > Hi everyone
>>> > I am a basic OSM editor. I usually just correct obvious map errors I
>>> find
>>> > while hiking/cycling. I have tried to be a little more ambitious every
>>> now
>>> > and then, but I have found it can be quite difficult to keep other
>>> editors
>>> > happy with what I do.
>>> >
>>> > My question is: Can you have overlapping 'areas'? I was told by
>>> someone in
>>> > this group that you can't.
>>> >
>>> > For example; Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a
>>> > forested area are not the same. This is the issue where I was told
>>> that you
>>> > can't do that.
>>> > This makes no logical sense to me as this happens all the time.
>>> >
>>> > I would appreciate some guidance on this issue.
>>> > Kind regards
>>> > Andrew Parker
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [talk-au] Basic question

[Adam Horan]

That's probably a good rule of thumb, although with the addition of same
type and 'level'.

Admin boundaries overlap and nest all the time, but you wouldn't normally
expect two of the same type and level to overlap.
LGA within State within Country etc

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:31, Sam Wilson  wrote:

> My understanding is that areas should not overlap only where they are of a
> similar type. Areas of natural=wood and boundary=national_park aren't
> similar and so it's fine for them to overlap.
> On 8/10/21 6:25 am, Adam Horan via Talk-au wrote:
>
> "Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a forested area
> are not the same."
>
> I'd say that this is common and expected, and should be handled with
> separate areas.
>
> I feel it's very much the old style of mapping to put 'natural=wood' on a
> park admin boundary.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 08:38,  wrote:
>
>> Hi
>> If you were told this by changeset comment, can you give the URL?
>> Tony
>>
>> > Hi everyone
>> > I am a basic OSM editor. I usually just correct obvious map errors I
>> find
>> > while hiking/cycling. I have tried to be a little more ambitious every
>> now
>> > and then, but I have found it can be quite difficult to keep other
>> editors
>> > happy with what I do.
>> >
>> > My question is: Can you have overlapping 'areas'? I was told by someone
>> in
>> > this group that you can't.
>> >
>> > For example; Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a
>> > forested area are not the same. This is the issue where I was told that
>> you
>> > can't do that.
>> > This makes no logical sense to me as this happens all the time.
>> >
>> > I would appreciate some guidance on this issue.
>> > Kind regards
>> > Andrew Parker
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping tree cover

[Adam Horan]

I think you're asking the same question as Andrew, but you possibly have
different viewpoints or opinions on it.

I see the map as a painting that's becoming more detailed and accurate as
time progresses. In the beginning the map was blank, and people added large
areas of landcover just to get something down. Mappers took conveniences
like marking a national park as all desert or all trees.

However now that all the basics have been done mappers are adding more
detailed, accurate information and using more sophisticated tagging schemes.

I think it's entirely right that we map what's on the ground. If there's a
20m gap in the trees for a road, or significant fire break, or there's been
clearing, then people should map that in detail if they have time and
inclination.

Also the trees tend not to respect administrative boundaries, it's almost
like they don't know they're there... Tree cover extends beyond the
National Parks in a continuous run, and similarly there are clearings,
lakes, meadows, moorlands within the parks.

However the first step in mapping this detail is to remove the blanket
landcover from the admin boundary.

Adam


On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 09:22, EON4wd  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Further to Andrew Parkers question about forested areas.
>
> I am also a casual user for uploading data and I also create my own maps
> from the data.
>
> My interest is in 4wd tracks.
>
> The Grampians has had the ‘landcover – tree’ ‘areas’ changed which in my
> opinion is now not correct.
>
> See
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=16/-37.1268/142.3867
>
> The Grampians is a National park and is covered in trees.
>
> There are a number of rocks and rocky outcrops (lots actually) and a few
> lakes and roads plus some swamp and rock quarries, but generally speaking
> it is completely covered in trees, everywhere, including the rocky outcrops.
>
> I suspect that some well meaning person has mapped what they could see via
> a satellite image after a fire went though.
>
> Question, How can I identify this person so that I can contact them to be
> able to find out what they are thinking?
>
> Traditionally, the whole area is mapped as tree cover and then other
> features are added on top, such as the lakes and roads.
>
> Also towards the SA border there are other treed areas that have been very
> carefully traced out. Yet traditionally the whole area is set with the
> fence lines and tracks then marked on top.
>
> Not necessarily wrong, but tracing the exact line of where the trees
> finish and the road side has been cleared, is not really helpful. Or is it?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Ian Winter
>
>
> ___
> 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] Basic question

[Adam Horan via Talk-au]

"Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a forested area
are not the same."

I'd say that this is common and expected, and should be handled with
separate areas.

I feel it's very much the old style of mapping to put 'natural=wood' on a
park admin boundary.

Adam


On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 08:38,  wrote:

> Hi
> If you were told this by changeset comment, can you give the URL?
> Tony
>
> > Hi everyone
> > I am a basic OSM editor. I usually just correct obvious map errors I find
> > while hiking/cycling. I have tried to be a little more ambitious every
> now
> > and then, but I have found it can be quite difficult to keep other
> editors
> > happy with what I do.
> >
> > My question is: Can you have overlapping 'areas'? I was told by someone
> in
> > this group that you can't.
> >
> > For example; Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a
> > forested area are not the same. This is the issue where I was told that
> you
> > can't do that.
> > This makes no logical sense to me as this happens all the time.
> >
> > I would appreciate some guidance on this issue.
> > Kind regards
> > Andrew Parker
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Adam Horan]

Ah well I don't see much difference between =yes and =designated, but to
others there's a clear difference. 
Given the other responses it seems that =designated is the preference for
shared paths.

As for *"Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than to
review the tags for permissions. "*
This is 'tagging for the renderer' which is discouraged. As mappers our aim
is to accurately map what's on the ground using legitimate sources of data,
and following agreed OSM conventions as much as possible.

Getting the right coloured dashed or dotted line on the map is someone
else's problem.
People produce special purpose maps with this in mind eg.

*OSM default*: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193
*CycleOSM*:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193=Y *(Bicycle
routes emphasised)*
*Cycle Map*:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193=C  *(Bicycle
routes emphasised)*
*Transport Map*:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193=T *(Public
transport emphasised)*

Cheers,

Adam

On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 14:26, Sebastian Azagra Flores 
wrote:

> Hi Adam
>
> Interesting to see your thoughts below in relation to Victoria.
>
> My point all along has been bikes are not permitted on footy paths used
> signed as allowed or should it be a shared path instead?
>
> In which case is there a preference in using footpath with the tags
> highway=footway  + bicycles=yes as you have indicated below
> or a should be be shared path where bikes=designated ?
>
> Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than to review the
> tags for permissions.
>
> regards,
>
> Sebastian
>
> On 5 Oct 2021, at 10:28 am, Adam Horan  wrote:
>
> 
> Hi Kim,
> highway = pedestrian is for pedestrianised roads/areas rather then
> footpaths/sidewalks/pavements for those I think the current tag is
> highway=footway.
> bridleway isn't in use in Australia much for the path types we're
> discussing here.
>
> I'd prefer a normal footpath to be
> highway=footway - and no additional bicycle= or foot= tag, unless there's
> a sign specifically barring cycling in which case bicycle=no
>
> Shared paths (the most common ones after a walking only path)
> either
> highway=footway + bicycle=yes (I prefer this one)
> or
> highway=cycleway and a foot=yes tag to make it clear (I don't prefer this
> one, but it's a mild preference)
>
> This is mostly with a VIC perspective.
>
> Adam
>
> On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au <
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew and list,
>>
>> How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a vote process,
>> or does someone take it upon themselves to document in the wiki any
>> consensus we reach on this list?
>>
>> We should document in the wiki when to add bicycle= and foot= tags which
>> duplicate the default values for highway=footway/cycleway? (As per Andrew's
>> email below).
>>
>> We should also decide on, and document the default access rules for
>> various highway= values at
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
>> and remove the "Not endorsed by the Australian OSM community (yet)."
>> Currently these are mostly the same as "Wordwide", except:
>>
>> highway=pedestrian - bicycle=yes. Sounds reasonable.
>> highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know enough about
>> bridleways in Australia to have an opinion on this.
>> highway=footway - currently bicycle=yes. This I think should be broken up
>> by state to reflect the state laws for adults riding on the footway. In
>> Victoria and NSW:  bicycle=no. Is Queensland bicycle=yes? What about the
>> other states?
>> These decisions should be replicated in the Australia or state relations
>> with def:... tags so they can be found and used by routing engines.
>>
>> On 4/10/21 10:14 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>>
>> With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme, Tony, Thorsten,
>> Kim all advocate for not blanket tagging bicycle=no to every normal
>> footpath (for the record I also support this, an explicit bicycle=no can
>> still be tagged where signage is indicating such). Matthew has pointed out
>> cases where Sebastian / HighRouleur has added bicycle=no but Mapillary
>> shows bicycle markings. Sebastian, unless all of this you've actually
>> surveyed in person and confirmed that the situation has change recently
>> (happy to be proven if this is the case, though I think it unlikely) then
>> we should proceed to roll back your changes because it's evident it goes
>> against the community wishes her

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Adam Horan]

Hi Kim,
highway = pedestrian is for pedestrianised roads/areas rather then
footpaths/sidewalks/pavements for those I think the current tag is
highway=footway.
bridleway isn't in use in Australia much for the path types we're
discussing here.

I'd prefer a normal footpath to be
highway=footway - and no additional bicycle= or foot= tag, unless there's a
sign specifically barring cycling in which case bicycle=no

Shared paths (the most common ones after a walking only path)
either
highway=footway + bicycle=yes (I prefer this one)
or
highway=cycleway and a foot=yes tag to make it clear (I don't prefer this
one, but it's a mild preference)

This is mostly with a VIC perspective.

Adam

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi Andrew and list,
>
> How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a vote process,
> or does someone take it upon themselves to document in the wiki any
> consensus we reach on this list?
>
> We should document in the wiki when to add bicycle= and foot= tags which
> duplicate the default values for highway=footway/cycleway? (As per Andrew's
> email below).
>
> We should also decide on, and document the default access rules for
> various highway= values at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
> and remove the "Not endorsed by the Australian OSM community (yet)."
> Currently these are mostly the same as "Wordwide", except:
>
> highway=pedestrian - bicycle=yes. Sounds reasonable.
> highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know enough about
> bridleways in Australia to have an opinion on this.
> highway=footway - currently bicycle=yes. This I think should be broken up
> by state to reflect the state laws for adults riding on the footway. In
> Victoria and NSW:  bicycle=no. Is Queensland bicycle=yes? What about the
> other states?
> These decisions should be replicated in the Australia or state relations
> with def:... tags so they can be found and used by routing engines.
>
> On 4/10/21 10:14 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme, Tony, Thorsten, Kim
> all advocate for not blanket tagging bicycle=no to every normal footpath
> (for the record I also support this, an explicit bicycle=no can still be
> tagged where signage is indicating such). Matthew has pointed out cases
> where Sebastian / HighRouleur has added bicycle=no but Mapillary shows
> bicycle markings. Sebastian, unless all of this you've actually surveyed in
> person and confirmed that the situation has change recently (happy to be
> proven if this is the case, though I think it unlikely) then we should
> proceed to roll back your changes because it's evident it goes against the
> community wishes here and the bulk changes have brought in these errors.
>
> Sebastian, thanks for joining our mailing list and engaging with this
> discussion, but due to the consensus indicated here would you be willing to
> work through and revert these changes you've made?
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [talk-au] Searching for tags?

[Adam Horan]

For super powered searching you need https://overpass-turbo.eu/

On the bottom right of the wiki page is a link to overpass which will embed
a simple query for the tag key-value.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dslipway

The query can be modified to search a wider area, but unfortunately
overpass queries are not super simple (and I say this as a programmer of
several years)
Searching across a very large area will be slow, or might be stopped if too
slow.

Adam

On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 09:47, Ben Kelley  wrote:

> In our search for boat ramps around here we found that there are heaps
> that Google doesn't know about. We found 3 yesterday that Google didn't
> have. Of those OSM had 2 of 3 (and I found a 4th in OSM I didn't know
> about).
>
> How can you search for a specific feature in OSM? If you search for
> "slipway" you only find things with "slipway" in the name. You can't search
> for "leisure=slipway" on the main map either.
>
> Is there some other way to search for particular features?
>
>  - Ben.
>
> --
> Ben Kelley
> ben.kel...@gmail.com
> https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
> This message was sent on my Atari 400
> ___
> 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] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Adam Horan]

It is coming through Philip, but I think you've replied to a digest message
and so it's been grouped/threaded differently.

I think what you've said is really useful, and i hope everyone in the main
thread has read it :)

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 15:54, Philip Mallis  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> (not sure why my previous message didn’t come through).
>
>
>
> I’m a mapper and a transport planner who deals a lot with this issue in my
> work.
>
>
>
> To clarify, VicPol are not the authority on what is or isn’t permitted on
> a path. What is signed ‘on the ground’ and in the legislation (Victorian
> Road Rules and Road Management Act) is what counts. Moreover, there are
> small legal complexities as to what is or isn’t legally considered a
> ‘bicycle lane’ or ‘shared user path’ that goes into detail beyond OSM
> mapping (e.g. the placement and types of signs, linemarking types, etc.).
>
>
>
> A blanket ‘bicycle=no’ tag on footpaths by default would not work for many
> of the reasons already stated in this discussion. For one, there are
> several exceptions to this rule as already outlined by others.
>
>
>
> Moreover, it is often not immediately obvious that a ‘footpath’ is a
> designated shared user or bicycle only path – especially from aerial or
> streetside imagery. Signs designating shared paths are sometimes damaged
> and forgotten to be replaced, linemarkings fade or any number of other
> reasons, while that path may still be legally designated as use permitted
> by people on bikes.
>
>
>
> In almost all cases, it is the local council who determine what is or
> isn’t a shared user or other off-road path. Under the Road Management Act,
> councils are responsible for all pathways in road reserves, regardless of
> whether the carriageway itself is a state arterial or local road. Most
> parks and reserves are also under the jurisdiction of local councils.
>
>
>
> As a result, I’d be inclined to leave the status quo of leaving
> ‘bicycle=*’ as blank unless there is a specific (legal) sign or linemarking
> stating otherwise (one way or the other).
>
>
>
> One further complication is that sometimes shared paths are built in new
> estates, outlined in masterplans and legally designated by local councils
> when they take over care & management of the street network, but signage
> and linemarking is sometimes just forgotten. In these cases, I’d be
> checking with local councils and/or VicMap to confirm their status,
> regardless of what is or isn’t signed or linemarked.
>
>
>
> Hope this helps.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Philip
>
>
>
> *From: *talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> *Sent: *Monday, 4 October 2021 12:07 PM
> *To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Talk-au Digest, Vol 172, Issue 8
>
>
>
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
>
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>
>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>
> talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>
> talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
>
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
>
>
>
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>
>
>1. Re: Cycling on Victorian paths (Graeme Fitzpatrick)
>
>2. Re: Cycling on Victorian paths (Philip Mallis)
>
>3. Re: Cycling on Victorian paths (Andy Townsend)
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Message: 1
>
> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 07:52:02 +1000
>
> From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
>
> To: Andy Townsend 
>
> Cc: OSM-Au 
>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths
>
> Message-ID:
>
> <
> cap4zaxpyaat+e-erehxqxoeqa4rmfrzsxnvd856noemhces...@mail.gmail.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
>
>
> Thanks for that, Andy.
>
>
>
> In that case, the definitions in iD probably need to be updated /
>
> changed, as when you're mapping any form of highway=*, the "Allowed
>
> Access" options & explanations include designated: "Access allowed
>
> according to signs or specific local laws".
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 at 19:40, Andy Townsend  wrote:
>
> >
>
> > On 03/10/2021 04:00, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I would think it should be bicycle=designated, which means that signage
> & local laws would then apply?
>
> >
>
> > (on the very narrow question of what "bicycle=designated" means in OSM)
>
> >
>
> > "=designated" is a somewhat confusingly named tag - it
> sounds like it ought to mean what you say above, but in practice the
> definition at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated
> is actually:
>
> >
>
> > "indicates that a route has been specially designated (typically by a
> government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of 

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[Adam Horan]

I think I've tried to contact this user before.

However when I wanted to contact them it was for the opposite problem, they
were putting bicycle=yes on paths that didn't allow cycling. I have only
ever seen changeset comments of 'updates' , and I don't think I've seen a
source referenced other than the iD bing imagery.

They also do a lot of path -> footway/cycleway changes, and I've seen them
flip-flop those way types on ways they edited months before.

This recent changeset reverts a shared footpath & cyclepath next to
McClelland Drive to a footway. I know from going along there recently that
it is a shared path.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110855931#map=16/-38.1286/145.1824
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/926500719/history

I think a lot that they do is valid and useful, however sourcing is
sometimes uncertain, the changeset comments are pointless, and there's many
incorrect edits.

Adam


On Sat, 18 Sept 2021 at 22:40,  wrote:

> Hi
>
> I have commented at Changeset: 111016252 way 304507133 has been
> changed from bicycle yes to bicycle no, I rode it today and saw no
> signage indicating this, this changeset has 88 ways with the comment
> "updates". A random survey shows lots of bicycle yes and designated
> removed. Lots of changed tags.
>
> 9 changeset(s) created by HighRouleur have been discussed with a total
> of 12 comment(s) - Replies by this contributor: 1
>
> changeset comments are nearly all "updates" with no explanation
>
> Ill see if I get a reply
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] FYI Public Records VIC - Map Warper

[Adam Horan]

As a group of people interested in Australia, Maps, crowdsourcing and open
data, I'm going to assume you'll also be interested in Map Warper. It's an
online tool allowing alignment and rectification of old (any really) maps
to reality. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/MapWarper

I've been playing with the version hosted for Public Records Office Vic at
https://mapwarper.prov.vic.gov.au/
There's 12091 old maps and plans on the site, some have been rectified, and
some await rectification.

I've been finding looking at these old maps absolutely fascinating. You can
see which roads have moved or not, towns that were planned to be much
larger and have shrunk, roads that have returned to tracks, or disappeared,
original (Aboriginal sounding) place names that have been retained or lost.
You can also appreciate the skill and accuracy of the surveyors of 100+
years ago, there are coastlines and rivers mapped in more detail here than
in OSM.

Usability is a bit average, but the content is interesting.

Regards,

Adam
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] New Bing imagery?

[Adam Horan]

What I did notice though is that some footpath shapes matched those in
openstreetmap, paths through parks and nature reserves especially.
I also see they've got a ©OpenStreetMap in the bottom right corner - not
sure if that's always been there.

On Mon, 6 Sept 2021 at 09:22, Sam Wilson  wrote:

> I'm not sure what the best way is, but the imagery on bing.com/maps
> <https://www.bing.com/maps> appears to be the same as what's available in
> the WMS service, so it's probably quicker to check there than to fire up an
> editor. I found an edge of the high-res stuff in Dandenong South (would
> link to it but Bing maps appears not to allow permalinks). Maybe they
> publish the bounds somewhere? Maybe they're going to do more? Dunno.
> On 6/9/21 6:34 am, Stéphane Guillou wrote:
>
> Still hasn't reached us, in my part of Meanjin/Brisbane at least.
>
>
> Nowadays, what is the best way to track:
>
> - How old the imagery is?
>
> - Where the latest update is available?
>
> - Zoom level availability?
>
>
> Cheers
> On 2/9/21 9:08 am, Adam Horan wrote:
>
> I can't see it in the suburbs of Melbourne yet. :(
>
> However they are now marking National Parks clearly in the normal map mode
> (not that it helps us), and they seem to have a new detailed terrain model.
> The hill shading on some sand quarries near me is much more detailed and
> accurate than I recall seeing before: eg
> https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=88fab0f8-d07a-4f80-b6ca-d951776333be=-38.130694~145.185322=16=2=2=S00027
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2 Sept 2021 at 03:01,  wrote:
>
>> Yes there is. Has also shown up in NSW and Qld.
>>
>> We were discussing that today in #oceania on the OSM Discord.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sam Wilson 
>> Sent: Wednesday, 1 September 2021 22:25
>> To: OSM-Au 
>> Subject: [talk-au] New Bing imagery?
>>
>> For Perth at any rate, it seems that there is new Bing imagery available,
>> taken this year. I might be a bit slow off the mark, but this makes
>> tracing
>> buildings far far better! I'm sure it was crappier last week.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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 
> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
> --
> Stéphane Guillouhttp://stragu.gitlab.io/
>
> You can encrypt our communications by using OpenPGP. My public key 4E211060 
> is available on the keys.gnupg.net server.
>
> Other ways to interact with me are listed on my contact page: 
> http://stragu.gitlab.io/contact/
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [talk-au] New Bing imagery?

[Adam Horan]

I can't see it in the suburbs of Melbourne yet. :(

However they are now marking National Parks clearly in the normal map mode
(not that it helps us), and they seem to have a new detailed terrain model.
The hill shading on some sand quarries near me is much more detailed and
accurate than I recall seeing before: eg
https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=88fab0f8-d07a-4f80-b6ca-d951776333be=-38.130694~145.185322=16=2=2=S00027



On Thu, 2 Sept 2021 at 03:01,  wrote:

> Yes there is. Has also shown up in NSW and Qld.
>
> We were discussing that today in #oceania on the OSM Discord.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam Wilson 
> Sent: Wednesday, 1 September 2021 22:25
> To: OSM-Au 
> Subject: [talk-au] New Bing imagery?
>
> For Perth at any rate, it seems that there is new Bing imagery available,
> taken this year. I might be a bit slow off the mark, but this makes tracing
> buildings far far better! I'm sure it was crappier last week.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Tracks flagged as missing from government data

[Adam Horan]

I've done some spot checks on the VIC priority, and I see they're also
included in the Track VIC challenge. Although the 316 in VIC Priority will
be a small dent in the 249850 in Tracks VIC.

Many of the ones in Tracks VIC seem to be driveways (certainly in the
Melbourne periphery that I scanned through), is this expected?

On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 at 19:08, Little Maps  wrote:

> > Thanks for a great series of projects Andrew. One query… is there an
> error in the Victorian all tracks challenge? It includes nearly 250,000
> tracks to be reviewed and potentially added to OSM. By contrast, taginfo
> states that there are “only” 188,000 tracks (highway=track) in OSM across
> all of Australia at the moment. At the suggested rate of nearly 6 minutes
> per track, that’ll take more than 6 person-years of mapping, if one were to
> map non-stop for 10 hours every day and 7 days every week. It certainly
> makes the ACT challenge look attractive - they have less than 100 to do.
> Cheers Ian
>
> ___
> 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] Data challenges in Maproulette for AU territories

[Adam Horan]

Can the existing MalformedRoundaboutChecks be disabled/hidden until they
are corrected?

They're currently still visible and show the incorrect identifications.

Thanks,

Adam

On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 05:25, Oisin Herriott (Insight Global Inc) via
Talk-au  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> As called out my original post, we have now published the Atlas check
> Maproulette challenges for territories of NSW, WA, SA, and NT. These are
> posted through our github here,
> https://github.com/microsoft/Open-Maps/issues/69.
>
> Andrew Davidson pointed out the incorrect direction being identified in
> relation to MalformedRoundaboutCheck. Having passed on this feedback, it
> appears that the check takes into consideration the different sides of the
> road travelled in  countries. This is based off of a list of ISO country
> codes and a tag for iso_country_code, but as these challenges were created
> on a territory by territory basis, this was an oversight and will be
> updated. Thanks again for the feedback on that.
>
> Thanks Andrew Harvey for the update on the VIC address import project, it
> will be interesting to re-run the atlas check after this is complete and
> see what the results are.
>
> Thanks all,
> Oisin
>
> -Original Message-
> From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
>
> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 11:59 PM
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Talk-au Digest, Vol 169, Issue 34
>
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk-audata=04%7C01%7Cv-oiher%40microsoft.com%7C5a14f9d64ab04e3ee30908d950cc7ddd%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637629661641261495%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=zXw6YN6PBwo6w%2B4RNPX5R8wPBVKMSOa5gh405YU3o%2BU%3Dreserved=0
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
> "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Data challenges in Maproulette for AU territories
>   (Oisin Herriott (Insight Global Inc))
>2. Re: Celebrating 17 years of OSM (Edoardo Neerhut)
>3. Re: Roads in Industrial Estates: Residential, Unclassified or
>   Service? (Graeme Fitzpatrick)
>4. Re: Roads in Industrial Estates: Residential, Unclassified or
>   Service? (Adam Horan)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 17:23:21 +
> From: "Oisin Herriott (Insight Global Inc)" 
> To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Data challenges in Maproulette for AU
> territories
> Message-ID:
> <
> mw2pr2101mb185187fd5ecfcc3b1cd07a40e3...@mw2pr2101mb1851.namprd21.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> As per your message below -
> " I think there may be a problem with your MalformedRoundaboutCheck
> challenges. It appears that every roundabout in the ACT and VIC has been
> flagged. I've checked about 15 so far and none of them have any issues.
>
> Could you have forgotten that roundabouts are clockwise in AU?"
>
> Thank you for pointing this out. I took a look and agree, so have fed this
> information back to some of the folks who worked on these tasks. The
> country's direction o f travel should be considered when looking into the
> details of the check on github here,
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fosmlab%2Fatlas-checks%2Fblob%2Fdev%2Fdocs%2Fchecks%2FmalformedRoundaboutCheck.mddata=04%7C01%7Cv-oiher%40microsoft.com%7C5a14f9d64ab04e3ee30908d950cc7ddd%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637629661641271485%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=BjxwawMPwjJctwBEulm%2FAhDCUD6qWob%2F%2F3SZ27wK8X4%3Dreserved=0.
> I can update when I find out more and will also check in other territories
> before sending any out on Maproulette until we find out whats happening  on
> this check.
>
> Best,
> Oisin
>
> -Original Message-
> From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org  >
> Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2021 4:00 AM
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Talk-au Digest, Vol 169, Issue 32
>
> Send Talk-au 

Re: [talk-au] Problems setting up MapRoulette Challenge

[Adam Horan]

Your challenge is listed and has 13 tasks visible. People could action them.

*(Sorry Graeme you'll have seen this message a few times, but my previously
attached screenshot fell foul of the list moderation)*

On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 13:29, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> That works! (I think?)
>
> It thought about it then came back with 13 tasks to complete, which
> matches 13 buildings that OT found, but it showed a map of Indonesia?
>
> I refreshed it to have another go & it then hit me with a Data Limit.
>
> Lunchtime now, then out for a Doctor's appt, so I'll try again later & see
> how we go?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 13:04, Adam Horan  wrote:
>
>> Graeme,
>>
>> The data source you pasted in doesn't return any tasks... I think it's
>> the quoting around "building=yes".
>>
>> //State
>> area[admin_level=4]["name"="Western
>> Australia"][boundary=administrative]->.a;
>>
>> way(area.a)[building]["building:levels"="0"];
>> out  geom ;
>>
>> I modified it to this, and now get a few buildings. I also dropped the
>> building=yes as some of the buildings with the layers tag have things like
>> building=school.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 12:23, Adam Horan  wrote:
>>
>>> Is the challenge status Finished? You might need to do something to
>>> change that back to Created or Active, or whatever it is.
>>>
>>> If you have no tasks listed in the admin page for the challenge, then
>>> you probably need to click 'Rebuild Tasks' which will run your OT query
>>> again and generate all the tasks from it. You'll get some scary messages
>>> first, if no tasks have been worked on then you should be fine to just push
>>> on.
>>>
>>> Assuming you've created the challenge from an overpass query and not
>>> from uploaded json?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 12:15, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 11:37, Adam Horan  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There's a discoverable slider in the Project
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Challenge was set to Discoverable but the Project wasn't, so that's
>>>> now hopefully fixed that one as now showing OK (at least to me?)
>>>>
>>>> Are there tasks listed in the challenge?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> The Project is now showing No Challenges
>>>> https://maproulette.org/browse/projects/3119, while the Challenge is
>>>> showing Finished with No Tasks, but when I do the OT search on WA,
>>>> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/19Px, it's still showing 13 ways?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Graeme
>>>>
>>>>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Problems setting up MapRoulette Challenge

[Adam Horan]

Graeme,

The data source you pasted in doesn't return any tasks... I think it's the
quoting around "building=yes".

//State
area[admin_level=4]["name"="Western
Australia"][boundary=administrative]->.a;

way(area.a)[building]["building:levels"="0"];
out  geom ;

I modified it to this, and now get a few buildings. I also dropped the
building=yes as some of the buildings with the layers tag have things like
building=school.

Adam


On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 12:23, Adam Horan  wrote:

> Is the challenge status Finished? You might need to do something to change
> that back to Created or Active, or whatever it is.
>
> If you have no tasks listed in the admin page for the challenge, then you
> probably need to click 'Rebuild Tasks' which will run your OT query again
> and generate all the tasks from it. You'll get some scary messages first,
> if no tasks have been worked on then you should be fine to just push on.
>
> Assuming you've created the challenge from an overpass query and not from
> uploaded json?
>
>
>
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 12:15, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 11:37, Adam Horan  wrote:
>>
>>> There's a discoverable slider in the Project
>>>
>>
>> The Challenge was set to Discoverable but the Project wasn't, so that's
>> now hopefully fixed that one as now showing OK (at least to me?)
>>
>> Are there tasks listed in the challenge?
>>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> The Project is now showing No Challenges
>> https://maproulette.org/browse/projects/3119, while the Challenge is
>> showing Finished with No Tasks, but when I do the OT search on WA,
>> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/19Px, it's still showing 13 ways?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Problems setting up MapRoulette Challenge

[Adam Horan]

Is the challenge status Finished? You might need to do something to change
that back to Created or Active, or whatever it is.

If you have no tasks listed in the admin page for the challenge, then you
probably need to click 'Rebuild Tasks' which will run your OT query again
and generate all the tasks from it. You'll get some scary messages first,
if no tasks have been worked on then you should be fine to just push on.

Assuming you've created the challenge from an overpass query and not from
uploaded json?



On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 12:15, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 11:37, Adam Horan  wrote:
>
>> There's a discoverable slider in the Project
>>
>
> The Challenge was set to Discoverable but the Project wasn't, so that's
> now hopefully fixed that one as now showing OK (at least to me?)
>
> Are there tasks listed in the challenge?
>>
>
> No.
>
> The Project is now showing No Challenges
> https://maproulette.org/browse/projects/3119, while the Challenge is
> showing Finished with No Tasks, but when I do the OT search on WA,
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/19Px, it's still showing 13 ways?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Problems setting up MapRoulette Challenge

[Adam Horan]

There's a discoverable slider in the Project
https://maproulette.org/browse/projects/3119 and also each challenge has a
discoverable setting. In the challenge list this is an eye symbol which is
either open or has a line through it.

Are there tasks listed in the challenge?

On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 11:04, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Rather than highjack Adam's thread any longer, tiem to set-up my own to
> try & work out what I'm doing wrong?
>
> Thanks everybody for input & suggestions!
>
> I've noticed quite a few buildings tagged as "building:levels=0", which is
> obviously wrong as it means they don't even have a ground floor! (& I know
> that I'm responsible for some of them as I was confused about them as well,
> probably over levels v layers?
>
> So, when I do an OT search it brings back results eg
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/19Pt, which apparently shows 13 buildings in
> & around Perth with 0 levels.
>
> I've then tried to set up a Roulette challenge to check these, but can't
> get it to work? https://maproulette.org/admin/project/3119/challenge/20253
> but you may not be able to see it as it says "Not Discoverable", despite
> "Discoverable" being set to Yes?
>
> Data source is:
>
> //State
> area[admin_level=4]["name"="Western
> Australia"][boundary=administrative]->.a;
>
> way(area.a) [building]
>
> ["building=yes"]
> ["levels=0"];
>
> out ids geom ;
>
> but that (usually) runs through "Task Building" then brings up "No Tasks",
> which, to me, means it can't find any buildings with level=0 in WA?
>
> I'm guessing I've specified the search parameters wrong, so any advice
> will be more than welcome!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> 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] Roads in Industrial Estates: Residential, Unclassified or Service?

[Adam Horan]

Industrial on one side, residential on the other?
Personally I don't mind leaving this as residential as you suggest, so just
mark it as not an issue.

This is also why I've not yet done the same challenge for Commercial, as
there's even more scenarios where they are mixed.


Re setting up challenges in MapRoulette and overpass.

You can check your throttle status on the standard server here
https://overpass-api.de/api/status

If you get blocked on the standard one then you can change the overpass api
server that you're working with. In overpass-turbo setting you can switch
to https://overpass.kumi.systems/api which is a different instance hosted
by some people who don't have a limit https://overpass.kumi.systems/
In my tests the data is recent.

Speaking as a programmer, I'm not sure that I've ever encountered a
language as poorly explained and documented as overpass QL.


On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 at 14:59, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 at 16:57, Adam Horan  wrote:
>
>> I'd assumed I was talking to a guru!
>>
>
> I'd love to know where you get that idea ‽ :-)
>
> Yeah, I'm OK on OSM, but that's about it, especially when the instructions
> are all written in Computer, not English! As it was once put : "I don't
> know what makes 'em run, I just use 'em"
>
> This is the project https://maproulette.org/browse/projects/46014
>>
>
> Have started on the Qld ones, thanks, but one question arising from it.
>
> When it's industrial on one side of the street, & houses on the other,
> what do we want to call it?
>
> Maybe best left as =residential?
>
>
>> I've hit quota blocks so many times in the last few days trying to get
>> these queries working at all and then semi-efficiently.
>>
>
> Been trying my own challenge with your, & other sample codes, but not
> getting anywhere, & got that block earlier :-(
>
> I'll post it all up when the limit (hopefully?) refreshes tomorrow & see
> what real experts :-) think I'm doing wrong.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Roads in Industrial Estates: Residential, Unclassified or Service?

[Adam Horan]

lol, I was not expecting to be the maproulette expert after 2 days of
playing with it :) I'd assumed I was talking to a guru!

This is the project https://maproulette.org/browse/projects/46014

In this project I have used overpass queries, like this one.

//State
area[admin_level=4]["name"="South
Australia"][boundary=administrative]->.boundaryarea;

way(area.boundaryarea)[landuse=industrial];
map_to_area -> .industrial_areas;

//residential roads in this area
way(area.industrial_areas)[highway=residential];

out geom ;


I worked out this query based on googling for examples of things in other
areas, and found one about regions of Germany with or without fire
stations. I then simplified and modified it to what I needed. Testing in
https://overpass-turbo.eu/ until it returned sensible looking results.
Fortunately the queries are relatively quick and efficient.

I created a second project covering another bugbear of mine - reservoirs in
Australia mapped as a 'dam'
https://maproulette.org/browse/projects/46022
The overpass queries in this run too long, and so a couple of them are
based on geojson data sets exported from overpass turbo. I've hit quota
blocks so many times in the last few days trying to get these queries
working at all and then semi-efficiently.

Adam



On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 at 16:47, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 at 18:45, Adam Horan  wrote:
>
>> I've created them in MapRoulette - quite good fun really :)
>>
>> (Adding each state now.)
>>
>
> Yep, they're there & they work fine!
>
> Now, could you please share the secret of how you did it? :-)
>
> I'm trying to set one up myself, but I'll be jiggered if I can get it to
> work.
>
> What did you use as the "Location of your Task Data"?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Roads in Industrial Estates: Residential, Unclassified or Service?

[Adam Horan]

@ Graeme  - I've created them in MapRoulette - quite good fun really :)

(Adding each state now.)

On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 at 15:43, Adam Horan  wrote:

> I'll see how many there are, and also work out how to setup something in
> maproulette :)
>
> Re commercial. There's many more residential streets in small commercial
> areas - eg high streets and small shopping strips in suburbs. These ones
> need more thinking about than the industrial ones.
>
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 at 15:33, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 at 14:00, Adam Horan  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I've worked out an overpass query to find these, and I'll do some manual
>>> changes of residential to unclassified.
>>>
>>> I'm also assuming the same is broadly true for 'residential' roads in
>>> commercial areas, so I will look for mistakes there too.
>>>
>>
>> Happy to help with them Adam, so maybe set up a Roulette challenge for
>> each, for each state?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Roads in Industrial Estates: Residential, Unclassified or Service?

[Adam Horan]

I'll see how many there are, and also work out how to setup something in
maproulette :)

Re commercial. There's many more residential streets in small commercial
areas - eg high streets and small shopping strips in suburbs. These ones
need more thinking about than the industrial ones.

On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 at 15:33, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 at 14:00, Adam Horan  wrote:
>
>>
>> I've worked out an overpass query to find these, and I'll do some manual
>> changes of residential to unclassified.
>>
>> I'm also assuming the same is broadly true for 'residential' roads in
>> commercial areas, so I will look for mistakes there too.
>>
>
> Happy to help with them Adam, so maybe set up a Roulette challenge for
> each, for each state?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Roads in Industrial Estates: Residential, Unclassified or Service?

[Adam Horan]

Thanks all.

I've worked out an overpass query to find these, and I'll do some manual
changes of residential to unclassified.

I'm also assuming the same is broadly true for 'residential' roads in
commercial areas, so I will look for mistakes there too.

Thanks,

Adam

On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 at 16:01, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 at 18:04, Adam Horan  wrote:
>
>>
>> Tagging them as residential just *seems* wrong to me.
>>
>
> Agree with you entirely!
>
> Out of the other options, =unclassified is the best choice, with =service
> being left for driveways & similar internal roads.
>
> I do, though, remember seeing discussion a while back about changing
> unclassified to quarternary, which would make a lot of sense! :-)
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)

[Adam Horan]

PSMA/Geoscape isn't Australia Post.

AusPost will sell you a list of postcodes mapped to Localities, and with a
lat/long reference for a single point within the postcode. They don't sell
a shapefile. https://postcode.auspost.com.au/product_display.html?id=4

The AusPost sample data is:
PCode Locality State Comments Category Longitude Latitude
3000 MELBOURNE VIC Delivery Area 144.9650545 -37.8112625
3001 MELBOURNE VIC GPO Boxes Post Office Boxes
3002 EAST MELBOURNE VIC Delivery Area 144.981347 -37.8154235
3003 WEST MELBOURNE VIC Delivery Area 144.9309505 -37.8105385
3004 MELBOURNE VIC ST KILDA RD DISTRICT Delivery Area 144.9783715 -37.836898
3004 ST KILDA ROAD MELBOURNE VIC CARE PO ONLY Delivery Area
3006 SOUTHBANK VIC Delivery Area 144.9591655 -37.8253635

PSMA/Geoscape will sell you a shapefile, but it's one they've generated by
this process. I think it's clear that the PSMA data is interpreted/derived
rather than being a definition. However it's likely the most accurate
spatial representation of the postcodes.

*"Lineage:  The production process commences with textual matching between
the Australia Post database and the attribute fields of the spatial
Localities theme of the Administrative Boundaries dataset. Detailed
analysis is then required of duplicate named Localities within VIC, NSW,
and QLD to ensure that these Localities and their Postcode are neighboured
to other Localities with the same Postcode. The next production stage
involves the examination and allocation of Postcodes to gazetted Localities
that either have no delivery service or have not yet been assigned a
Postcode within the Australia Post database. This requires liaison with
state-based Postcode controllers and in turn state-based delivery
operations. This is an ongoing process and as a result, Postcode Boundaries
will always be subject to change according to the needs of delivery
operations. Locality boundaries are subsequently Dissolved/Aggregated based
on the Postcode attribute. "*

They do also say this: *"Postcode Boundaries is produced through a
partnership with Australia Post and provides the official representation of
postal delivery areas across Australia."*



On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 at 09:35, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> On 19/6/21 3:54 am, stevea wrote:
>
> > In the USA (in OSM) we say rather bluntly "ZIP codes are not
> > boundaries."  (ZIP codes are USA postcodes).
>
> The situation in Australia is different. Over here they *are* boundaries
> and our local postal service will sell you a copy of them:
>
>
> https://geoscape.com.au/documentation/postcode-boundaries-metadata-statement/
>
> The paradox I was referring to is why would I buy a copy?
>
> ___
> 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] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)

[Adam Horan]

The ABS have an interesting factsheet on postcodes and their own 'Postal
Area' interpretation (POA).
https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/factsheetspoa
It starts with this statement:
*"A postcode is a four digit number used by Australia Post to assist with
mail delivery. Australia Post does not currently define geographic
boundaries for postcodes. However, a number of organisations, such as PSMA
Australia Limited, create geographic boundaries that aim to define the
geographic extent of the mail delivery area for each postcode. Defining
postcodes with a geographic boundary is an imprecise process, and this is
demonstrated by the fact that there are variations in boundaries released
by different organisations."*

Some postcodes cross state boundaries, one example is 3644 which covers
Cobram in VIC and Lalalty in NSW
https://auspost.com.au/postcode/lalalty
https://auspost.com.au/postcode/cobram/vic/dgee
https://www.google.com/maps/place/VIC+3644/

There are also regions with no postcode, eg parts of the wilderness in West
Tasmania.

Some postcodes cover non-contiguous areas eg 3585 which is in two parts
https://www.google.com/maps/place/VIC+3585/

In VIC at least shapefiles for postcodes exist, I didn't search more
broadly. The VIC data is aligned to property boundaries.
https://services.land.vic.gov.au/SpatialDatamart/dataSearchViewMetadata.html?anzlicId=ANZVI0803003521=1

and
https://discover.data.vic.gov.au/dataset/postcode-boundaries-polygon-vicmap-admin

Google seems to have pretty accurate shapes for postcodes - but no idea of
their sourcing.

Regards,

Adam


On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 at 16:08, stevea  wrote:

> I know (I know), I’m talking to the Australia list and I’m in the USA
> (California).  I have friends from Oz, but I’ve never been (I’d love to
> visit as a tourist, it’s on my bucket list).
>
> In the USA, the USPS (postal service) uses five-digit “ZIP” codes (Zone,
> digit 1; Improvement, digits 2 and 3; Plan, digits 4 and 5) for what you
> call postcodes, the five-digit version generally identifies a single post
> office, big or small.  Started in the 1960s (or so), they have grown to
> “ZIP+4” codes (nine digits) that seem to specify right down to a “side of a
> street on a block,” single apartment building, or even individual house
> level.  I believe there are even 11-digit versions (crawling right up yer
> bum, it seems; with 11 digits, even my cat could have his own ZIP code).
> On the other hand, I have a Post Office box (identified by four digits) and
> the post office is identified by its five-digit ZIP code.  I once
> test-mailed an envelope to myself with just nine digits properly hyphenated
> (no name, no house number, no street, no city, no state), and sure enough,
> it arrived in my box.  (It had the usual "sprayed-on” zebra/barcode
> representing the ZIP+4 along the bottom to facilitate machine-reading
> further along the pipeline that all our other mail has, too, but was
> otherwise addressed with “only the ZIP+4”).
>
> Three points about ZIP codes which might be similar to postcodes in
> Australia (and Canada and the UK, it seems):  despite what most people
> think, ZIP codes are NOT required for a letter to be delivered.  It might
> take a bit longer without one, but it WILL be delivered.  City, State,
> ZIP?  (Or ZIP+4?):  not really required, as City, State (only) does
> suffice.  Secondly, I’ve discerned (and had others who should know confirm)
> that a ZIP code is much like a “routing algorithm” (of 5, 9 or 11 digits):
> it is NOT a geographic area that can be (easily) described by a polygon,
> even a multipolygon.  I mean, plenty of cartographic gymnastics have made
> geographic areas OUT OF ZIP codes (or postcodes) — some relatively
> “successfully” (accurately?) but they are not such things (a geographic
> area, even as they seem as though they are).
>
> Finally, the whole thing about “these are the property of the post office
> and we’re going to be very non-sharing with them…” seems to be widespread
> with postcodes, I’m not sure why that is, but hey, if postal services want
> their codes to be proprietary, they can do that.  But that should make
> cartographers like us think twice about why we’re including them in a map:
> what, exactly, can putting these data in OUR map “buy” us by doing so?
> Yes, I know there is a general attitude of “postcodes are NEEDED, else how
> will the mail get delivered!” (thought in our mind’s voice approaching a
> shrill panic).  But, recall, (at least in the USA, maybe Australia, Canada,
> UK..., too) they aren’t strictly needed, but are more of a convenience for
> automation and the internal workings of how to sort and deliver mail, not
> really a function a map needs to provide its consumers (anyway).
>
> Things to think about, and perhaps quite non-overlapping, but I felt like
> typing all that, so thanks for reading.
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> 

Re: [talk-au] Kathmandu + OSM

[Adam Horan]

The tiles seem to be coming from tile.osm.org - i thought that was a no-no
? Might depend on whether their site counts as 'heavy usage'
https://operations.osmfoundation.org/policies/tiles/  ?

I feel they do deserve some credit for actually using OSM rather than
google maps (although they do use google maps for directions)

On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 08:55, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

> There is also a wiki page
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution to try to
> keep track of these kinds of issues.
>
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 at 23:39, Ben Kelley  wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> I noticed that Kathmandu's web site (the clothing retailer, rather than
>> the city in Nepal) uses OSM for their store locator, but it does not
>> include the correct copyright information.
>> https://www.kathmandu.com.au/stores
>>
>> I sent them some feedback on their web site to this effect, so I'll see
>> how it goes.
>>
>>  - Ben.
>> ___
>> 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] Uluru naming consistency

[Adam Horan]

I prefer the first proposal from Joachim:
name = Uluṟu
name:en = Uluru
name:pjt = Uluṟu
alt_name = Ayers Rock
alt_name:en = Ayers Rock
official_name =  Uluru / Ayers Rock
official_name:en =  Uluru / Ayers Rock

I suggest putting 'Ayers Rock' in alt_name instead of old_name. If you
think about it Uluru *is* the old name... 


Adam

On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 09:55, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> Thanks for consulting the list for feedback before making the change, such
> a big change like this should be discussed first.
>
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 05:40, Joachim  wrote:
>
>> For the following proposals I added the English and Pitjantjatjara
>> explicitly because Uluru has some translated names.
>> My preferred proposal for both features:
>> name = Uluṟu
>> name:en = Uluru
>> name:pjt = Uluṟu
>> alt_name = Ayers Rock
>> alt_name:en = Ayers Rock
>> official_name =  Uluru / Ayers Rock
>> official_name:en =  Uluru / Ayers Rock
>>
>
> +1
>
> I'm also okay with either alt_name or old_name for "Ayers Rock", with a
> slight preference to "old_name".
>
>
>> Uluru seems to be generally seen as the preferred name nowadays in
>> Australia. I played a bit with Google Trends to see the extent
>> (
>> https://trends.google.de/trends/explore?date=all=AU=ayers%20rock,uluru
>> )
>> The official name is the dual name Uluru / Ayers Rock
>> (http://www.ntlis.nt.gov.au/placenames/view.jsp?id=10532)
>> The park is co-operated by Anangu and the Australian Government and
>> names it Uluru exclusively
>> (https://parksaustralia.gov.au/uluru/about/ayers-rock-or-uluru/)
>>
>
> I agree.
>
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 09:14, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>> So, with such a mish-mash of underlined & non- names, my own preference
>> would be:
>>
>> name = Uluru / Ayers Rock
>> name:en = Uluru / Ayers Rock
>> name:pjt = Uluṟu
>> old_name = Ayers Rock
>> old_name:en = Ayers Rock
>>
>> if we need to specify name:en, if not, simply
>>
>> name = Uluru / Ayers Rock
>> name:pjt = Uluṟu
>> old_name = Ayers Rock
>>
>
> I'd prefer Joachim's proposal, I relegating Ayers Rock to as part of the
> official_name and either the old_name or alt_name. I believe most of the
> signage within the park uses the exclusive term "Uluru".
>
> ___
> 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] tagging old railway stations - what is the agreed approach

[Adam Horan]

For ones that do not exist at all I have modified some near me to
railway:historic station_site
which was recommended to me some time back. Example
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4395763814/history

If there's a building there, and it's no longer acting as an actual station
then I'd also suggest the disused:railway=halt/station as above.

If it's a tourist train line and not actual public transport, then add
tourism = yes. In the OPs case it appears to be on an actual rail line.

Another example is here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1766897047/history
This one has recently been modified to have public_transport = yes, which I
don't support as the trains only run once a month..., it's purely a
preserved/tourist railway.

Adam


On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 at 19:33, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19/10/19 17:53, Ewen Hill wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >I am trying to get some clarity about tagging old railway stations
> > like
> >
> https://i1.wp.com/judithsalecich.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/The-former-Bogantungan-Railway-Station.jpg?ssl=1
>  that
>
> > has not seen a train stop for a numbe of decades
> >
> >
> > There appears to be a myriads of ways to tag this according to the
> > Wiki. What is the best standardised approach (which I will add to the
> ATG)
>
>
> The building is still a building...map as a way with
> building=train_station as it is recognisable as a train station?
>
> It does appear to be now a museum... I'd map that as a separate node
> with the relevant details.
>
>
> It was a train station or halt.. Could be be one again? This should be
> an area that includes the building and local track.
>
> disused:railway=halt/station or disused:public_transport=station
>
> or abandoned:*=*
>
> If no longer in existence then consider mapping it in OHM.
>
> Nothing Oz specific about it?
>
>
> ___
> 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] Discussion J: regionalisation of editor presets

[Adam Horan]

I believe the request is:
Request: *For all regions of the world that have their own road rules,
mapping standards/conventions, to enhance the common editors to support
region specific tagging. Additionally have the editor identify which region
you are editing in and switch to the correct presets.*

I'd guess there's 1000s of such regions, especially if you go as small as
the ACT. Why would you restrict yourself to bike paths? I could imagine
many tagging presets have similar arguments in many regions.

It would be onerous to maintain such detailed presets for so many regions,
even if they could be identified.

I think the best plan is to continue with what should be happening now,
which is the human must decide how to apply the appropriate tagging based
on their knowledge of what's on the ground, and the tagging conventions of
the region being mapped.

Adam




On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 10:13, Ben Kelley  wrote:

> Hi.
>
> A question of clarification:
>
> Are you asking how to change the defaults when you yourself are editing?
>
> Or are you wanting to raise a problem you see with the current defaults?
> (This would seem to be a problem you perceive rather than a question.)
>
>
> - Ben.
>
>
> On Mon., 7 Oct. 2019, 10:05 Herbert.Remi via Talk-au, <
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> Discussion J: regionalisation of editor presets
>> I am now putting the question at the top and bottom of the text.
>>
>> ## QUESTION
>> How can the presets for the editor (ID and JOSM) be changed to the ATG
>> default for the ACT when editing paths in this territory?
>>
>> # The Issue (background)
>> What is the cause of the overwhelming inconsistencies between the path
>> tags in OSM and the ATG? This was the question from Discussion I
>> (6/10/2019). There may be multiple causes. The error seems to be systematic.
>>
>> ## Human factors and preset design
>> One possible systematic cause is that mappers are trusting the preset to
>> get it right.
>>
>> If it looks like a pedestrian path, then the click on the “walking man”
>> button in the ID editor. The presumption here is the preset is correct for
>> the ACT. This turns out to be a mistake.
>>
>> If the path looks like it is for bikes then the mapper clicks the blue
>> bike. Again, the mapper is trusting the preset to be correct for the ACT
>> but it is not.
>>
>> The preset with the closed approximation to the ATG tags are the “bike
>> and pedestrian” button (noted in Discussion D), which is the least favoured
>> of the three in the ACT (try it for yourself in overpass turbo).
>>
>> ## ID editor preset values
>> The ID editor has the following tag values for presets. None are correct
>> according to the ATG for the ACT. Pushing any of these buttons will fill
>> the OSM database with the wrong data for the ACT.
>>
>> Foot Path preset (symbol "walking man“)
>> tags:
>> - highway=footway
>>
>> Cycle Path preset (symbol blue bike)
>> tags:
>> - highway=cycleway
>>
>> Cycle & Foot Path preset (symbol blue bike)
>> tags:
>> - cycleway=highway
>> - foot=designated
>> - bicycle=designated
>>
>> ## accumulating tags assumption
>> One mapper has suggested in this forum that the tags accumulated when you
>> click multiple buttons, one after another. This assumption may be widely
>> held but is also incorrect.
>>
>> The actual behaviour of the ID editor is quite different. Push the
>> buttons in any sequence and the tags of the new preset overwrite the tags
>> that the previous button had put on the "way". Tags are overwritten and not
>> accumulated. (Lifecycle tags accumulate a history.)
>>
>> ## The default is king - proven again and again
>> Studies have shown that people will stick with the default option 85% of
>> the time. In the studies, an alternative option is offered but nobody ever
>> clicks on it. This is human nature (psychology). People prefer to go with
>> the default.
>>
>> For the ID editor, this is problematic. The three preset buttons
>> discussed have default tags and the editor does not offer to the mapper to
>> change them. I doubt most people would think to do so.
>>
>> The presets in the editor have become the defacto STANDARD, replacing
>> anything that might be found in the ATG. The ATG is ignored in preference
>> for a default chosen by the editor developer. The outcome is a systematic
>> skew of the data in OSM to preset values (verify it yourself in overpass
>> turbo).
>>
>> ## changing the preset to be ATG conform for each state/territory
>> One option is to change these three presets to conform with the ATG and
>> ACT standard values for “type A” and “type B” paths (see Discussion D).
>> Both these types are a Cycle & Foot Path but may have a different
>> appearance. Cycle Path and Foot Path would take on the ATG default for
>> cycle ONLY path and pedestrian ONLY path respectively. The mapper may need
>> to be reminded that the Cycle & Foot Path is the default for the ACT.
>>
>> Another option would be to set the Cycle Path and Foot Path with the ATG

Re: [talk-au] Discussion F: landuse=residential

[Adam Horan]

*# Discussion F: landuse=residential*
*...*


*QUESTION*

*How is the best way to approach this? *
*I welcome your comments.*

Herbert.Remi

This is the fifth in your 'discussion' series, and prior to that you
presented two 'Topics' and 3 or more other long emails. *However you have
yet to respond to a single one*.

You are talking to a network of volunteers and enthusiasts who all wish to
see OSM succeed and grow, and who wish to help new contributors.

I presume you are a new contributor so if you have questions, then please
ask them, but keep it concise and make it clear what the actual question
is. If people take the time and effort to do some research for you or
respond with their views and experience then please respect their
contributions by responding or engaging in a discussion, or even just
thanking them.

What this list doesn't need is a daily thought-bomb tossed in with no care
to the outcome.

Adam


On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 13:31, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> # Discussion F: landuse=residential
>
> ## The Issue
>
> I am very interest in improving quality and consistency. In this case, the
> question is inconsistent or incomplete? I have discovered that many
> residential areas have still not been mapped.
>
> ### Specifics: landuse=residential
>
> There is a land usage type with the tag RESIDENTIAL. It shows as dark grey
> (Mapnik) or brown (HikeBikeMap) on the maps. For both Mapnik and
> HikeBikeMap, the blank areas are shown in light grey. There is a preset for
> it in the editors. It is shown as a distinct yellow in the ID editor.
>
> ### The problem is incomplete
>
> I have audited the land use in the ACT. Only about half of the residential
> areas in the ACT have currently been mapped, and the other half have not.
> Is this inconsistent or incomplete? Is the glass half-full or half-empty?
> Has this become the standard or is it the exception?
>
> I think we should define it as the standard and try to get the other
> suburbs up to scratch. It is easy to do. Some suburban areas where the have
> been already mapped. The areas are visible on the satellite photos.
>
> ### The problem of inconsistent
>
> It is possible to see on the map that "people live there"
> (landuse=residential) without drawing all the houses (building=house) on
> the map. There are some suburbs in Canberra where every house has been
> traced onto the map: see Wanniassa and Oxley in Canberra’s south:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=-35.4066=149.0796#map=15/-35.4066/149.0796
>
> This exceeds the scope of what can be done with the approximate 24 mappers
> that work in the ACT. Some developers do this already but the ACT Suburban
> Land Agency (https://suburbanland.act.gov.au/en/) is not one of them.
> They only sell the blocks, not build the houses. It makes sense to map
> buildings for every government building and office building. I don’t care
> if my house is on the map.
>
> ### Limiting the scope
>
> The ACT government has prescribed that the ACT Suburban Land Agency will
> build for the coming four financial years 6588, 12261, 1, 15000
> mixed-use dwellings. Where do you stop zooming in? On ACTmapi Images 2019
> you can see the mirror on a motor vehicle. Whether every garden shed should
> be map is otherwise very questionable. Street numbering can be done
> otherwise. (Street numbering in Canberra is woeful.)
>
> ### Definition of the scope
>
> I would say landuse=residential is generally all that is required as a
> minimum requirement.
>
> ### How should landuse=residential be mapped?
>
> I have not had the time to review OSM Wiki on this, unfortunately. What I
> have seen in the editor is that some mappers have mapped the whole suburb
> with one polygon, while others have mapped every city block. The latter
> sort of makes sense as land is released for auction, city blocks at a time.
> The suburbs are built in stages (four for Whitlam). Each stage is sold
> separately. Sill other mappers have used a hybrid approach, somewhere in
> between these two options.
>
> QUESTION
>
> How is the best way to approach this?
>
> I welcome your comments.
>
> ___
> 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] Discussion B: three shades of green

[Adam Horan]

Hi,

Do you have a specific question? Send us a link to a way or changeset
rather than handwaving towards 20sq km of map, I have no idea where on that
map i'm meant to look.
As a guide to asking better questions: make it short, make it specific,
show that you've done some homework first, make it easy for people to help
you.

'Green' isn't a tag? Green is a rendered representation of the map data,
and is based on the choices made by the renderer for the purposes they need.

You should be looking at the access tag
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access this tag is generally
applied to nodes (eg gates) or ways (eg roads) and is less frequently
applied to areas.
The access statement is from the point of view of the public. The farmers
and construction workers are both just different types of private access,
and it's not particularly helpful to attempt to map that.
Most urban & urban fringe land in Australia is likely private, but you
won't find it mapped like this. In general you'll find mappers only add
access tags to clarify public or permissive access to public-looking land
(eg parks, reserves, gardens, sporting facilities, etc), or to land that
might look public but is in fact private. (eg school sports fields maybe?)

There are various tags for construction
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Construction  check them out first.

In *general *we only map what is on the ground, and drawing in 'planned'
stuff is not always helpful. Particularly if the planned roads modify
existing/current roads. Additionally, for 'planned' things you can't always
get the geometry data from a source that we can use. Adn you'll find that
lots of things get 'planned' and never materialise, so there's little point
building up that potential debt in our map.

Regards,

Adam



On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 12:54, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Discussion B: three shades of green
> There are three areas along the Molonglo River in the ACT, each about 1-4
> square km in size. All cover mostly in grass with the occasional dam,
> fences and creeks. But they are quite different in land use. One is a farm,
> one area is currently being built into a new suburb of Canberra, and the
> third is a nature reserve.
> This is important but the access is different. The fist for the farmer,
> the second for the builders and the third for recreation. If you ride, run
> or walk about Canberra it is the last one that you are looking for and need
> to find on the map.
> How to tag these three areas?
> Currently, they are all green. Of particular interest, I think, are land
> use and permissions. Permission information is important for gates and
> paths and tracks within the area for the maps to be valuable for routing.
> Link to the map:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=-35.2748=149.0474#map=15/-35.2748/149.0474
> The details:
> Coppins Crossing Rd, ACT is being duplicated. On the west side, the new
> suburb of Whitlam is under construction. To the east is an area that will
> be developed into a suburb in a few years but currently is used for grazing
> stock (sheep and cattle). Both were used for agriculture until recently. On
> the other side of Whitlam is the Kama Nature Reserve.
> I am interested in tagging land usage and permissions.
> Further details for Whitlam
> Developer: ACT Land Development Agency
> Stages: 4
> Dwellings:  600 in FY 2019, 600 in FY 2020, 500 in FY 2021, 400 in FY 2022
> Keywords: construction, grassland, meadow, nature reserve, land use,
> permission, lifecycle, rural, multipolygon, ACT, Australia
> ___
> 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] play ground locations and much more from open data source but how?

[Adam Horan]

It looks like CCBY 4 licence, which I thought needed additional permissions
to use?

Adam

On Sun., 18 Aug. 2019, 7:44 pm Mateusz Konieczny, 
wrote:

>
>
>
> 18 Aug 2019, 03:07 by talk-au@openstreetmap.org:
>
> how to do this?
>
> I want to upload the play ground locations to OSM.
>
> There is plenty more data where this came from.
>
> Are you familiar with OSM editing? Before importing anything I would
> strongly
> encourage to map something manually (the usual way) to get a bit familiar
> with data model
> and what is already mapped.
>
> See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
>
> ___
> 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] Suspicious or disallowed sources

[Adam Horan]

I have dropped a changeset comment already, and will wait a bit longer. I
don't see that the user is making other changes currently.

There's too much detail in the shape for it to be sourced from a vague
ground survey, and for the sports tracks in this changeset there is nothing
in the available iD imagery.

To be honest it was the direct reference to 'nearmap' as a source in
something drawn ~1 month ago that got me started on this.

Adam

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 13:51, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> I agree it's best to ask via a changeset comment first. It could be they
> observed where it was on the ground, then lined that up with what they
> could reference in the Bing imagery.
>
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 13:39, Phil Wyatt  wrote:
>
>> Hi Adam,
>>
>>
>>
>> First thing I would do is drop a comment on the changesets asking where
>> he got the outlines from – there may be some other ‘open’ source that he
>> has used.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers - Phil
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Adam Horan [mailto:aho...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Monday, 17 June 2019 1:26 PM
>> *To:* OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List
>> *Subject:* [talk-au] Suspicious or disallowed sources
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> I've been around a while, but don't join in the chat much :)
>>
>>
>>
>> A new user has added contributed some data via iD editor, and the source
>> is listed as Bing Imagery. However the imagery doesn't show the features
>> that have been added as they're too new. (I've checked through all other
>> imagery sources in iD)
>>
>> One of their contributions from within the last month lists nearmap as
>> the source. It is quite possible this is true, as again none of the listed
>> imagery sources in iD or JOSM include the features added.
>>
>> I've attempted to contact the user (it's only been 24 hrs since i tried),
>> and had nothing yet.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is this a revert or wait scenario?
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/69893632  <- the car park and
>> the soccer pitches are not in Bing or elsewhere. Google does have it.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/69917230 <- running track not in
>> bing or elsewhere.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>> Adam
>> ___
>> 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

[talk-au] Suspicious or disallowed sources

[Adam Horan]

Hi,

I've been around a while, but don't join in the chat much :)

A new user has added contributed some data via iD editor, and the source is
listed as Bing Imagery. However the imagery doesn't show the features that
have been added as they're too new. (I've checked through all other imagery
sources in iD)
One of their contributions from within the last month lists nearmap as the
source. It is quite possible this is true, as again none of the listed
imagery sources in iD or JOSM include the features added.
I've attempted to contact the user (it's only been 24 hrs since i tried),
and had nothing yet.

Is this a revert or wait scenario?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/69893632  <- the car park and the
soccer pitches are not in Bing or elsewhere. Google does have it.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/69917230 <- running track not in
bing or elsewhere.

Cheers,

Adam
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Parks Vic data

[Adam Horan]

I've had a look at CAPAD, and the statement from the department merely
seems to be a restatement that it's CC-BY:

*"OpenStreetMap can use CAPAD 2014 under the CC-BY licence conditions
without any extra permissions from the department or from the contributing
agencies."*

To my reading this is just a way of saying that you can use it in any way
compatible with CC-BY. However I didn't think CC-BY on it's own was
sufficient for OSM & ODBL?

Other Australian datasets on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue#Community_Imports
(Capad not listed?)  seem to have additional explicit permission statements
in addition to the CC-BY?

I've have already used CAPAD to manually add a couple of parks and tweak
some geometry, but I want to check I'm not going to cause problems by
continuing.

Thanks,

Adam


On 8 February 2017 at 11:17, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

> On 8 February 2017 at 11:08, Ross Scanlon  wrote:
> > capad
>
> The links for this are:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/
> Collaborative_Australian_Protected_Areas_Database_(CAPAD)
> http://www.environment.gov.au/land/nrs/science/capad
>
> ___
> 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] Tagging for Pipeline Reserves

[Adam Horan]

Yes, correct some pipelines cross private land and some across land with
public access. In general near me the pipe is not visible, and it's not
even always clear if it's gas, water or sewage etc.
I'm most interested in showing public access of 'open' land in or near the
residential areas. So yes most people would look at it and consider it to
be a park, or some other form of common land.
I'm also not sure if the land ownership rests with councils or the
utilities, and so who is permitting public access and under what terms or
by-laws.

I'll stick with leisure=park for now.


On 8 February 2017 at 12:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Some pipe lines cross farms, residential areas ... so ?
>
> I will ask on the tagging list as it is not Australian specific.
>
> I note the pipeline is not visible ... I assume underground and the
> location is not evident so you cannot map the pipe line itself.
>
> As far as most people are concerned it is a park, so that is appropriate.
>
> I don't think park=pipeline_reserve would be best .. as you would then
> need something similar where the pipeline crosses a farm etc.
>
> On 08-Feb-17 11:31 AM, Ross Scanlon wrote:
>
> park=pipeline_reserve
>
>
>
> On 08/02/17 10:29, Adam Horan wrote:
>
> My local area (and I'm sure many others) have lots of pipeline reserves.
>
> I'm really not sure how to tag these. They appear to have public access
> for walking at least. (One local one has a sign disallowing golf...) Some
> others appear to be across private land, and i'm less interested in those,
> I'd really like to show those ones with public access.
>
> examples: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370388062#map=17/-38.15997/
> 145.20073
>
> I've tagged them as leisure=park previously, and paths evident on the
> ground have just been tagged highway=path.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing 
> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging for Pipeline Reserves

[Adam Horan]

There's only a few hundred examples of park=* in taginfo, and none are for
pipeline_reserve. I don't really want to head out on my own if there's
already a convention.
I'm not even sure if leisure=park is an accurate description :)

On 8 February 2017 at 11:31, Ross Scanlon <i...@4x4falcon.com> wrote:

> park=pipeline_reserve
>
>
>
> On 08/02/17 10:29, Adam Horan wrote:
>
> My local area (and I'm sure many others) have lots of pipeline reserves.
>
> I'm really not sure how to tag these. They appear to have public access
> for walking at least. (One local one has a sign disallowing golf...) Some
> others appear to be across private land, and i'm less interested in those,
> I'd really like to show those ones with public access.
>
> examples: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370388062#map=17/-38.15997/
> 145.20073
>
> I've tagged them as leisure=park previously, and paths evident on the
> ground have just been tagged highway=path.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
> ___
> 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] Tagging for Pipeline Reserves

[Adam Horan]

My local area (and I'm sure many others) have lots of pipeline reserves.

I'm really not sure how to tag these. They appear to have public access for
walking at least. (One local one has a sign disallowing golf...) Some
others appear to be across private land, and i'm less interested in those,
I'd really like to show those ones with public access.

examples:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370388062#map=17/-38.15997/145.20073

I've tagged them as leisure=park previously, and paths evident on the
ground have just been tagged highway=path.

Any ideas?

Thanks,

Adam
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Parks Vic data

[Adam Horan]

I have often wondered where the existing National Park data comes from. In
general it seems to exist in OSM in quite high fidelity however the
boundaries are usually not evident on the ground or imagery. Yet whenever
I've looked back through histories I can't find any reasonable source or
attribution tags.

However there is data at
https://www.data.vic.gov.au/data/dataset/parks-and-conservation-reserves-parkres
which is described as:
*Parks and Conservation Reserves (PARKRES)*

*PARKRES is a spatial representation of the Parks and Reserves Information
Management System (PRIMS). This database lists Parks and Conservation
Reserves under the policy control of the DELWP Parks and Protected Areas
Branch. These include areas scheduled under the National Parks Act 1975,
Nature Conservation Reserves, Natural Features Reserves, Regional Parks,
Phillip Island Nature Park, Historic & Cultural Features Reserves, and
Metropolitan Open Space Parks. Many of these areas are managed by Parks
Victoria under a management agreement between the Minister for Environment
and the Parks Victoria Board. PRIMS and PARKRES define the areas covered by
this agreement. The aim of this layer is to eventually map all areas
represented in PRIMS at 1:25,000 or better scale. This dataset updated from
time to time, so is a snapshot of the parks and reserves system.*

Included in the accuracy statement is: *Validation of the land manager
attribute is continuing. This dataset does not provide definitive
boundaries for areas scheduled under the National Parks Act 1975*

Attribution to DELWP under CC BY 4.0

However I've no idea if this license is fully compatible, or if we have
specific permission.

For existing parks and lack of source, look at Mornington Peninsula NP
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3361243/history#map=17/-38.44856/144.95120
in that location the shape is completely non-obvious on the ground, and
there's no attribution I can see. See also
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/176328417#map=16/-38.4744/144.8905

regards,

Adam


On 8 February 2017 at 10:49, nwastra  wrote:

> Hi
> I have found many problems with the Heathcote-Graytown National Park in
> Victoria.
> Is there a place from which I can download the boundary as we have done
> with the NSW LPI NPWSReserve - public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries, so I
> sort out where the gazetted boundary is and then fix the boundary in the
> osm?
>
>
> ___
> 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] DataSet: Victoria: Parks and Conservation Reserves

[Adam Horan]

Hi,

Those are the terms in the generic DSE_Data_Access_Licence.pdf document
that is included in the download.

But the initial download page linked mentions no licenses other than the CC
BY 3.0 AU.

It's a bit of a puzzle. I shall assume for now that the more restrictive
license wins, and try and find someone to clarify it on the data.vic site.

Does anyone have a view on if this data was truly CC BY 3.0 AU then it
would be ok?

thanks,

Adam

On 22 October 2015 at 14:30, David Bannon <dban...@internode.on.net> wrote:

>
> Does not look good Adam !
>
> "shall not copy or reproduce the Licensed Material without the
> Licensor’s prior written consent"
>
> "shall keep the Licensed Material confidential and shall not Commercialise
> or otherwise disclose"
>
> "shall not . or otherwise disclose the Licensed Material so Enhanced"
>
> Wish I had not downloaded a lump of it, they can now come and inspect any
> of my property or computers to make sure I haven’t got too many copies or
> what ever. Must say, not a very open release of data IMHO.
>
> David
>
>
>
> On 21/10/15 11:20, Adam Horan wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> https://www.data.vic.gov.au/data/dataset/parks-and-conservation-reserves
>
> I'm trying to understand if this datasource is covered by the existing
> permissions that are referenced on
> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Australia>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Australia
>
> I see on that page that data has been incorporated from data.vic.gov.au
> but i don't see any supporting discussion similar to what exists for the
> data.gov.au references.
>
> I'm not currently looking to do an automated import or anything, but to
> use the dataset for validation and tagging of existing reserve and park
> boundaries etc. The dataset also includes protected status indicators and
> IUCN codes.
> Most of the current reserves and national parks that i've looked at in
> VIC, have no source or other indications about where the boundary
> information has come from, and they include boundaries that are not visible
> on the ground or via bing imagery etc.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/adamh
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [talk-au] DataSet: Victoria: Parks and Conservation Reserves

[Adam Horan]

Yes, CC on it's own might not be enough. However there are already
Australian CC BY datasets in OSM via a claimed blanket approval for all CC
BY spatial datasets from data.gov.au see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Australia (see also the
discussion page)

There are also some CC-BY datasets from the data.vic.gov.au site listed on
the OSM contributors page, but I don't see anything referenced to support
their inclusion.

I was hoping someone already knew more about this.

On 22 October 2015 at 18:35, Nathanael Coyne <n...@purecaffeine.com> wrote:

> No I don't think CC license would be sufficed, it seems it has to be
> Public Domain or explicitly granted such as this license from Mapbox:
>
> https://www.mapbox.com/tos/#[YmtIyw]
>
>
>
> Nathanael Coyne (Boehm)
>
> www.purecaffeine.com
>
> Canberra, Australia
> 0431 698 580
>
> On 22 October 2015 at 18:07, Adam Horan <aho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Those are the terms in the generic DSE_Data_Access_Licence.pdf document
>> that is included in the download.
>>
>> But the initial download page linked mentions no licenses other than the
>> CC BY 3.0 AU.
>>
>> It's a bit of a puzzle. I shall assume for now that the more restrictive
>> license wins, and try and find someone to clarify it on the data.vic site.
>>
>> Does anyone have a view on if this data was truly CC BY 3.0 AU then it
>> would be ok?
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> On 22 October 2015 at 14:30, David Bannon <dban...@internode.on.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Does not look good Adam !
>>>
>>> "shall not copy or reproduce the Licensed Material without the
>>> Licensor’s prior written consent"
>>>
>>> "shall keep the Licensed Material confidential and shall not
>>> Commercialise or otherwise disclose"
>>>
>>> "shall not . or otherwise disclose the Licensed Material so Enhanced"
>>>
>>> Wish I had not downloaded a lump of it, they can now come and inspect
>>> any of my property or computers to make sure I haven’t got too many copies
>>> or what ever. Must say, not a very open release of data IMHO.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21/10/15 11:20, Adam Horan wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> https://www.data.vic.gov.au/data/dataset/parks-and-conservation-reserves
>>>
>>> I'm trying to understand if this datasource is covered by the existing
>>> permissions that are referenced on
>>> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Australia>
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Australia
>>>
>>> I see on that page that data has been incorporated from data.vic.gov.au
>>> but i don't see any supporting discussion similar to what exists for the
>>> data.gov.au references.
>>>
>>> I'm not currently looking to do an automated import or anything, but to
>>> use the dataset for validation and tagging of existing reserve and park
>>> boundaries etc. The dataset also includes protected status indicators and
>>> IUCN codes.
>>> Most of the current reserves and national parks that i've looked at in
>>> VIC, have no source or other indications about where the boundary
>>> information has come from, and they include boundaries that are not visible
>>> on the ground or via bing imagery etc.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/adamh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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 mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] DataSet: Victoria: Parks and Conservation Reserves

[Adam Horan]

Hi All,

https://www.data.vic.gov.au/data/dataset/parks-and-conservation-reserves

I'm trying to understand if this datasource is covered by the existing
permissions that are referenced on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Australia

I see on that page that data has been incorporated from data.vic.gov.au but
i don't see any supporting discussion similar to what exists for the
data.gov.au references.

I'm not currently looking to do an automated import or anything, but to use
the dataset for validation and tagging of existing reserve and park
boundaries etc. The dataset also includes protected status indicators and
IUCN codes.
Most of the current reserves and national parks that i've looked at in VIC,
have no source or other indications about where the boundary information
has come from, and they include boundaries that are not visible on the
ground or via bing imagery etc.

Thanks,

Adam


https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/adamh
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au