Re: [talk-au] Adding residential properties?
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 20:41:29 +1100 Steve Bennett wrote: > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Daniel O'Connor > wrote: > > > I started out with buildings, but got a bit excited in my local area; > > getting down into trees, power lines, fences, driveways etc. > > > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.84928/138.52277 > > > > Not super pretty looking. > > > > Hi guys, > Personally I'm not that into micromapping, but could I make the > suggestion that you use (additional) tags to make it easy to filter this > stuff out? It makes it hard to render a reasonable map if there's no > distinction between, say: > * relevant public buildings, vs private houses (use building=house sounds > good) > * walking paths through parks, vs ordinary footpaths (use sidewalk=yes?) > * public or semi-public tennis courts (eg at a sporting facility, vs > private tennis courts in backyards (access=private?) > * similarly for swimming pools > My tuppence worth: It would (possibly) be useful to map significant private homes otherwise just tag the blocks as residential area. mick ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Adding residential properties?
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > I started out with buildings, but got a bit excited in my local area; > getting down into trees, power lines, fences, driveways etc. > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.84928/138.52277 > > Not super pretty looking. > Hi guys, Personally I'm not that into micromapping, but could I make the suggestion that you use (additional) tags to make it easy to filter this stuff out? It makes it hard to render a reasonable map if there's no distinction between, say: * relevant public buildings, vs private houses (use building=house sounds good) * walking paths through parks, vs ordinary footpaths (use sidewalk=yes?) * public or semi-public tennis courts (eg at a sporting facility, vs private tennis courts in backyards (access=private?) * similarly for swimming pools Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Adding residential properties?
I suspected I was ignoring a really obvious tag. Guess I'll see how far my feet can take me for a while - thanks for the advice all. On Sat 07 Dec 2013 20:15:55 EST, Ross Scanlon wrote: > On 07/12/13 17:34, Will Rouesnel wrote: >> Ok this is what I got from a brief walk around the neighborhood with >> OSMPad on my phone: >> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2569340857#map=17/-33.82359/151.25009&layers=ND >> > > Looks pretty good. > > I'd add > > addr:suburb=Balmoral or where ever > > I also always add: > > addr:state=NSW or where ever > > > Cheers > Ross > >> >> The addresses line up to the post-box / domestic entrances where >> possible - my motivation here is to get places I travel to give >> accurate GPS coordinates from things like OSMAnd. >> >> The biggest problem at the moment seems to be the Bing imagery has a >> couple meter shift in this area, so things line up but the roads are >> offset a bit - I can't decide whether to recenter my points around the >> roads or not, since presumably if it's ever correct a big shift would >> then line everything up nicely. >> >> On Sat 07 Dec 2013 15:29:54 EST, Ross Scanlon wrote: But where should the node go? Referring to here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_feature/associatedAddress it seems like the address node should be inside an area assocated with the object it assigns an address to, but in the case of parcels of land/buildings this wouldn't be the case >>> >>> At the entrance to the property where known. This would be just >>> inside the boundary so matches what is above and the above is only a >>> proposed feature. >>> >>> Try adding some addresses then link to them to show what you've done. >>> Mind you there'll still be six different responses. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Ross >>> >>> >>> On 07/12/13 13:32, Will Rouesnel wrote: I'm still a little confused about the separate node model (which seems to make more sense to me, in so far as it resolves better for dealing with some large areas like farms). i.e. my house's address node should logically be at the entrance where you can enter it, but that's outside a building and if I don't map land parcels is outside an area). I'm thinking just don't worry about it I guess - i.e. presumably at some point someone will get all the zoning from the local council and somehow upload that, at which point the address assignments would make sense provided I stuck address points at all the entrances? On 05/12/13 21:07, Ross Scanlon wrote: > I'd suggest you read these wiki pages: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Address > > My personal opinion is that the address should be on a separate node > at the entrance to the property. This is preferred for disability > access programs. > > It also takes into consideration that the address is unlikely to > change but the building or landuse may. > > Cheers > Ross > > > On 05/12/13 19:34, Will Rouesnel wrote: >> A simple example starting with my own house - how should residential >> buildings be tagged? >> >> The block they sit on is more of a land use concern, but the >> specific >> buildings don't occupy the entire block - and seem like they >> should be >> tagged "house". >> >> Is this a correct way to go about things? The goal here would be to >> get >> my local area updated with street numbers so generated addresses can >> provide navigation to specific locations. >> >> Would it be correct to trace the outline of the blocks, and label >> them >> with the address and tag the land as "residential" use? Would >> this be >> likely to accomplish the overall goal (provide street numbers for my >> area)? >> >> ___ >> 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] Adding residential properties?
On 07/12/13 17:34, Will Rouesnel wrote: Ok this is what I got from a brief walk around the neighborhood with OSMPad on my phone: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2569340857#map=17/-33.82359/151.25009&layers=ND Looks pretty good. I'd add addr:suburb=Balmoral or where ever I also always add: addr:state=NSW or where ever Cheers Ross The addresses line up to the post-box / domestic entrances where possible - my motivation here is to get places I travel to give accurate GPS coordinates from things like OSMAnd. The biggest problem at the moment seems to be the Bing imagery has a couple meter shift in this area, so things line up but the roads are offset a bit - I can't decide whether to recenter my points around the roads or not, since presumably if it's ever correct a big shift would then line everything up nicely. On Sat 07 Dec 2013 15:29:54 EST, Ross Scanlon wrote: But where should the node go? Referring to here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_feature/associatedAddress it seems like the address node should be inside an area assocated with the object it assigns an address to, but in the case of parcels of land/buildings this wouldn't be the case At the entrance to the property where known. This would be just inside the boundary so matches what is above and the above is only a proposed feature. Try adding some addresses then link to them to show what you've done. Mind you there'll still be six different responses. Cheers Ross On 07/12/13 13:32, Will Rouesnel wrote: I'm still a little confused about the separate node model (which seems to make more sense to me, in so far as it resolves better for dealing with some large areas like farms). i.e. my house's address node should logically be at the entrance where you can enter it, but that's outside a building and if I don't map land parcels is outside an area). I'm thinking just don't worry about it I guess - i.e. presumably at some point someone will get all the zoning from the local council and somehow upload that, at which point the address assignments would make sense provided I stuck address points at all the entrances? On 05/12/13 21:07, Ross Scanlon wrote: I'd suggest you read these wiki pages: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Address My personal opinion is that the address should be on a separate node at the entrance to the property. This is preferred for disability access programs. It also takes into consideration that the address is unlikely to change but the building or landuse may. Cheers Ross On 05/12/13 19:34, Will Rouesnel wrote: A simple example starting with my own house - how should residential buildings be tagged? The block they sit on is more of a land use concern, but the specific buildings don't occupy the entire block - and seem like they should be tagged "house". Is this a correct way to go about things? The goal here would be to get my local area updated with street numbers so generated addresses can provide navigation to specific locations. Would it be correct to trace the outline of the blocks, and label them with the address and tag the land as "residential" use? Would this be likely to accomplish the overall goal (provide street numbers for my area)? ___ 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] Adding residential properties?
On 07/12/13 17:34, Will Rouesnel wrote: Ok this is what I got from a brief walk around the neighborhood with OSMPad on my phone: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2569340857#map=17/-33.82359/151.25009&layers=ND The addresses line up to the post-box / domestic entrances where possible - my motivation here is to get places I travel to give accurate GPS coordinates from things like OSMAnd. I'm of the opinion that this is where the address node should be. The biggest problem at the moment seems to be the Bing imagery has a couple meter shift in this area, so things line up but the roads are offset a bit - I can't decide whether to recenter my points around the roads or not, since presumably if it's ever correct a big shift would then line everything up nicely. Read this in regards to bing imagery being offset http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing#Precision You need to reference the bing imagery to the gps traces or roads marked as source= survey or nearmap or agri. Cheers Ross On Sat 07 Dec 2013 15:29:54 EST, Ross Scanlon wrote: But where should the node go? Referring to here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_feature/associatedAddress it seems like the address node should be inside an area assocated with the object it assigns an address to, but in the case of parcels of land/buildings this wouldn't be the case At the entrance to the property where known. This would be just inside the boundary so matches what is above and the above is only a proposed feature. Try adding some addresses then link to them to show what you've done. Mind you there'll still be six different responses. Cheers Ross On 07/12/13 13:32, Will Rouesnel wrote: I'm still a little confused about the separate node model (which seems to make more sense to me, in so far as it resolves better for dealing with some large areas like farms). i.e. my house's address node should logically be at the entrance where you can enter it, but that's outside a building and if I don't map land parcels is outside an area). I'm thinking just don't worry about it I guess - i.e. presumably at some point someone will get all the zoning from the local council and somehow upload that, at which point the address assignments would make sense provided I stuck address points at all the entrances? On 05/12/13 21:07, Ross Scanlon wrote: I'd suggest you read these wiki pages: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Address My personal opinion is that the address should be on a separate node at the entrance to the property. This is preferred for disability access programs. It also takes into consideration that the address is unlikely to change but the building or landuse may. Cheers Ross On 05/12/13 19:34, Will Rouesnel wrote: A simple example starting with my own house - how should residential buildings be tagged? The block they sit on is more of a land use concern, but the specific buildings don't occupy the entire block - and seem like they should be tagged "house". Is this a correct way to go about things? The goal here would be to get my local area updated with street numbers so generated addresses can provide navigation to specific locations. Would it be correct to trace the outline of the blocks, and label them with the address and tag the land as "residential" use? Would this be likely to accomplish the overall goal (provide street numbers for my area)? ___ 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] Adding residential properties?
Ok this is what I got from a brief walk around the neighborhood with OSMPad on my phone: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2569340857#map=17/-33.82359/151.25009&layers=ND The addresses line up to the post-box / domestic entrances where possible - my motivation here is to get places I travel to give accurate GPS coordinates from things like OSMAnd. The biggest problem at the moment seems to be the Bing imagery has a couple meter shift in this area, so things line up but the roads are offset a bit - I can't decide whether to recenter my points around the roads or not, since presumably if it's ever correct a big shift would then line everything up nicely. On Sat 07 Dec 2013 15:29:54 EST, Ross Scanlon wrote: > > But where should the node go? Referring to here > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_feature/associatedAddress > > it seems like the address node should be inside an area assocated > > with > > the object it assigns an address to, but in the case of parcels of > > land/buildings this wouldn't be the case > > At the entrance to the property where known. This would be just > inside the boundary so matches what is above and the above is only a > proposed feature. > > Try adding some addresses then link to them to show what you've done. > Mind you there'll still be six different responses. > > Cheers > Ross > > > On 07/12/13 13:32, Will Rouesnel wrote: >> I'm still a little confused about the separate node model (which seems >> to make more sense to me, in so far as it resolves better for dealing >> with some large areas like farms). >> >> >> i.e. my house's address node should logically be at the entrance where >> you can enter it, but that's outside a building and if I don't map land >> parcels is outside an area). >> >> I'm thinking just don't worry about it I guess - i.e. presumably at some >> point someone will get all the zoning from the local council and somehow >> upload that, at which point the address assignments would make sense >> provided I stuck address points at all the entrances? >> >> On 05/12/13 21:07, Ross Scanlon wrote: >>> I'd suggest you read these wiki pages: >>> >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses >>> >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Address >>> >>> My personal opinion is that the address should be on a separate node >>> at the entrance to the property. This is preferred for disability >>> access programs. >>> >>> It also takes into consideration that the address is unlikely to >>> change but the building or landuse may. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Ross >>> >>> >>> On 05/12/13 19:34, Will Rouesnel wrote: A simple example starting with my own house - how should residential buildings be tagged? The block they sit on is more of a land use concern, but the specific buildings don't occupy the entire block - and seem like they should be tagged "house". Is this a correct way to go about things? The goal here would be to get my local area updated with street numbers so generated addresses can provide navigation to specific locations. Would it be correct to trace the outline of the blocks, and label them with the address and tag the land as "residential" use? Would this be likely to accomplish the overall goal (provide street numbers for my area)? ___ 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] Adding residential properties?
> But where should the node go? Referring to here > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_feature/associatedAddress > it seems like the address node should be inside an area assocated > with > the object it assigns an address to, but in the case of parcels of > land/buildings this wouldn't be the case At the entrance to the property where known. This would be just inside the boundary so matches what is above and the above is only a proposed feature. Try adding some addresses then link to them to show what you've done. Mind you there'll still be six different responses. Cheers Ross On 07/12/13 13:32, Will Rouesnel wrote: I'm still a little confused about the separate node model (which seems to make more sense to me, in so far as it resolves better for dealing with some large areas like farms). i.e. my house's address node should logically be at the entrance where you can enter it, but that's outside a building and if I don't map land parcels is outside an area). I'm thinking just don't worry about it I guess - i.e. presumably at some point someone will get all the zoning from the local council and somehow upload that, at which point the address assignments would make sense provided I stuck address points at all the entrances? On 05/12/13 21:07, Ross Scanlon wrote: I'd suggest you read these wiki pages: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Address My personal opinion is that the address should be on a separate node at the entrance to the property. This is preferred for disability access programs. It also takes into consideration that the address is unlikely to change but the building or landuse may. Cheers Ross On 05/12/13 19:34, Will Rouesnel wrote: A simple example starting with my own house - how should residential buildings be tagged? The block they sit on is more of a land use concern, but the specific buildings don't occupy the entire block - and seem like they should be tagged "house". Is this a correct way to go about things? The goal here would be to get my local area updated with street numbers so generated addresses can provide navigation to specific locations. Would it be correct to trace the outline of the blocks, and label them with the address and tag the land as "residential" use? Would this be likely to accomplish the overall goal (provide street numbers for my area)? ___ 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] Adding residential properties?
I'm still a little confused about the separate node model (which seems to make more sense to me, in so far as it resolves better for dealing with some large areas like farms). But where should the node go? Referring to here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/associatedAddress it seems like the address node should be inside an area assocated with the object it assigns an address to, but in the case of parcels of land/buildings this wouldn't be the case i.e. my house's address node should logically be at the entrance where you can enter it, but that's outside a building and if I don't map land parcels is outside an area). I'm thinking just don't worry about it I guess - i.e. presumably at some point someone will get all the zoning from the local council and somehow upload that, at which point the address assignments would make sense provided I stuck address points at all the entrances? On 05/12/13 21:07, Ross Scanlon wrote: I'd suggest you read these wiki pages: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Address My personal opinion is that the address should be on a separate node at the entrance to the property. This is preferred for disability access programs. It also takes into consideration that the address is unlikely to change but the building or landuse may. Cheers Ross On 05/12/13 19:34, Will Rouesnel wrote: A simple example starting with my own house - how should residential buildings be tagged? The block they sit on is more of a land use concern, but the specific buildings don't occupy the entire block - and seem like they should be tagged "house". Is this a correct way to go about things? The goal here would be to get my local area updated with street numbers so generated addresses can provide navigation to specific locations. Would it be correct to trace the outline of the blocks, and label them with the address and tag the land as "residential" use? Would this be likely to accomplish the overall goal (provide street numbers for my area)? ___ 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] Adding residential properties?
Hi Will, I’ve been mapping the building outlines and tagging the feature appropriately, e.g. house and then adding address data to each building. I’ve also added in a smaller area the boundary fences or walls. There is I understand, two competing models for recording addresses, one where the building is labelled and another where a node is created at the building entrance. Either way it maps “whats on the ground” and can be readily verified. Alex On 5 Dec 2013, at 8:04 pm, Will Rouesnel wrote: > A simple example starting with my own house - how should residential > buildings be tagged? > > The block they sit on is more of a land use concern, but the specific > buildings don't occupy the entire block - and seem like they should be > tagged "house". > > Is this a correct way to go about things? The goal here would be to get > my local area updated with street numbers so generated addresses can > provide navigation to specific locations. > > Would it be correct to trace the outline of the blocks, and label them > with the address and tag the land as "residential" use? Would this be > likely to accomplish the overall goal (provide street numbers for my area)? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Adding residential properties?
I'd suggest you read these wiki pages: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Address My personal opinion is that the address should be on a separate node at the entrance to the property. This is preferred for disability access programs. It also takes into consideration that the address is unlikely to change but the building or landuse may. Cheers Ross On 05/12/13 19:34, Will Rouesnel wrote: A simple example starting with my own house - how should residential buildings be tagged? The block they sit on is more of a land use concern, but the specific buildings don't occupy the entire block - and seem like they should be tagged "house". Is this a correct way to go about things? The goal here would be to get my local area updated with street numbers so generated addresses can provide navigation to specific locations. Would it be correct to trace the outline of the blocks, and label them with the address and tag the land as "residential" use? Would this be likely to accomplish the overall goal (provide street numbers for my area)? ___ 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] Adding residential properties?
I started out with buildings, but got a bit excited in my local area; getting down into trees, power lines, fences, driveways etc. http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.84928/138.52277 Not super pretty looking. Nowdays, I tend to map the primary houses only, and perhaps significant features like a tennis court or pool if present. http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-34.8808/138.5473 I wouldn't worry about tracing the individual parcels of land - there are better data sets which are maintained by various governments, either at cost or as open data (vicmap cadastre, psma's cadlite, etc); but to my knowledge no one is flying LIDAR equipped planes over AU cities and publishing the data yet re buildings. Anyway once you get past your street/block/etc; I'd recommend you start tracing buildings along your way to work or a similar commute. That lets you use a tool like Vespucci OSM Editor or Keypad Mapper 3 to collect data, if you are a public transport user or tend to walk from A to B. Another piece of data that is quite interesting is building:levels. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:levels If you work in the city as I do, it becomes fairly easy to tag the multiple story buildings with the same tools. http://osmbuildings.org/?lat=-34.92556&lon=138.60092&zoom=16 On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Paul Norman wrote: > > From: Will Rouesnel [mailto:w.roues...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 1:34 AM > > To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > Subject: [talk-au] Adding residential properties? > > > > A simple example starting with my own house - how should residential > > buildings be tagged? > > > > The block they sit on is more of a land use concern, but the specific > > buildings don't occupy the entire block - and seem like they should be > > tagged "house". > > > > Is this a correct way to go about things? The goal here would be to get > > my local area updated with street numbers so generated addresses can > > provide navigation to specific locations. > > > > Would it be correct to trace the outline of the blocks, and label them > > with the address and tag the land as "residential" use? Would this be > > likely to accomplish the overall goal (provide street numbers for my > > area)? > > My practice is > > - Add the buidings from imagery, generally with building=house and > building=shed > > - Add address info from a survey, either with field papers + pen or > geotagged photos > > - Add other interesting features from the survey (paths, mailboxes, etc) > > - Trace out the landuse, generally as larger than single blocks, but > using separate polygons for areas split on major roads > > This generally involves an initial imagery-based mapping for buildings, > trees, paths, and other stuff visible from imagery, a survey, then a > final mapping using survey notes + imagery. > > It helps having buildings mapped already when collecting addresses. > > > ___ > 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] Adding residential properties?
> From: Will Rouesnel [mailto:w.roues...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 1:34 AM > To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [talk-au] Adding residential properties? > > A simple example starting with my own house - how should residential > buildings be tagged? > > The block they sit on is more of a land use concern, but the specific > buildings don't occupy the entire block - and seem like they should be > tagged "house". > > Is this a correct way to go about things? The goal here would be to get > my local area updated with street numbers so generated addresses can > provide navigation to specific locations. > > Would it be correct to trace the outline of the blocks, and label them > with the address and tag the land as "residential" use? Would this be > likely to accomplish the overall goal (provide street numbers for my > area)? My practice is - Add the buidings from imagery, generally with building=house and building=shed - Add address info from a survey, either with field papers + pen or geotagged photos - Add other interesting features from the survey (paths, mailboxes, etc) - Trace out the landuse, generally as larger than single blocks, but using separate polygons for areas split on major roads This generally involves an initial imagery-based mapping for buildings, trees, paths, and other stuff visible from imagery, a survey, then a final mapping using survey notes + imagery. It helps having buildings mapped already when collecting addresses. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Adding residential properties?
A simple example starting with my own house - how should residential buildings be tagged? The block they sit on is more of a land use concern, but the specific buildings don't occupy the entire block - and seem like they should be tagged "house". Is this a correct way to go about things? The goal here would be to get my local area updated with street numbers so generated addresses can provide navigation to specific locations. Would it be correct to trace the outline of the blocks, and label them with the address and tag the land as "residential" use? Would this be likely to accomplish the overall goal (provide street numbers for my area)? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
