Re: [talk-au] farm airstrips

On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 7:47 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Especially with the "runway" apparently going through a tree & 2 fences! > ... and a farm dam. I've had a look at the other runways they've mapped and they almost all look OK. There is another that goes through some fences and one or

Re: [talk-au] New tags for Vic State Forests

I would leave off boundary=protected_area until they have IUCN Categories assigned. It doesn't add any more information than leisure=nature_reserve. On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 11:52 AM Little Maps wrote: > > Hi all, landuse=forest is widely used to denote State Forests in OSM, due to > legislated

Re: [talk-au] Overpass question

On 17/10/23 04:58, Bob Cameron wrote:> Ways only? Because the output data/list format is different. Nodes are arranged by objects per co-ordinate, whereas ways are by an ID that includes a nodes list, with a separate co-ordinate lookup table for those nodes. My entire workflow is co-ordinate

Re: [talk-au] emergency highway airstrips

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aeroway%3Dhighway_strip On Mon, 16 Oct 2023, 20:18 Warin, <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi > > How do we tag emergency highway airstrips, as used by the RFDS? I > thought this was documented on the Australian tagging guidelines but I > cannot see it.. >

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Classifying settlements (Was Re: Filling in blank space (Was Re: Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size))

On 6/10/23 18:14, Little Maps wrote: Thanks Graeme, it’ll be great to hear what others think too. Cheers Ian The first thing to keep in mind is how concentrated the AU population is. Sydney and Melbourne both have 20% of the population living in them. If we add on Brisbane we reach the 50%

Re: [talk-au] Classifying settlements (Was Re: Filling in blank space (Was Re: Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size))

On 5/10/23 18:01, cleary wrote: the small central district? Or is it the much larger Tamworth LGA? I think it would include the suburbs but not the outlying towns/villages in the LGA. There are also city/suburbs such as "City of Ryde" which is the name of a local government area in the Sydney

Re: [talk-au] Classifying settlements (Was Re: Filling in blank space (Was Re: Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size))

On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:50 PM David Bannon wrote: > I'd wonder if we are building an impossible to manage rule set. For example, > many small town doctor's clinic only have a doctor there one or two days a > week. So, a full time doctor is worth 40 points, so, a one day a week one is > 8

Re: [talk-au] Classifying settlements (Was Re: Filling in blank space (Was Re: Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size))

On 3/10/23 20:40, Warin wrote: The 'government/community services' might be ordered by there total numbers? PO (including local PO agents) Police Doctors (theses seam scarcer than Police?_ Hospitals OK, so there was a maths error in my example. I was suggesting that the population

[talk-au] Classifying settlements (Was Re: Filling in blank space (Was Re: Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size))

On 2/10/23 21:53, Little Maps wrote: As I understand your message, we have and/or can get population data for a small proportion of places in Aus (probably with comprehensive data for most larger places and less data for the many smaller ones). There are two classes of problems: 1. Urban

[talk-au] Victorian cities (Was Re: Filling in blank space (Was Re: Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size))

On 2/10/23 21:53, Little Maps wrote: differences in what people consider to be towns vs cities. For example, lots of regional centres in Vic have been tagged as cities (and are indeed called ‘cities’ in Victoria), whereas many places of similar size in other states have been tagged as towns.

Re: [talk-au] Filling in blank space (Was Re: Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size)

On 2/10/23 12:52, Little Maps wrote: Hi again, fyi. I was curious to see how variable city/town tags were in relation to population. About 1500 places spread around Aus have a population tag according to an Overpass Turbo search. You were a little too quick for me, I didn't have time to put

Re: [talk-au] Filling in blank space (Was Re: Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size)

On 1/10/23 10:31, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: Oh look - Windorah is there, so it must be important after all! :-) Almost as important as Croydon. No, not that Croydon, Croydon Queensland. Just up the road from the metropolis of Forsayth. ___

[talk-au] Filling in blank space (Was Re: Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size)

On 29/9/23 20:22, Warin wrote: I did meet some English 4WD world travellers that had a world map. In the north west corner of Australia was Carnegie on that map .. it is a cattle station, has fuel and might do some food if you ask. It is a fair way to the next places with fuel. It was on

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

On 28/9/23 20:31, Michael Collinson wrote: Perhaps this apocryphal Ireland solution should be used? :-) A house - building A house and a church - hamlet A house, a church and a pub - village A house, a church and two pubs - town I think your criteria may to strict :-) I've been looking at

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

On 29/9/23 08:34, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: I was looking at https://profile.id.com.au/scenic-rim/population?WebID=160 , but I can't figure out what ABS geographic unit that lines up with. Maybe it's their own?

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

On 28/9/23 17:04, Michael Collinson wrote: So, I think some sort agreed national level hierarchy of populated place is important in order to jive with cultural, legal, cultural and broad population density criteria. But to vary it locally or regionally is dangerous and I agree with cleary (if

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

On 28/9/23 09:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: Against what you said, Rathdowney in SEQ, with ~1800 people, Err downtown Rathdowney has a population of 161.I might be OK with village, but it's a bit of a stretch to call it a town. But Maroon, 20k the other way, with only a primary school & a

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

On 28/9/23 08:21, cleary wrote: Windorah Qld and Ivanhoe NSW are both currently shown as "town" in OSM but neither has more than rudimentary health service (if any), a hotel, small primary school and service station. I couldn't buy a coffee in either place last time I visited. That is the

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

On 27/9/23 16:29, Ian Sergeant wrote: Aren't most places classified by the government authority as cities/villages/towns/localities/suburbs? Not in a way that is useful for using in OSM.They tend to be classified under the state's local government act, which is an administrative arrangement

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

On 22/9/23 16:37, Phil Wyatt wrote: Hi Folks, Personally, I believe if the managing agency requests that the tracks be removed from the map then as good corporate citizens we should do everything possible to lower the promotion of such tracks. Track managers also have a responsibility to

Re: [talk-au] Putting streams into OSM

On 27/5/23 08:39, nwastra nwastra wrote: I should add that I have only used the Surface Hydrology Lines from GeoScience Aust dataset for Qld catchments and as the data is drawn for many different sources across the country the perenniality may be not always be included. I admit I've been too

Re: [talk-au] Waterway data check overpass query

I had a read of the wiki page on waterway relations and it seems that you can put in unnamed tributaries (if they have a name they go in a different relation). This version will filter out those https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1uJc On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 8:31 PM Little Maps wrote: >

Re: [talk-au] Waterway data check overpass query

On 9/5/23 19:51, Andrew Davidson wrote: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1uIC Which should be this code: [timeout:900][out:csv(way_id,riv_name,rel_id,rel_name;true;",")]; area["ISO3166-2"="AU-VIC"]->.a; Apologies, I should have used make rather than convert. The

Re: [talk-au] Waterway data check overpass query

On 8/5/23 19:59, Little Maps wrote: Hi all, does anyone know if it’s possible to use Overpass Turbo or another tool to find waterway ways for which the way has a different name to the relation that the way is a part of? As an example, imagine that the relation for Ovens River includes a way

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 5:21 PM Andrew Hughes wrote: > For the structure number, I like the look of... > > ref:AU:VIC:DOT:SN=SN12345 > Does it really need to be that complicated? How many different systems of culvert references are there in Victoria. I'd be happy with just ref=* on the culvert.

Re: [talk-au] Adoption of OSM geometry as state mapping base

On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:41 AM rob potter wrote: > > Hi, > > I am representing the state transport department Department of Transport and > Planning (Victoria, Australia) - OpenStreetMap Wiki and we are looking to > consume the OSM road & rail networks for our operations. Sounds interesting.

Re: [talk-au] [OSM-talk] Adoption of OSM geometry as state mapping base

On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 8:57 AM Andrew Harvey wrote: > The terms cover data distribution, ie downloading from > planet.openstreetmap.org so you need to go through those terms to obtain OSM > data regardless of the ODbL. Which can be found here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright

Re: [talk-au] Melbourne - Suburban Rail Loop - Too early to mark as under construction?

On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 8:37 PM Dian Ågesson wrote: > Just seeking views from others here: is this a bit premature? Should only a > section of the loop be marked as under construction, or any parts of it at > all? Normally I would have said that construction would only apply to the bits that

Re: [talk-au] Adding intermittent to water south of Alice Springs.

On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 6:04 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > HI, > > I have just add the tag intermittent=yes to several water bodies south > of the approach road to Ayres Rock (A4 Lasseter Hwy). > Almost every hydrological feature in Australia is intermittent=yes. GA has a satellite

Re: [talk-au] Oz tagging of speed cameras

On 15/8/22 08:40, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: I did wonder about that, looking at the two boxes on poles that are visible? Here at least, that arrangement means they are red light cameras only, combined red light & speed have a much larger camera box, & plain speed cameras are a single small

Re: [talk-au] Oz tagging of speed cameras

On 14/8/22 07:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: Thanks! But by that wiki, they should be mapped beside the camera location, not at the traffic lights? A quick look round shows that the ones in SA have been mapped at the stop line. In VIC and NSW they seem to have been mostly mapped where the

Re: [talk-au] Oz tagging of speed cameras

On 13/8/22 14:48, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: The message was to tell me that "every single speed camera in South Australia is already on the map" & can be viewed on OT, that "they are placed on the roads that they target exactly like traffic lights are placed. This is a standard that is agreed

Re: [talk-au] Adopting "AU" Prefix on Network tags

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 2:18 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > & how would we work "Highway 1", with its myriad of alternative designations > & names? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_1_(Australia) > How much of "Highway 1" is actually left? As far as I know only the bit in Western

Re: [talk-au] Adopting "AU" Prefix on Network tags

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 1:37 PM Ben Kelley wrote: > > I think we'll need a state component in the network (for state roads). > > I'm guessing more than one state has an A40. > > ref=A40, network=AU won't be enough for that. > That seems to be fairly standard in other countries. So

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Gazetted Road Routes (National, State, Regional...)

On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 11:48 AM Andrew Hughes wrote: > Some worldwide/geographic tagging guidelines exist, that are based on a > combination with the "network" tag: see > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Road_routes > Have you read

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "secret" facilities?

On 27/7/22 17:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote: If something is not really verifiable at location (anonymous note may be lying!) It's more amusing than that. They left the blinds open and put up the Bat Signal:

Re: [talk-au] Re-naming multi-site conservation reserves

On 17/5/22 18:19, Little Maps wrote: Andrew, of all the options that have been suggested, is cleary’s approach the one you’d most recommend? And thanks again for importing the reserve boundaries. If you never did anything else on osm you’d still be my hero for this alone - plus maybe the admin

Re: [talk-au] Bicycle access tags in Victoria and other edits edits

On 16/5/22 23:38, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote: Can I please clarify "using highway=cycleway should only be used where there are signs allowing"? That is how I've always used it in urban areas. This would only apply in NSW/VIC. In other jurisdictions putting up signs has become

Re: [talk-au] Re-naming multi-site conservation reserves

On 17/5/22 15:36, cleary wrote: I presume that a single closed way for an area would work - I think I might have done it somewhere but I don't recall where. The Hiawatha precinct was memorable because of its unusual name. It will work. Some validators will complain about a 1 member

Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org

On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 9:31 AM Sam Wilson wrote: > And it sounds like there is a plan to at some point enable new posts via > email, and when that time comes we will need a category (so it can have > its own email address). Maybe we should go ahead and request an > Australia category now? Sounds

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12

On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 8:49 AM Anthony Panozzo wrote: > traffic lights:” which is 100% incorrect, you can only do a u-turn if there > is a sign permitting you to do so. That rule only applies at intersections with traffic lights:

Re: [talk-au] U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6)

On 3/5/22 08:18, Anthony Panozzo wrote: Well this is the situation, TheSwavu is directly emailing me telling me it is perfectly legal to do u-turns at intersections Gmail will send an email to both the mail list and the original sender by default on reply. You will have noticed the list email

[talk-au] U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6)

On Tue, 3 May 2022, 03:02 Anthony Panozzo, wrote: > I would like to report theswavu for this edit Relation History: 13736691 > | OpenStreetMap > he deleted a restriction I put there to prevent u-turning from the service > road. > I'm

Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org

On Mon, 2 May 2022, 13:04 Sam Wilson, wrote: > It's growing in use, I think (not with Australia-specific discussion). > > It feels like a pretty good site, I check the headlines most days, and I > think one > How do we get a category we can interact with through email? I haven't used Discource

Re: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44)

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, 11:53 Andrew Davidson, wrote: > > https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/14044389 > > > Cut and paste error there. The existing no u-turn restriction is: https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13909088 ___ Talk-au ma

[talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44)

On 30/4/22 00:45, Anthony Panozzo wrote: This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know more than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing correction this account comes along and “fixes” it based on “knowledge” Some terminology before we start. To be

Re: [talk-au] Queensland railway stations

On 9/4/22 10:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: Thanks Richard, we'll check them out. Thanks Graeme Well that proved to be a very tedious job. After reviewing hundreds of these about 240 of them have been converted to "no longer a station". Which leaves about 300 active stations in QLD. It

Re: [talk-au] admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?

On 8/4/22 21:57, Dian Ågesson wrote: Hey Andrew, I don’t believe anything was decided with regards to ACT districts. However, after looking into the details I don’t think they actually fit in the administration boundary set up at all; seems closer to parishes/counties on other states than a

Re: [talk-au] Map Note Flood

> On looking at the notes added in Australia, they do seem to be an automated > script comparing what’s in OSM to an external source. > > The notes added to Nhulunbuy, Groote Eylandt and Maningrida don’t seem to be > coming from a suitable NT give source. One of the notes suggests a street >

[talk-au] Map Note Flood

Just a heads up to let you know that someone is currently trying to bypass the import requirements of OSM by creating thousands of anonymous map notes. Seems to have started in the US and Canada: https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-country?c=United%20States

Re: [talk-au] NSW school zone markings

On 19/3/22 16:36, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: The yellow box says 40. Is that to indicate the start of the school zone, or is it just a general limit for that street? I think it indicates a school zone rather than just a 40 zone:

[talk-au] Another highway classification question. This time in Adelaide.

Found another highway classification map note: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2734030 This one asking if North Main Road should be classed trunk rather than primary. Do we have any Adelaidean mappers that could answer this question? ___

Re: [talk-au] Mapping shared driveways

On 16/3/22 21:47, Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au wrote: > I was wondering if you would take the same approach to similar shared driveways  that lead to commercial properties as per ways in residential areas? Refer to examples below: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/698542896

Re: [talk-au] Mapping shared driveways

On 16/3/22 16:56, Andrew Harvey wrote: generally a shared driveway - will break the highway=* gutter with a kerb ramp - usually won't have a kerb - usually on private land - usually maintained by the owners - letter boxes and garbage bins usually need to be taken out to the street and not

Re: [talk-au] Special event clearways and lane=*

On 14/3/22 21:26, Andrew Harvey wrote: Where did you find the wiki suggesting lanes:conditional? I didn't. The thought was based on how people were tagging other variable lane counts: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gSc Maybe I am overthinking it. If you go with what the wiki says, then

Re: [talk-au] Looking for some Brisbane based mapper support.

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 12:45 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Brought that same question up a little while back, but no response. Ah yes, sorry about that. My interest in highway classification is so low I don't think your email even registered with me. Had a read through the wiki on highway

[talk-au] Looking for some Brisbane based mapper support.

Is anyone able to help with this map note? https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1985557 Which asks why so many of the streets in the Brisbane CBD are classified as secondary. Answering the question requires way more local knowledge than I have of Brisbane roads. Thanks.

[talk-au] People's views on duplicating ref=* on the ways in a route relation.

There are a bunch of map notes in the NT flagging issues with route numbers changing to alpha-numerical (eg 34 -> B34). The routes have been mapped with a ref tag on the ways, which will also have to be changed. Is this duplicate tagging something we want? I can see it causing problems where

Re: [talk-au] OSM Notes

On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 4:09 PM Stéphane Guillou via Talk-au wrote: > >> Nevertheless, I want to say that I really appreciate the time that was >> invested in the recent note-closing work. It's great to see so many small >> improvements happening all around the map, and the activity on the notes

[talk-au] People's views on naming on and off ramps.

It appears that people like to make up names for on and off ramps. By made up I mean the "names" don't appear on other maps nor are they signed. Normally I just don't pay attention to them but we have a note: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3064262 asking what "name" should be on an

Re: [talk-au] Complaint re OSM navigation

So common it's got a wiki entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_GPS On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 6:17 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Also just spotted this note: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3063323 > > I've asked them for further details so we'll see what they say? > > They have

Re: [talk-au] Lakes around Mungo National Park

On 21/2/22 18:25, Warin wrote: To my way of thinking they are lakes, dry most of the time, not wetlands. Thoughts? In particular the rendering of the DCS Topo map ... what is their meaning? They are (like almost every inland lake in AU) dry lakes. There was an unsuccessful proposal to

Re: [talk-au] Tagging a house name

On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 9:55 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Interesting photo of one house in that article: > https://www.houzz.com.au/photos/summerlees-a-living-piece-of-australian-history-traditional-garden-sydney-phvw-vp~7570749 > > Address out the front is 219 over 7207? > > Never seen an

Re: [talk-au] Tagging "boundary" roads with addr:*

On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 1:42 PM Andrew Hughes wrote: > In the interest of stirring up a hornets nest (jokes). I'd like to know what > could be said for tagging ways (streets/roads) with add:suburb (or > addr:county...) where the suburb (or other region/area) the road "belongs" to > can NOT be

Re: [talk-au] boundary=aboriginal_lands ( Was Re: admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?)

On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 2:03 PM Andrew Harvey wrote: > > If this is not disputed, it would be nice to update > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Australia.E2.80.99s_First_People > with this information otherwise it'll get lost over time in the archives > here. I

Re: [talk-au] The ACT Place Names Advisory Committee has a sense of humour

On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 9:05 AM Michael Collinson wrote: > > Phew, Coombs must have been a ruthless place previously. > Nice. Did not occurred to me that the ruthfulness had gone up. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

[talk-au] The ACT Place Names Advisory Committee has a sense of humour

So we have a new park in Coombs that needs a name. A name based on the suburb's theme of notable public service: https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/View/di/2021-260/current/html/2021-260.html ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

Re: [talk-au] admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?

On 30/11/21 09:55, Andrew Harvey wrote: Since we don't have formally defined boundaries for place=region,district,city,quarter,neighbourhood,city_block should we be adding an admin_level at all? So should we remove 7/5? I'd be happy to get rid of admin_level 7. It never really had a good

[talk-au] boundary=aboriginal_lands ( Was Re: admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?)

On 30/11/21 17:51, stevea wrote: This is REALLY going to be different in Oz than USA, but please consider boundary=aboriginal_lands. boundary=aboriginal_lands is not applicable to Australia for at least two reasons: 1. Australia does not have a system of "reservations". Before the 1960s

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

On 27/11/21 12:27, Ewen Hill wrote:    It might be worthwhile obtaining the standard waver from PBR which could confirm the status of the markers as well. As they are not standard, perhaps consider adding a few more fields, colour=white, source= and if they are all on the telephone poles,

[talk-au] Weird tag (Was Re: Importing 200 emergency markers?)

On 25/11/21 22:52, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote:   Technically correct but I have added it to the list: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Counterintuitive_key_names ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

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

On 26/11/21 18:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote: Hi, The markers were installed by the railway, and are maintained by the railway. They are pole numbers attached to each telegraph pole along the railway. So they are pole reference numbers that are being used as emergency markers?

Re: [talk-au] Splitting Ways for small roundabout traffic islands

On 15/11/21 22:14, Andrew Harvey wrote: Splitting makes the data more complicated than it needs to be, and doesn't add more value or accuracy compared to simply tagging the traffic island as a node. One with a gap for pedestrians gets tagged as crossing:island=yes, without a crossing maybe

Re: [talk-au] Dedicated Indigenous Protected Areas 2020 dataset available for OSM

On 21/11/21 18:10, nwastra nwastra wrote: I am of the opinion that because we are only adding two extra IPAs and the marine parts to the existing IPAs, it is probably not necessary to go through the imports mailing list as we would follow the same procedure as that was used with CAPAD will a

Re: [talk-au] Splitting Ways for small roundabout traffic islands

On 15/11/21 18:18, Dian Ågesson wrote: Is there a preferred approach, or does it not really matter? If splitting ways, are u-turns restrictions required? I think it's a style question. I just took a random sample of 50 roundabouts in city and the number of roundabouts with islands, single

Re: [talk-au] Splitting Ways for small roundabout traffic islands

On 15/11/21 20:38, Warin wrote: I have yet to see a 'no U turn' on them and they do make a good safer place to do a u turn if you do the correct thing. I thought we were talking about where the entry and exit flares join. Fun fact, there is at least on roundabout with a no u-turn sign

Re: [talk-au] Is it a fence?

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

Re: [talk-au] Proposed features/Snow chains

On 14/11/21 18:30, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: Hi My impression in Victoria is that the chain fitting and chains required locations move up and down the mountain with the weather and that there's very little that can be mapped. Tony snow_chains:conditional=required @ snow; required @ ice

Re: [talk-au] Are letter boxes art?

On 14/11/21 14:29, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: As we've been driving around, especially in the bush, I'm sure we've all spotted the occasional really good letterbox, much like this one: https://goo.gl/maps/McSEgmTTLEHRhmxH8 Would they classify as public

Re: [talk-au] Suburbs: Nodes, Areas, or both?

On 6/11/21 20:30, Simon Poole wrote: Yes, Gruyère is a cheese, it's named after the town of Gruyères see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruy%C3%A8res, very nice place BTW. That's why I was wondering :-), but I suppose the dairy industry explains it. I think Wikipedia is wrong on this one.

Re: [talk-au] Suburbs: Nodes, Areas, or both?

On 5/11/21 18:06, cleary wrote: Sorry. I should have written ...add the place node to the relation and its role would be "label". Done: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2428804 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

Re: [talk-au] Vic State Forest Boundary Files

Sun Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 9:06 AM wrote: > > Hi > Is there any chance, or point, of including > https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/esta-emergency-markers in an ambit > request? > Tony That one might be a tough ask as it is licensed CC BY-NC 3.0. If they give us a waiver then everyone else can just

Re: [talk-au] Source material.

On 19/10/21 8:37 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote: On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 20:11, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > wrote: It does not have 'State Forests' ... unfortunately. Ah I confused "State Park" with "State Forest". I think State Forests can be found in:

Re: [talk-au] Monitoring admin boundaries Was: Re: Mapping tree cover

On 9/10/21 10:54 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote: Andrew Davidson has been keeping an eye on changes and doing some updates. I've updated a few I noticed changed in NSW. I checked the existing boundaries in NSW/SA/ACT/TAS last year before the other states were imported. Geoscape (aka PSMA) put

Re: [talk-au] Way errors in Quilpie Qld

On Sat, Oct 2, 2021 at 10:46 PM Thorsten Engler via Talk-au wrote: > I would assume that the lot boundaries recorded in DCDB are "exact" and any > discrepancy between them and the physical world come down to the margin of > errors the surveyors did when placing boundary pegs at some point. I

Re: [talk-au] Another Melbourne intersection for review

On 21/9/21 6:54 pm, Andrew Davidson wrote: guidance. This is just a standard roundabout except for the fact that you need to be in the left lane to turn left on some of the arms. OK, brain not working. I mean you need to be in the right lane to go straight through

Re: [talk-au] Another Melbourne intersection for review

On 18/9/21 9:04 pm, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote: Andrew, are you familiar with this intersection from travelling through it? No, and it may be some time before I could visit in person :-( I came across this one because it had a broken turn restriction. Based on what had been mapped I

[talk-au] Another Melbourne intersection for review

I came across this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.79462/145.24176 which is no doubt causing routers all sorts of headaches. I'm thinking of combining the roundabout part of the intersection into a single roundabout and adding some lane tagging. Does anyone have an objection to

Re: [talk-au] In-water fences?

On 18/9/21 2:49 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: Just reading this article: https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2021-09-18/plan-to-improve-water-quality-richmond-river/100466282 Most of it has nothing to do with mapping, but there's a photo there of a log "fence" to protect against boat wash.

Re: [talk-au] Data challenges in Maproulette for AU territories

On 21/7/21 5:14 am, Oisin Herriott (Insight Global Inc) via Talk-au wrote: Hi all, The Microsoft Open Maps team has created and posted some MapRoulette challenges in ACT, TAS, and VIC territories (MapRoulette ). I think there may be a problem

Re: [talk-au] Australian road review

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 1:35 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > & I meant to ask ... > > Is it OK to pass it on to other groups / sites / forums? > Crikey, I hope so. Already put it into weeklyOSM ;-) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

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

On 20/6/21 10:03 am, Adam Horan wrote: /"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

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

On 20/6/21 10:03 am, Adam Horan wrote: 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*."/ I don't understand your point. Are you saying that Australia Post

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

On 17/6/21 7:14 pm, Andrew Harvey via Talk-au wrote: This does sound like addr:postcode on each address object is the way to go and correctly capture the postcode of each address. We can still have postal_code's on admin boundaries where the the vast majority of addresses within that boundary

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

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:

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

On 19/6/21 9:48 am, Ewen Hill wrote: and who sends a letter nowadays ;) You make a good point there. So why are we putting postcodes into OSM? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

On 14/6/21 10:28 pm, Ewen Hill wrote: With regard to postcodes. The proprietary nature and no formal notification of change to postcodes makes the whole process of getting data less than optimal. This is the weird thing about postcodes in Australia. On one hand they are designed to be

Re: [talk-au] Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion

On 14/6/21 10:28 pm, Ewen Hill wrote: Suburbs are a little different however I can't see the issue of adding the suburb/locality. It makes life so much simpler for a lot of people with not a lot of significant issues. Where suburbs are split (like Fraser Rise) then there will be few

Re: [talk-au] Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal

On 27/5/21 9:03 pm, Daniel O'Connor wrote: Look, as a dev as well, yes this is absolutely doable. If this were a one click addon to an overpass query or otherwise massively dropped the barriers for non devs, fantastic. But at least for me personally, the folks like us that can do a data

Re: [talk-au] Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal

On 25/5/21 4:41 pm, Daniel O'Connor wrote: I'd make a polite argument there is still value in at least the suburb, possibly postcode being still provided.  When exporting data via overpass as CSV; it's not currently easy or obvious to appropriately bring in the parent attributes; even if it is

  1   2   3   4   >