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

[David Bannon]

On 5/10/23 14:41, Warin wrote:


Community hall, Police, Fire say 10 each

Store, fuel, mechanic say 20 each

Nurse medical facility, RFDS clinic say 30

Doctors say 40

Hospital say 100

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 points ? Many, many "towns" have a community hall 
(or even a Mechanic's Institute) but very many of them have fallen into 
such disrepair its unsafe to go in. And a Hospital, thats one with an 
Emergency Department or just a couple of beds and and a pair of 
overworked nurses ?  How long since that Store was open ? A mechanic ?  
Well, the guy at the servo can help you change a tyre (but only if you 
have a real spare tyre, what are you doing out here with a temporary one 
anyway ?).


My point is there are varying degrees of all these things, I am unsure 
too many mappers are willing or able to obtain the necessary detail.


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

Re: [talk-au] Review of road surface tags in Victoria

[David Bannon]

What a brilliant piece of work !  And a good outcome too. 
Thanks for that effort.
David
On Fri, 2021-12-03 at 14:22 +1100, Little Maps wrote:
> Hi folks, for anyone interested in rural roads, I’ve put together a
> very nerdy review of the super accuracy of OpenStreetMap’s road
> surface tags (sealed vs unsealed) in Victoria. Lots of maps and
> tables. Hope you find it informative. Cheers Ian
> 
> 
> https://littlemaps692810600.wordpress.com/2021/12/03/openstreetmap-on-australian-roads-how-accurate-are-road-surface-tags-in-victoria/
> 
> 
> ___Talk-au mailing 
> listtalk...@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] MS open maps

[David Bannon]

Jubal, I think its great you should be putting in an effort like that. 
One little worry however, many roads in Australia travel across very 
lightly populated areas and are often quite unsuitable for certain 
vehicles and drivers who are inexperienced with the conditions. Such 
roads are often quite optimistically named, "Plenty Highway", "Gunbarrel 
Highway" and many, many more.


Please don't make any assumptions about such things, apart from putting 
misleading information in the map, lives could be put at risk.


Sticking to urban areas might be  good idea.

And I note you plan to work on waterways too. We have a lot of water 
ways in Australia, however, most of them don't have any water in them .


David


On 22/12/17 10:54, Jubal Harpster wrote:


Hi Everyone,

You may have noticed some Microsoft folks present on the mailings 
lists and Australian Slack channels in the past few months.  Microsoft 
have convened a small Open-Maps team that is starting to work on the 
OSM data in Australia. Our team is not importing data, using 
algorithms or robot edits to improve the map, we are using iD & JOSM 
to make improvements.


The OSM data in Australia is in phenomenal condition thanks to the 
existing contributors. The list of projects we’re working on is 
publicly visible on our github repo here: 
(https://github.com/Microsoft/Open-Maps).  We welcome feedback, please 
feel free to reach out to individual members of the team listed here 
(https://github.com/Microsoft/Open-Maps/wiki/Open-Maps-Team-at-Microsoft) 
to myself directly or to the whole team at openm...@microsoft.com 



Thanks,

-Jubal Harpster

Microsoft



___
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] Roadside rest areas tagged as camp sites

[David Bannon]

Warin, I agree with you in theory. I almost never camp at a site without 
a toilet because such camp sites are sometimes in a disgusting state. 
However, when mapping, we should not apply our particular moral beliefs, 
fact is lots of people do stay at such sites. If its legal and practical 
to do so, we should so map. We should not be trying to enforce our 
beliefs via OSM.


Again, I will remind you that the distinction between tents, camper 
trailers, campers, caravans, mobile homes is one of degree. Pick any two 
spots on that spectrum and I will show you a rig that can fit between them.


(Sorry I have been out of this discussion for some time, we are away 
camping, down the deep southwest of Tasmania there is very little 
communications )


David

On 02/05/17 10:59, Warin wrote:
The essential difference between these 'camping' activities is the 
provision of a self contained toilet. (A shower is then secondary.)


Where there is no self contained toilet the occupants then seek local 
relief and that can lead to problems. So that is a mapping issue for me.
One of the reasons why I prefer not to be directed to a 'rest area' 
for a tent site, those without a toilet tend not to appeal.



Some of the camper trailers are very well equipped .. they would need 
to be from the prices they charge.
I'd tend to lump them with caravans - they tow behind the vehicle. 
Much like lumping campervans with motorhomes?


On 02-May-17 08:59 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
I don't really think we'd have to differentiate between motorhomes & 
campervans, because really, they are the same concept, just different 
sizes, but crrying on from that, & just to throw another level of 
complication in :-), where do camper trailers come into things.


For clarification for those who may not be into camping, a camper 
trailer is effectively a tent mounted on top of a normal box trailer, 
that then folds out for use.


Under that list, would they be a tent or a caravan? For a short stop 
they don't usually need to be pegged down as a tent has to be, but 
they're also not just a pull up, open the door & that's it caravan?


Graeme


On 30 April 2017 at 10:21, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
<mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote:


I have raised this on the tagging list to get more people
involved .. on a European perspective they distinguish motorhomes
from caravans too ..

It looks like;

camping=yes (for all)
camping:caravan=yes/no
camping:tent=yes/no
camping:motorhome=yes/no

is the way to go?

I hesitate to add campervan to that list but I suppose it should
be added too..
I can see them asking what the difference is to motorhome (what
they are built from (bus/truck for motorhome, van for campervan)
size and toilet/shower are ones I would nominate).



On 26-Apr-17 06:17 PM, Warin wrote:

We'll get there. Crossed posts. No rush.

highway=rest_area
rest_area:camping=caravan ?

My previous post had :conditional ... and that is wrong.
I don't know about applying camp_site tags to rest areas,
maybe. Will think on it.

    On 26-Apr-17 05:29 PM, David Bannon wrote:

Hmm, at risk of answering my own question, there is a
key, camp_site=* that is intended to apply to
tourism=camp_site. Could you apply it to a rest area as
well ?

highway=rest_area

camp_site=basic

caravan=yes

tent=no

David


    On 26/04/17 17:17, David Bannon wrote:

On 25/04/17 20:33, Warin wrote:

Take the respective 'tourism=camp_site' data to
'highway=rest_area' with 'caravan=yes'.


Just what will that mean then ?  That a caravan can
pull into the rest area ?  We will loose the
information that camping is, at least primafacie
allowed/practical ?

I don't think thats a good solution, if you then
apply it to other states, a disaster (NSW notoriously
anti "free camping").

David





___
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] Roadside rest areas tagged as camp sites

[David Bannon]

Hmm, at risk of answering my own question, there is a key, camp_site=* 
that is intended to apply to tourism=camp_site. Could you apply it to a 
rest area as well ?


highway=rest_area

camp_site=basic

caravan=yes

tent=no

David


On 26/04/17 17:17, David Bannon wrote:

On 25/04/17 20:33, Warin wrote:
Take the respective 'tourism=camp_site' data to 'highway=rest_area' 
with 'caravan=yes'.


Just what will that mean then ?  That a caravan can pull into the rest 
area ?  We will loose the information that camping is, at least 
primafacie allowed/practical ?


I don't think thats a good solution, if you then apply it to other 
states, a disaster (NSW notoriously anti "free camping").


David

___
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] Roadside rest areas tagged as camp sites

[David Bannon]

On 25/04/17 20:33, Warin wrote:
Take the respective 'tourism=camp_site' data to 'highway=rest_area' 
with 'caravan=yes'.


Just what will that mean then ?  That a caravan can pull into the rest 
area ?  We will loose the information that camping is, at least 
primafacie allowed/practical ?


I don't think thats a good solution, if you then apply it to other 
states, a disaster (NSW notoriously anti "free camping").


David

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

Re: [talk-au] Roadside rest areas tagged as camp sites

[David Bannon]

On 20/04/17 19:50, Warin wrote:


Thanks. Sometimes my 'plain English' understanding gets the better of 
the 'OSM meanings'!
Hmm, I think people in caravans do think they are camping. If there is a 
sign, "no camping" we assume it means no caravans too.


a) I do think that 'rest areas' should be tagged using the rest area tag. 
Honestly, I have never tagged a rest area. I go straight to thinking of 
it as a potential camp site, if not, I don't bother. Sorry
So I just read the rest_area key and I must say, its not really very 
useful IMHO. As its a key to highway= it needs to be applied to a way 
and not the surrounding area perhaps ?  Generally people don't camp on 
the drive through part but off the side. Mind you, have see a few people 
who have just stopped, closed the curtains and nod off !


b) Using the tag 'tourism=camp_site' to me implies that I should be 
able to set up a tent there. 
Thats because you think "camp" means tent only. We've established that 
people camp using all sorts of infrastructure. Even truckies talk about 
'camping' at some place or another.


c) If they are appropriate for caravans/camper vans then there is the 
caravan_site or caravan=yes tag that would better represent the 
features facility?
I don't use tourism=caravan_site because I consider =camp_site more 
appropriate there being so many similarities and little point in 
distinguishing.  But I do use caravan=yes/no as a key to 
tourism=camp_site. In deference to your good self, I might use 
tent=yes/no a bit more often now :-)


 I really think the camp_site part needs to be tagged because it allows 
a large range of informative tags to be added. Toilets, water, rubbish 
disposal, web_site and so on. So, would it work to tag the road part 
highway=rest_area and surrounding area tourism=camp_site ? Be OK for big 
ones like archers-creek-rest-area but smaller ones ?


I guess my point here is a rest_area is a camp site and visa versa. Some 
allow you to camp overnight, some don't. Some might allow it but would 
be horrible. Just what information are we trying to impart ?


David



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

Re: [talk-au] Roadside rest areas tagged as camp sites

[David Bannon]

Warin, may I please refer you to the first sentence from the 
tourism=camp_site tag ?


"A campsite <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:campsite> or campground is 
an area, usually divided into a number of pitches, where people can camp 
overnight using tents or camper vans or caravans."


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site

Similarily, the camp_site=* page says

"In OSM speak, a "camp site" is the larger area that contains one or 
more "camp pitches". A camp pitch is the area where one caravan, motor 
home or family tent is setup."


The page goes on to define camp_site=basic as applying to "Roadside 
stops" as well as other likely places.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:camp_site

In both cases the meaning is clear. The term "camp site" does not in any 
way imply canvas only. People may camp  there using tents, campers, 
caravans or motor homes. Removing camp_site tags because the site does 
not suit one particular style of camping is not appropriate.


Adding tent=no might be the solution you are looking for.

David



On 19/04/17 11:57, Warin wrote:

On 19-Apr-17 11:10 AM, David Bannon wrote:

Warin, I am not sure I agree.

There are a number of what are officially Rest Areas that are set up, 
used and officially blessed as camp sites. Now the term "Camp Site" 
might mean different things to different people. To people with a 
caravan or motor home, and there are a lot of them, a camp site is 
somewhere to camp with their caravan or motor home.


These should be tagged as both a rest area and a 'caravan site'.
I have used 'rest areas' for camping .. even where I was not certain 
of the official over night use, when the need arises.
Usually I try to pick my overnight spots .. sometimes things change 
and I have to take what I can get.




I'm sorry (for you) that so many of them are not suitable for a tent 
but the truth is there is a big demand from caravan (camper, motor 
home etc) users and an inability to distinguish between sites that 
make good camp sites and ones that don't would be a problem.


Err OSM does distinguish between camp/tent site and caravan site .. 
even the usually render has different symbols for them.

tourism=camp_site
tourism= caravan_site

Most if not all Australian sites cater for both.  Free sites may only 
cater for one type though.
Where a site is unsuitable for tents .. then it should clearly be 
tagged as a caravan site. And vice versa.




IMHO, we are talking about "camp sites" as somewhere you camp, if it 
is unsuitable for a tent in your opinion, then a tag saying just that 
may be appropriate. Importantly, you would be allowed erect a tent, 
even if you would be uncomfortable doing so.


Some 'rest areas' do not officially allow over night stays. Some have 
no area suitable for driving in tent pegs.




Worth noting that the division between a tent and a caravan is 
possibly vague, while the majority of campers on the road (excluding 
xmas and easter time) are in recognizably caravans, there are various 
"campers" that involve canvas, some where that canvas hits the 
ground, at what point does that become a tent ?


Caravans like a 'hard standing'.
Tent people like soft ground .. easier to drive in tent pegs as well 
as a softer surface.
An area that gets used by caravans gets the soil compressed to such a 
degree that it becomes very difficult to drive in tent pegs .. 
sometimes I feel I should be carrying a drill to make a hole first. :)


I have re-tagged this one ..
Node: Sutton Park Rest Area (1811197082)
as there should be no overnight here ...
https://www.caravancaravan.com.au/entity/sutton-park-rest-area/nsw

It does look suitable for both tents and caravans. But officially no. 
See how that goes?


I do think these things probably predate the rest area tagging and 
probably the caravan tagging too.
Changing them to rest area tagging is, I think, more appropriate as 
that is what they are officially.
Some have water, toilets .. those can be additional tags as can the 
caravan/camping information.





On 19/04/17 08:54, Warin wrote:

Hi,


I have seen a few roadside 'rest areas' tagged in OSM as camp sites.

At least some of these are not suitable for pitching a tent .. so 
they are not camp sites.


At best they could be used by a caravan/RV ... but not a tent user 
(I am a tent user).


If the intention was to indicate there use by caravan/RV then they 
should be tagged as 'tourism=caravan_site'.



There now exists a tag 'highway=rest_area'. 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Drest_area



I think the tag 'highway=rest_area' should replace those 'rest 
areas' now tagged as 'camp sites', this would be closer to the truth.



Thoughts?


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



__

Re: [talk-au] Roadside rest areas tagged as camp sites

[David Bannon]

Warin, I am not sure I agree.

There are a number of what are officially Rest Areas that are set up, 
used and officially blessed as camp sites. Now the term "Camp Site" 
might mean different things to different people. To people with a 
caravan or motor home, and there are a lot of them, a camp site is 
somewhere to camp with their caravan or motor home.


I'm sorry (for you) that so many of them are not suitable for a tent but 
the truth is there is a big demand from caravan (camper, motor home etc) 
users and an inability to distinguish between sites that make good camp 
sites and ones that don't would be a problem.


IMHO, we are talking about "camp sites" as somewhere you camp, if it is 
unsuitable for a tent in your opinion, then a tag saying just that may 
be appropriate. Importantly, you would be allowed erect a tent, even if 
you would be uncomfortable doing so.


Worth noting that the division between a tent and a caravan is possibly 
vague, while the majority of campers on the road (excluding xmas and 
easter time) are in recognizably caravans, there are various "campers" 
that involve canvas, some where that canvas hits the ground, at what 
point does that become a tent ?


David


On 19/04/17 08:54, Warin wrote:

Hi,


I have seen a few roadside 'rest areas' tagged in OSM as camp sites.

At least some of these are not suitable for pitching a tent .. so they 
are not camp sites.


At best they could be used by a caravan/RV ... but not a tent user (I 
am a tent user).


If the intention was to indicate there use by caravan/RV then they 
should be tagged as 'tourism=caravan_site'.



There now exists a tag 'highway=rest_area'. 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Drest_area



I think the tag 'highway=rest_area' should replace those 'rest areas' 
now tagged as 'camp sites', this would be closer to the truth.



Thoughts?


___
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] When is a Road a Track

[David Bannon]

Do you mean without seeing them yourself Warren ?  I personally think 
that you should only correct another mapper's work if you have 
personally seen something that needs correction. I am sure there are 
some exceptions. But here, in particular, you seem to have "negative" 
information.


Its also worth remembering that highway= indicates the purpose of the 
road or track, a number of other tags indicate its condition. In theory 


David


On 10/02/17 10:51, Warren wrote:

I have asked this question before but did not really get a clear answer.

I am working off the Western Australian Main Roads data checking 
against the OSM road attributes.  Occasionally I come across lines 
that are classed in OSM as highway:unclassified or highway:residential 
that do not appear on the Main Roads data base.


I would argue that these are named tracks rather than roads but I 
wanted to check others opinion.


Do I leave them alone or change the classification to highway:track?


___
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] From the Australian Wiki page possible simplification of comments on the access tag

[David Bannon]

Hmm, yes Warin, I agree, I don't really understand what that para is 
trying to tell me.

Your alternative seems reasonable. Shorter, clearer.

David

On 03/07/16 08:33, Warin wrote:

Hi,

On the Australian tagging guidelines wiki page there are various 
comments on the use of the access tag. 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Access_roads_on_public_land 




The present content is, to say the least, confusing and may give the 
wrong impression.


For example most access roads in National Parks that are restricted in 
some way for access have signs on them .. surely these are clear 
enough to add the correct access tag? A sign saying "Authorised 
Vehicles Only" would be tagged access=private? And that can simply be 
stated?




___
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

[David Bannon]

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


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


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

Re: [talk-au] camp sites

[David Bannon]

On Sun, 2015-05-03 at 17:43 +1000, Ian Sergeant wrote:
 
 
 Is there supposed to be a subjective step that I'm missing?  That is
 you look at all the amenity, and make a judgement call on the
 category?
 
Do you mean when using the proposed camp_site= tag Ian ?  No, no scope
or need for subjective here. I personally get a bit annoyed when OSmers
use subjective like its a swear word but here, no need for it.

The steps nominated represent a reasonably consistent progression. And
very simple tests to see what level we are talking about.

It could be compared to using highway=. I'd be pretty surprised if you
have not used that at some stage. But in fact, the interface to
camp_site= is heaps cleaner than to highway= !  Whats the basic
difference between residential and unclassified, how many houses
along the side of a primary road need be there ? And if we tag =track,
suddenly different rendering rules seem to apply. 

Truth is, we like to classify things, places and people into groups, it
is how we handle the complexity of the world, we do it unconsciously and
often blur the edges. But we need to do it !

David 
 
 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] camp sites

[David Bannon]

On Sun, 2015-05-03 at 08:41 +1000, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
 I have an ideological objection to introducing key values that
 represent composite keys (e.g. serviced === standard + shower +

Yes Waldo, I do understand this point. But conversely, its useful to
look closely at the problem from a map user's point of view. We
identified, in a few emails, twenty plus characteristics of camp sites
that would interest people. There are undoubtedly a lot more !

No possible, in any readable way, to render something like this. Either
all the icons appear on top of each other or, most are discarded. And
imagine just how many columns need be added to the render database. Not
going to happen.

But, speaking to campers around the world, it emerged that the scheme on
the proposal adequately described a large percentage of camp sites AND a
large percentage of end users needs. Its how campers describe sites
amongst themselves. The assumption being the 'other' things probably
come along at the appropriate level.

So this proposal is about providing information to the end user (of
typically a map). Its not mapping for the renderer but is about mapping
in such a way that the data is usable. 

And no reason to assume using this tag will discourage tagging of the
individual features. Indeed, in typical usage, once a user identifies a
likely camp site, they will drill down in some way and look at the
details.

Your concern seems to be about feature creep, I really cannot
guarantee that won't happen but assure you the designers don't plan any
such behaviour at this stage. Quite the converse. 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site

David

  power). Over time, the definition of such values becomes more and
 more convoluted (e.g. how do I tag a campsite that is standard +
 shower? Introduce another bloody campsite=* value, of course!). This
 also introduces unnecessary complexity that makes the data harder to
 use (e.g. an app that allows search for showers suddenly needs to know
 about the definition of campsite=serviced).
 
 
 I've made this point several times over the last several years, but
 either I haven't made it effectively, or I'm wrong.
 
 On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 3:39 PM, David Bannon
 dban...@internode.on.net wrote:
 On Sat, 2015-05-02 at 14:36 +1000, Ian Sergeant wrote:
  Hi,
 
  My only observation would be that in Australia toilets and
 no water
  seems a very common combination at camp grounds.  You know
 the kind of
  campground I'm talking about, with either drop toilets or
 unpotable
  water.
 
 Thanks Ian. The 'standard' level has water, not necessarily
 potable or
 drinking water. So much of your use case is covered.
 
 Some effort was put in to minimise the number of steps. Too
 many and the
 idea would be unwieldy. So that call had to be made.
 
 I reckon at least 95% of camps with a toilet also had water,
 probably
 better. So we are playing the odds !
 
 Please consider voting !
 
 david
 
 
 
 
 
 ___
 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] camp sites

[David Bannon]

Hi Folks, as some of you are possibly not subscribed to the tagging
mailing list, thought I'd point out a proposal under way.

Its about a rough classification of camp sites in an ordered way. With
the intention of making them a bit easier to render or search for.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site

Note we use camp site as being the larger area that we, in Oz, would
call a camp ground. And what we would call camp site, where one tent
or caravan would be set up, is a pitch. They are UK terms, that's OSM
policy.

But camping is Australia so please consider voting folks. The discussion
has driven home to me just how lucky we are in this country in this
respect at least !

David




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

Re: [talk-au] camp sites

[David Bannon]

On Sat, 2015-05-02 at 14:36 +1000, Ian Sergeant wrote:
 Hi,
 
 My only observation would be that in Australia toilets and no water
 seems a very common combination at camp grounds.  You know the kind of
 campground I'm talking about, with either drop toilets or unpotable
 water.
 
Thanks Ian. The 'standard' level has water, not necessarily potable or
drinking water. So much of your use case is covered.

Some effort was put in to minimise the number of steps. Too many and the
idea would be unwieldy. So that call had to be made.

I reckon at least 95% of camps with a toilet also had water, probably
better. So we are playing the odds !

Please consider voting !

david
 




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

Re: [talk-au] street addressing city or suburb?

[David Bannon]

Nicholas, generally, when addressing an envelope for example, we'd say -

somestreet,
Coorparoo, 
Queensland, postcode

We'd reserve the use of Brisbane to an address in the CBD itself. Or
so I think...

Apply the same principle here do you think ?

David

On Mon, 2014-10-13 at 23:09 +, Nicholas G Lawrence wrote:
 Hi all,
 
  
 
 What is the convention for tagging an address for a residential
 property in a suburb (Coorparoo) in a city (Brisbane)?
 
  
 
 addr:city = “Brisbane”
 
  
 
 Or
 
  
 
 addr:city = “Coorparoo”
 
  
 
 Or
 
  
 
 addr:suburb = “Coorparoo”
 
  
 
 Which is best for navigation and routing?
 
  
 
 Cheers
 
 Nick Lawrence
 Senior Spatial Science Officer (Geospatial Technologies)
 Engineering  Technology | Department of Transport and Main Roads
 
  
 
 Floor 19 | 313 Adelaide Street | Brisbane Qld 4000
 GPO Box 1412 | Brisbane Qld 4001
 P:(07) 30667977
 E: nicholas.g.lawre...@tmr.qld.gov.au
 W: www.tmr.qld.gov.au
 
  
 
 
 ***
 WARNING: This email (including any attachments) may contain legally
 privileged, confidential or private information and may be protected
 by
 copyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it was
 intended to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way. No one
 is allowed to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose, distribute,
 print
 or copy this email without appropriate authority.
 
 If this email was not intended for you and was sent to you by mistake,
 please telephone or email me immediately, destroy any hardcopies of
 this email and delete it and any copies of it from your computer
 system. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, and 
 any legal privilege and confidentiality attached to this email is not
 waived or destroyed by that mistake.
 
 
 It is your responsibility to ensure that this email does not contain 
 and is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interference by 
 third parties or replication problems (including incompatibility with
 your computer system).
 
 Opinions contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the
 opinions of the Department of Transport and Main Roads,
 or endorsed organisations utilising the same infrastructure.
 ***
 
  
 
 ___
 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] street addressing city or suburb?

[David Bannon]

As far as routing engines go, my guess is City=Town=Suburb, they would
dump them all into one box and sort.

But I confess I don't see them as interchangeable in other contexts.
Difficult question Nicholas !

David


On Mon, 2014-10-13 at 23:54 +, Nicholas G Lawrence wrote:
 When I use the in-browser editor iD, and create a building outline to tag, it 
 offers up addr:city as a tag, but not addr:suburb
 
 Of course, I can add a new tag addr:suburb easily enough, but it is a couple 
 more steps.
 
 So the path of least resistance is to populate the tag addr:city and leave 
 blank addr:suburb
 
 Personally, I am leaning towards addr:city = Coorparoo as it fits the 
 convention of addressing letters as you point out.
 
 But I'd like to adhere to the established convention in Australia.
 
 Cheers,
 Nick
 
 -Original Message-
 From: David Bannon [mailto:dban...@internode.on.net] 
 Sent: Tuesday, 14 October 2014 9:21 AM
 To: Nicholas G Lawrence
 Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [talk-au] street addressing city or suburb?
 
 
 Nicholas, generally, when addressing an envelope for example, we'd say -
 
 somestreet,
 Coorparoo,
 Queensland, postcode
 
 We'd reserve the use of Brisbane to an address in the CBD itself. Or so I 
 think...
 
 Apply the same principle here do you think ?
 
 David
 
 On Mon, 2014-10-13 at 23:09 +, Nicholas G Lawrence wrote:
  Hi all,
  
   
  
  What is the convention for tagging an address for a residential 
  property in a suburb (Coorparoo) in a city (Brisbane)?
  
   
  
  addr:city = “Brisbane”
  
   
  
  Or
  
   
  
  addr:city = “Coorparoo”
  
   
  
  Or
  
   
  
  addr:suburb = “Coorparoo”
  
   
  
  Which is best for navigation and routing?
  
   
  
  Cheers
  
  Nick Lawrence
  Senior Spatial Science Officer (Geospatial Technologies) Engineering  
  Technology | Department of Transport and Main Roads
  
   
  
  Floor 19 | 313 Adelaide Street | Brisbane Qld 4000 GPO Box 1412 | 
  Brisbane Qld 4001
  P:(07) 30667977
  E: nicholas.g.lawre...@tmr.qld.gov.au
  W: www.tmr.qld.gov.au
  
   
  
  
  **
  *
  WARNING: This email (including any attachments) may contain legally 
  privileged, confidential or private information and may be protected 
  by copyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it was 
  intended to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way. No one 
  is allowed to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose, distribute, 
  print or copy this email without appropriate authority.
  
  If this email was not intended for you and was sent to you by mistake, 
  please telephone or email me immediately, destroy any hardcopies of 
  this email and delete it and any copies of it from your computer 
  system. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, and 
  any legal privilege and confidentiality attached to this email is not 
  waived or destroyed by that mistake.
  
  
  It is your responsibility to ensure that this email does not contain 
  and is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interference by 
  third parties or replication problems (including incompatibility with 
  your computer system).
  
  Opinions contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the 
  opinions of the Department of Transport and Main Roads, or endorsed 
  organisations utilising the same infrastructure.
  **
  *
  
   
  
  ___
  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] New key proposal - paved=yes/no

[David Bannon]

Interesting proposal on the OSM Tagging list. Oz would have a
unpaved/paved ratio as higher that most countries, we should have an
opinion on this.

So far, reaction has been mixed, some (including myself) welcoming it
and some seeing it as a duplicate of surface=

Comments folks ?

David

On Sat, 2014-09-20 at 23:42 +0200, Tomasz Kaźmierczak wrote:
 Hello all,
 
 I've posted the below message on the forum, and have been directed
 from there to this mailing list, thus re-posting it.
 
 Idea
 
 I would like to suggest making the paved key for highways (and
 probably other types of elements) official. Taginfo for paved:
 http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/paved#values
 
 The above shows that the key is already being used, but the Wiki
 doesn't describe this key, instead redirecting Key:paved to the
 article about Key:surface.
 
 Rationale
 
 Currently, the surface key is being used as a way of saying that a
 given highway is paved or unpaved, but often the value for the surface
 key is not a generic paved or unpaved, but a specific surface type is
 given.This is of course very useful for describing the particular
 surface type a given highway has. However, in some cases, a simple
 information on just whether a highway is paved or not, would be very
 useful. One such case would be navigation software – if a user chooses
 to avoid unpaved roads, the software can check the value of the
 surface key, but in practice most (all?) of the navigation software
 only checks for a subset of all the possible values the surface key
 can have. This leads to incorrect (in terms of what the user expects)
 navigation when, for example, the surface is set to some value that
 describes an unpaved road, not recognized by the navigation software –
 if the software assumes that all highways are paved, unless explicitly
 stated otherwise (by recognized values of known keys), then, in
 consequence, it assumes that the road in question is paved.
 
 If the paved key was widely used, then the navigation software would
 have a simple and clear way of checking whether a given road is paved
 or not. The default value of the paved key for highways could be yes,
 so that it would be consistent with the assumption that highways in
 general are paved.
 
 I don't mean that we should stop using the paved and unpaved values
 for the surface key – I'm sure those generic values are useful in some
 cases. However, using the paved key would be also very useful. Also,
 the surface=paved could also implicate paved=yes and similarly
 surface=unpaved could implicate paved=no, so that duplication of the
 information could be avoided when the generic paved and unpaved values
 are set for the surface key.
 
 I believe that adding an article for the paved key to the Wiki would
 encourage people to use this tag, and navigation software makers to
 implement support for it in their applications.
 
 What do you think about that? 
 
  
 
 Regards,
 
 Tomek
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 tagg...@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



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

Re: [talk-au] Vicmap data copying

[David Bannon]

On Sat, 2014-05-17 at 22:12 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote:
 Hi David,
   The policy shift you're advocating is enormous..

No, no Steve, I worded my last letter really badly and totally apologise
if I unintentionally offended anyone. My comment related specifically to
your line -

 Yeah. I'm still deciding what to do about places where Vicmap shows a
 track in the bush that can't be seen on any imagery - probably because
 the vegetation is too dense.

I meant leave the 'grey' areas to the survey people. There are many
roads (and particularly tracks) that cannot been seen clearly on the
imagery, and many more where some parts cannot be seen. I'd rather the
people working with imagery or other non (recent) survey data such as
Vic Maps did not make educated guesses but go and have a look, or ask
some else to go and have a look. 

I have had a road (into a new estate) removed, apparently because it did
not show up on Bing. Very annoying to a new owner there who was
directing tradies via OSM ! But that in no way means I don't value the
armchair mappers contribution. I'd just like them to double check their
data, one way or another before committing.

Maybe what we need is some sort of register ? The people studying
imagery are good at picking up anomalies, differences between image and
map. They could log it and have some local go and check ? Better than
just jumping in.

You may be amused to know that some years ago, I was shocked to discover
I had apparently built my house in the middle of the Bendigo Region
National Park. I was waiting to get a letter telling me to move it when
I realised someone had just followed the tree line, assuming all was
national park. They had swept up the Park it self, the Welsford State
Forest, Sugarloaf Conservation Park and a large number of private
properties. A very quick check would have prevented that error.

I am pretty sure all we want is for the database to have accurate,
relevant data. 

David


On Sat, 2014-05-17 at 22:12 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote:
 On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 8:31 AM, David Bannon
 dban...@internode.on.net wrote:
 Guys, can I respectfully suggest that source=survey ? Vicmaps
 (and
 
 others) sometimes show roads that have been closed, land sold
 off etc.
 Those roads will show up in imagery because the car tracks
 last a long
 time on the ground. Further, visiting the site can clarify the
 state and
 status of a road. Road names on published maps are sometimes
 wrong, lets
 not propagate those errors !
 
 Lets restrict mapping via imagery to those situations where
 survey is
 not possible.
 
 
 
 Hi David,
   The policy shift you're advocating is enormous. You're proposing
 that virtually all armchair mapping cease, that the rate of OSM
 mapping be reduced by 100x, and that many contributors essentially
 stop mapping.
 
 
 Naturally, I oppose this suggestion :)
 
 
 You seem to be falling into the trap of assuming there is some kind of
 aerial imagery vs survey choice. Obviously the best thing for OSM is
 both. 
 
 
 Advantages of aerial mapping:
 - many times faster
 - more accurate than GPS traces in some/many/most cases
 - contribution from people for whom site surveys are not
 practical/possible/desirable
 - quickly do the groundwork so a site survey is more efficient and
 focuses on relevant details
 
 
 Advantages of site surveys:
 - get details that can't be obtained from the air
 - GPS traces more accurate than aerial mapping in some/many/most cases
 - fun (for some people)
 
 
 Me, I do a lot of aerial mapping. When I'm out and about I try to use
 what I've seen to update OSM. But I don't travel hundreds of
 kilometres out of my way just to do a bit of site surveying.
 
 
 In summary: let the aerial mappers keep doing their thing, let the
 ground surveyors do their thing, and let's work together for the good
 of the project.
 
 
 Steve



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

Re: [talk-au] Vicmap data copying

[David Bannon]

On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 18:02 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote:
 On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Nick Hocking
 nick.hock...@gmail.com 

 (sensible statements about house numbers)

 I definitely think that road names must NOT be imported but
 added individually, where current osm data and bing imagery
 indicate that there really is a road (currently OSM unamed)
 there.
 Yeah. I'm still deciding what to do about places where Vicmap shows a
 track in the bush that can't be seen on any imagery - probably because
 the vegetation is too dense.
 
Guys, can I respectfully suggest that source=survey ? Vicmaps (and
others) sometimes show roads that have been closed, land sold off etc.
Those roads will show up in imagery because the car tracks last a long
time on the ground. Further, visiting the site can clarify the state and
status of a road. Road names on published maps are sometimes wrong, lets
not propagate those errors !

Lets restrict mapping via imagery to those situations where survey is
not possible.

David


 Steve 
 
 
 ___
 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] AU openstreetmapS.com domain squatter

[David Bannon]

Grant, are you suggesting the domain is being held in a cyber squatting
mode ? That Michael is holding it with the intention of making a profit
from it ?

David

On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 15:21 +, Grant Slater wrote:
 Hi OSM Australia,
 
 Anyone up for this?
 
 The openstreetmapS.com domain is being held by Michael Gilmour of
 parklogic.com for sale. He is based in Camberwell, Victoria,
 Australia.
 
 The domain was originally registered on behalf of OpenStreetMap in
 2007 but was accidentally not renewed.
 
 Would any Australian OpenStreetMap member be willing to give him a
 ring and discuss the project and transferring the domain back to the
 project?
 
 OpenStreetMap Foundation does have a trademark on the 'OpenStreetMap'
 name to protect against such instances, but I'd prefer to try other
 remedies before legal action.
 
 Kind regards,
  Grant
  Part of OpenStreetMap sysadmin team
 
 ___
 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] Murchison - Square Kilometer Telescope not showing on Garmin maps

[David Bannon]

Yep, as Jason says, its all there under -

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Observatory

Looks to me like Bass drove it initially but just lost steam. Don't
blame him, I did the same when I wanted to get a better definition of
4x4 tracks. 

However, the SquareKilometer is just about the biggest bit of science
around these days, even the slightly dumbed down version happening in
Oz. So, maybe we should take the lead and try and get the Observatory
tag up for a vote ?  There would be easily enough people on this mailing
list to carry it.

Alternatively, just observe the suggested tagging. Sigh

Warin, you do realise that getting the tag successfully voted on does
not mean it will suddenly appear on maps all over the place, don't you ?

Thats a whole different process. Having a tag voted gives you a bit of
moral high ground, thats all.

David

 

On Tue, 2013-12-31 at 13:10 +1000, Jason Ward wrote:
 The proposed observatory schema seems to have stalled but looking
 through the discussion on it there was consensus from the group that
 is ready enough to put to a vote (which is where it seems to have
 stopped progress). 
 
 Maybe take a look through there and pick up that proposal if you have
 the means to do so. 
 
 Cheers, 
 
 
 Jason
 
 On 31 Dec 2013 13:06, John Henderson snow...@gmx.com wrote:
 On 31/12/13 11:17, Warin wrote:
 
 Any other thoughts?
 
 Use mkgmap to make your own Garmin maps.  Edit the mkgmap
 points file
 and add an entry for radio telescope.  Eg:
 
 man_made=radio_telescope [0x6411 resolution 21]
 
 John
 
 
 ___
 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] Geoscience NATMAP 250K Topo Maps

[David Bannon]

On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 19:13 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
 Just a heads up that GA have a tile service for their NATMAP 250K Topo
Maps.
 

Thanks Andrew, I thought the list might be interested in a few comments
about this service.

Firstly, really cool that they are doing it !

Putting aside the licensing issue, I am not sure how useful the data is
wrt populating OSM. Its all pretty dated, I spotted a number of age
related errors in just the areas I am familiar with. So, I'd suggest
that armchair mappers could not use it to to update roads, park
boundaries and things like that. 

On the other hand, it might be useful (licence permitting !) when
working on geographical features that don't change much and are
difficult to survey. Creek and river beds come to mind.

Lee was interested in historical location names from memory...

My interest was seeing those maps in FoxtrotGPS, while Foxtrot cannot
handle the Z/Y/X map structure, its pretty easy to sneak under it and
pull the maps down into its cache, renaming as you go.

I found that zoom level 12 appears to be the only really useful set. The
other levels are just an expansion or contraction of the level 12
images. Level 10 might just be usful as a key map, its sort of
recognisable.

I pulled down all of Victoria at level 12 and level 10 and it took up
about 180M.  Certainly a useful alternative to OSM and Google maps.

David


On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 19:13 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
 Just a heads up that GA have a tile service for their NATMAP 250K Topo Maps.
 
 So if you add this to JOSM/etc you can use this as a base layer to
 derive information from.
 
 http://www.ga.gov.au/gisimg/rest/services/topography/NATMAP_Digital_Maps_250K_2008Ed
ition_WM/MapServer/tile/{zoom}/{y}/{x}
 
 The map is CC BY 3.0 AU as per
 http://www.ga.gov.au/topographic-mapping/digital-topographic-maps/using-attributing-products.html
 
 However as per the contributor terms I don't believe OSM allows one to
 derive information from CC BY works and include this in OSM
 (https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/624/can-i-use-or-trace-from-cc-by-data-under-the-new-contributor-terms
 but) and attach the attribution to the feature as per the usual
 methods, unless you requst some kind of special license above and
 beyond what GA already grant via the CC license.
 
 ___
 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] Geoscience NATMAP 250K Topo Maps

[David Bannon]

On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 10:32 +1100, mick wrote:

 To gain some confidence in what I've collected I plan to drive as many roads 
 in my area of interest (Glen Innes, NSW) several times with my two GPS units 
 recording and find an acceptable level of coincidence before I add anything 
 to OSM.

Mick, your GPS should give you some 'quality' measure along with its
positional information. Look in the XMl, you will see it under HDOP.

The basic GPS system (end to end) could deliver answers within 5 to 6
metres. But there are also 'geometry issues associated with aerial and
satelite position that multiplies that error.

HDOP is a measure of this geometry problem and you multiply it by the by
the systems intrinsic errors. At a hdop of 10 and a satellite / receiver
intrinsic error of, say, 6 meters, we have an uncertainty of 60 meters.
Thats getting a bit high for most use.

In some scripts distributed with FoxtrotGPS to clean up tracks for OSM,
I set an HDOP limit of 8, points greater than that are rejected. You
could, perhaps, apply the same rule to your data. Re-drive the ones that
have too many data points greater than 8 HDOP.

Now, I have greatly simplified the subject, you can be almost certain
someone with a lot more knowledge of DOP and GPS accuracy will clarify
it for us ! That would be a good thing !

david

 Mick aka 'sparrowhawk'
 
 ___
 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] Geoscience NATMAP 250K Topo Maps

[David Bannon]

On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 18:30 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
 
 but I don't see the benifit in hosting them when GA already do a
 pretty good job at this. If your application doesn't support z/y/x
 then patch it, and if you can't it would be much simpler to just proxy
 the GA tile server to give a z/x/y endpoint.

In the case of FoxtrotGPS, I'll prepopulate its cache with the GA files,
transforming from z/y/x to z/x/y in the process. FoxtrotGPS always
checks it's cache before looking to download. Not hard.

FoxtrotGPS only looks for .png files but if it finds JPEG files with
a .png extension, its quite happy :-)

David





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

Re: [talk-au] Geoscience NATMAP 250K Topo Maps

[David Bannon]

Ah, thats good news Paul. Back when I was using it (the ECW library or
SDK) you got the C code under a restrictive license (fair enough) from
ER Mapper. But they withdrew that and said it would be re-released as a
Windows only precompiled module. No use to Linux user

All a long time ago, glad the situation has improved.

David


On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 15:36 -0800, Paul Norman wrote:
  From: David Bannon [mailto:dban...@internode.on.net]
  Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 2:13 PM
  Subject: Re: [talk-au] Geoscience NATMAP 250K Topo Maps
  
  Then the license holder withdrew the ecw plugin for GDAL...
 
 There's still an ECW plugin for GDAL. It requires the third-party
 SDK and you'll have to compile gdal yourself, which is annoying. Creating
 ECW files is what takes purchasing a license. If there's ECW files
 where it would be beneficial to host them, I could do or someone else 
 could.
 
 We'd have to get confirmation that data source was happy with attribution 
 in accordance with ODbL sections 4.2 and 4.3 which are keep intact any 
 copyright or Database Right notices or a notice associated with the 
 Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, 
 accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work 
 aware that Content was obtained from the [the datasource]
 



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

Re: [talk-au] Geoscience NATMAP 250K Topo Maps

[David Bannon]

Interesting Andrew. Do you know much about this service ?

I have been trying to display it in FoxtrotGPS which normally uses OSM
or Google tiles. But I find two puzzling things -

1. While I request png files I seem to get JPEG

2. Their Y and X number system seems to be miles away from where I'd
expect it to be. I need to browse to somewhere in Antarctica, south of
Africa before I could get any (Aussie) tiles back.  I used to understand
the numbering system, sigh, better get my old notes out..

Anyway, Foxtrot is quite confused, does display tiles but somehow in the
wrong order, interesting !

David

David 

On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 19:13 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
 Just a heads up that GA have a tile service for their NATMAP 250K Topo Maps.
 
 So if you add this to JOSM/etc you can use this as a base layer to
 derive information from.
 
 http://www.ga.gov.au/gisimg/rest/services/topography/NATMAP_Digital_Maps_250K_2008Ed
ition_WM/MapServer/tile/{zoom}/{y}/{x}
 
 The map is CC BY 3.0 AU as per
 http://www.ga.gov.au/topographic-mapping/digital-topographic-maps/using-attributing-products.html
 
 However as per the contributor terms I don't believe OSM allows one to
 derive information from CC BY works and include this in OSM
 (https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/624/can-i-use-or-trace-from-cc-by-data-under-the-new-contributor-terms
 but) and attach the attribution to the feature as per the usual
 methods, unless you requst some kind of special license above and
 beyond what GA already grant via the CC license.
 
 ___
 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] Geoscience NATMAP 250K Topo Maps

[David Bannon]

Ah, z/y/x ? that makes sense. FoxtrotGPS does not do z/y/x.  Just what
I'd expect from GA, worked with them indirectly some time ago. Another
life.

I also played with pulling png tiles out of the GA ECW maps but gave up
dealing with their website, they made endless changes that broke firefox
each time. Got sick of explaining to their tech (??) people that I found
it difficult to run Internet Explorer under linux. (So even then they
were not keen on open standards !)

Then the license holder withdrew the ecw plugin for GDAL...

Anyway, this new GA tile server still sounds cool, will have to look
into what can be done.

Thanks for your help.

David


On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 22:20 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
 On 13 November 2013 22:01, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote:
  Interesting Andrew. Do you know much about this service ?
 
 I know that they also publish the original ECW files, which I
 originally converted to JPEG and hosted on my own server as a service
 which converted these into web map tiles, until I found that GA
 already have such a service!
 
 GA are using ArcGIS Server to serve the tiles, but they do conform to
 the same specification as OSM tiles.
 
  1. While I request png files I seem to get JPEG
 
 I don't think they serve PNG files, only JPEG.
 
  2. Their Y and X number system seems to be miles away from where I'd
  expect it to be. I need to browse to somewhere in Antarctica, south of
  Africa before I could get any (Aussie) tiles back.  I used to understand
  the numbering system, sigh, better get my old notes out..
 
  Anyway, Foxtrot is quite confused, does display tiles but somehow in the
  wrong order, interesting !
 
 Make sure you are using z/y/x and NOT z/x/y (so it is different to OSM
 tiles) otherwise it will look like one of those puzzles.



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

Re: [talk-au] loading JOSM

[David Bannon]

Arthur, the HeadlessException might relate to a situation where Java
cannot use you X env correctly. I guess you are not using in a situation
where you are (eg) SSH-ing into the machine ? If so, need to add -X or
-Y to tell it to send its xwindow back to you. And, of course have a
good X server running locally.

Can you start other Java GUI things ?

If you have been working hard on that Java installation, quite possible
there are bits of Java scattered around your system, maybe pointing in
the wrong direction ?  

Probably important you check that other Java apps work OK before you
concentrate too much on JOSM.

David

On Sun, 2013-10-27 at 12:27 +1100, Arthur Geeson wrote:
 I have been trying to get JOSM working and it implied that I had a 
 version of java that was too old.  I then spend several hours to get a 
 new version of java and now when I try to run JOSM it just falls over.  
 I am using Ubuntu 12.04 and get the following problems:
 
 arthur@arthur-Aspire-5750G:/usr/lib/jvm/java-7-openjdk-i386/bin$ java 
 -version
 java version 1.7.0_25
 OpenJDK Runtime Environment (IcedTea 2.3.10) (7u25-2.3.10-1ubuntu0.12.04.2)
 OpenJDK Server VM (build 23.7-b01, mixed mode)
 
 arthur@arthur-Aspire-5750G:/$ josm
 Using /usr/lib/jvm/java-7-openjdk-i386/bin/java to execute josm.
 java.awt.HeadlessException
  at 
 java.awt.GraphicsEnvironment.checkHeadless(GraphicsEnvironment.java:207)
  at java.awt.Window.init(Window.java:535)
  at java.awt.Frame.init(Frame.java:420)
  at javax.swing.JFrame.init(JFrame.java:218)
  at 
 org.openstreetmap.josm.gui.MainApplication.main(MainApplication.java:316)
 
 I have tried reloading JOSM and the plugins but it seems there maybe 
 something wrong with java?
 
 Thanks - Arthur (geesona)
 
 ___
 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] Openstreetmap Quality Issues

[David Bannon]

I agree. Armchair mapping is useful for features difficult to survey and 
perhaps appropriate for (eg) roads not yet surveyed but it should never 
be applied to overwrite features already present, features probably 
accuratly mapped already.


The OSM wiki page on Armchair mapping used to make that clear, I have 
not looked at it recently


David

On 19/10/13 12:07, Neil Penman wrote:
I did that after the first revert.  However it didn't help :).  I 
think it important to try to develop a culture that existing map data 
should not be changed unless you know you are improving it.  If the 
map shows a road network that differs from the Satellite in a way that 
may be due to design then either you should contact the previous 
mapper before changing it or you should get on your bike and head out 
to the site to verify that the satellite imagery is in fact correct.



On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 11:58 AM, John Henderson snow...@gmx.com 
mailto:snow...@gmx.com wrote:


On 19/10/13 11:20, Neil Penman wrote:

Unfortunately the culture seems to have become that any accurate
local mapping should be replaced with unthinking tracing over
the top
of obsolete satellite imagery.


I find that it sometimes helps to add an appropriately-worded note to
the nodes or ways in question:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:note

John


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




--

Smap Consulting http://smap.com.au/| Mobile Data Collection Solutions
Application Developer - neilpen...@gmail.com 
mailto:minqiang.hu...@gmail.com

Twitter: @dgmsot
Skype: ianaf4you
Phone: +61 402 975 959
Blog: http://blog.smap.com.au http://smap.com.au/blog


___
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] Park benches

[David Bannon]

Arthur, not every item we enter into the OSM database gets rendered on 
the default map on the OSM website. The maintainers of the map have 
chosen what they think should appear and how it appears.


Other maps will display a quite different set. Or you can build your own 
maps and choose what you want to appear on it.


David

On 17/10/13 10:01, Arthur Geeson wrote:

Hi,

I have been mapping Geelong for the last month and have been trying to 
put some seats and tourism artworks around Rippleside Park but for 
some unknown reason they fail to appear on the map. Other items such 
as the war memorial and shelters arrived with no problems. Does anyone 
know a reason for this?


Thanks - Arthur (geesona)

___
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] surface=unsealed in 4wd/dirt road tagging

[David Bannon]

On 03/07/13 08:52, Steve Bennett wrote:
FYI, the map style I'm working on for cycle touring does make this 
distinction: http://emscycletours.site44.com/map2.html#egrt 

Nice work !

You might be right - but on a technical front, it's no more burdensome 
to show all of [unsealed, unpaved, gravel, dirt] as a dashed line 
rather than just, say, unpaved. Steve 
Are you rendering that with Mapnik ? I planned to do something similar 
to show the Guardians of the Slippery Map how cool it was but found it 
non trivial and have not had time to get back to it.


David

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

Re: [talk-au] surface=unsealed in 4wd/dirt road tagging

[David Bannon]

Ian, at the time, someone, I am not sure who, preferred 'unsealed'
arguing that unpaved did not mean the same thing. Roads can be sealed in
ways that do not really mean paved.

Personally, I did not care, being more interested in getting it
documented so we all used the same tag. However, now, looking at the
numbers, I have to say that 'unpaved' would be seriously preferable !

So, my vote, change it.

David


On Sat, 2013-06-29 at 11:18 +1000, Ian Sergeant wrote:
 Hi,
 
 I know we had some discussion over 4wd/dirt road tagging.
 
 This ended up in the wiki as a recommendation to use
 
 surface=unsealed
 
 http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/surface=unsealed
 
 
 I really can't see a significant reason here not to stick with
 
 surface=unpaved
 
 http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/surface=unpaved
 
 
 When it is so much more likely to used, and therefore so much more
 likely to be rendered, navigated, etc.  There are the other surface=*
 tags that can be used if more specific information is available, but
 surface=unsealed is obscure to no benefit IMO.
 
 
 
 If there are no objections, I'll update the wiki.
 
 
 Thanks,
 Ian.
 
 ___
 Talk-au mailing list
 Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



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

Re: [talk-au] Electric grid - how to tag

[David Bannon]

Mark, 99% of the times electrification=yes is used, it has railway= 
there as well. Can we assume any rendering would look for the railway= 
tag first ?  I mean to say that no one 'should' assume electrification= 
applies only to railways ?


So,
barrier=cattle_grid
electrification=yes

would seem good to me.

By the way, never seen a grid like you describe, it goes across the road 
? And you drive over it ?


david

On 29/06/13 10:20, Mark Pulley wrote:
I'm tagging an 'electric grid' on the way into Finke Gorge National 
Park (Northern Territory). It has the same function as a normal grid, 
but rather than being made of metal bars, it has several electrified 
wires (same wires as used in electric fences), placed across the 
track, raised a couple of centimetres above the track by insulating 
material on both sides of the track.


I was thinking:

barrier=cattle_grid
electric=yes

Any suggestions for alternate tags? There is a tag electrified=yes, 
but on the wiki this is used to mark electrified railways.



Mark P.




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


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

Re: [talk-au] park vs nature reserve

[David Bannon]

Andrew, I don't think the current definitions in OSM provide well for
the range of 'parks' you will encounter. I think its probably best to
try and at least define the borders between various sections, even if
you end up labeling them all with the same.

For example near me there is a section of National Park, State Forest
and State Conservation Reserve, all adjoining. Before the OSM licensing
issues a few years ago, this was all presented as one homogeneous lump,
clearly wrong. Better to get the areas mapped and if later, better tags
come into use, easy to update.

Tags worth thinking about -

landuse=forest; recreation_ground; conservation (last one unapproved)

leisure=park; nature_reserve; dog_park

boundary=national_park

I don't think the definitions of any of them are very helpful to be
honest. I use boundary=national_park for parks we would clearly identify
as not being a National Park but its the closest we have.

David



On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 15:42 +0800, Andrew Elwell wrote:
 Can someone point me to guidelines for where the .au distinction
 between the two lies?
 
 I'm trying to map piney lakes (see
 http://www.melvillecity.com.au/environment/piney-lakes/copy_of_piney-lakes-bushlands
 ) which has a park-like southern area and a bushlands reserve to the
 north. Do I split the area into two? define some relation?
 
 similarly any advice on the dogs allowed part?
 
 Andrew
 
 ___
 Talk-au mailing list
 Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



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

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap in Government

[David Bannon]

Ah, waldo00, I guess I may have jumped the gun a bit, sorry ! I
initially misread your message as saying subjective tags are a no-no.
Can I paraphrase you ? Use objective tags if possible, then, if
necessary, subjective ones determined by some sound guidelines
documented on the wiki ?

We are marching side by side so far 

However, I don't think we have suitable, sound guidelines on the wiki !

I tried to get some support for extending tracktype= (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Davo ) but not enough people
were interested. I did not consider it a great solution but was one that
would work. Then tried to get some other consensus solution, again, not
enough interest. 

So, its just
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Unsealed_and_4wd_Roads


Sigh 

David


On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 15:47 +1000, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
 David, to me your response seems to be mostly in agreement with what I
 said. On what point, exactly, do you disagree?
 
 
 Do you at least agree that a useful tag is one whose meaning is either
 1) immediately obvious (e.g. like width=*) OR 2) clearly/objectively
 described in the wiki?
 
 
 
 On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:09 PM, David Bannon
 dban...@internode.on.net wrote:
 
 I am not sure I agree with you Waldo.. (???).
 
 Its useful in my opinion when ever storing data (of any
 nature) to think
 about how that data will be used. While we will often find
 other use
 cases later on, addressing the primary one is important.
 
 I think very few users of map data are prepared to, eg,
 install mapnik
 or grep through the downloaded data relating to a particular
 road they
 may consider using. Instead, they want to get a idea of just
 how
 passable a road might be. They are asking a very subject
 question and
 expect a subject answer.
 
 They want to know if its a sealed or not. If not, they will
 ask if its
 suitable for a conventional car, an SUV, a 4wd, a blood and
 guts 4wd.
 Armed with that info, they look at their own car and their
 willingness
 to take risks and/or have some fun.
 
 Thats all very subjective ! My point is, most of that process
 is, of
 necessity, completely subjective, not just the tagging we are
 talking
 about here.
 
 The smoothness= tag
 ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness
 ) tries to address this, but smoothness is quite often not the
 issue and
 the values given to smoothness= are simple horrible (pun
 intended). (I
 suggested, in the past, we should alias something like
 'drivability' to
 'smoothness'). Anyway, smoothness= has all those subjective
 problems,
 its there and usable. If I could get over the idea of calling
 my
 favorite tracks 'horrible', I'd use it !
 
 
 So, at the risk of being called politically incorrect, I think
 we need
 to collect data that can and will be used.
 
 David
 
 
 On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 07:58 +1000, waldo000...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Steve Bennett
 stevag...@gmail.com
  wrote:
 
 
  Sometimes people think that it's better to slice up
  information into
  lots of little objective facts, like (in the case
 of
  mountain bike
  trails), width, surface, grade, etc, rather than a
  subjective fact
  like trail rating. But in practice, it's impractical
 to
  collect that
  much information, and it's impractical to combine it
 back into
  a
  usable form for data consumers, so we lose twice.
 
 
  The important point is that a subjective tag at least needs
 an
  objective definition. See e.g. the pretty good definitions
 on
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Grade. The subjective tag
  tracktype=grade1, according to the definition Paved track
 or
  heavily compacted hardcore could easily be replaced with
 the
  objective tags surface=paved or surface=compacted.
 
 
  I would argue that entering objective facts (e.g.
 surface=* in the
  previous example) is a much better option than subjective
 tagging. It
  requires no more information than you already have, and is
 no less
  practical for data consumers. It's actually more powerful,
 specific,
  clear, verifiable

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap in Government

[David Bannon]

I am not sure I agree with you Waldo.. (???).

Its useful in my opinion when ever storing data (of any nature) to think
about how that data will be used. While we will often find other use
cases later on, addressing the primary one is important.

I think very few users of map data are prepared to, eg, install mapnik
or grep through the downloaded data relating to a particular road they
may consider using. Instead, they want to get a idea of just how
passable a road might be. They are asking a very subject question and
expect a subject answer.

They want to know if its a sealed or not. If not, they will ask if its
suitable for a conventional car, an SUV, a 4wd, a blood and guts 4wd.
Armed with that info, they look at their own car and their willingness
to take risks and/or have some fun.

Thats all very subjective ! My point is, most of that process is, of
necessity, completely subjective, not just the tagging we are talking
about here.

The smoothness= tag ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness
) tries to address this, but smoothness is quite often not the issue and
the values given to smoothness= are simple horrible (pun intended). (I
suggested, in the past, we should alias something like 'drivability' to
'smoothness'). Anyway, smoothness= has all those subjective problems,
its there and usable. If I could get over the idea of calling my
favorite tracks 'horrible', I'd use it !


So, at the risk of being called politically incorrect, I think we need
to collect data that can and will be used. 

David


On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 07:58 +1000, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
 
 Sometimes people think that it's better to slice up
 information into
 lots of little objective facts, like (in the case of
 mountain bike
 trails), width, surface, grade, etc, rather than a
 subjective fact
 like trail rating. But in practice, it's impractical to
 collect that
 much information, and it's impractical to combine it back into
 a
 usable form for data consumers, so we lose twice.
 
 
 The important point is that a subjective tag at least needs an
 objective definition. See e.g. the pretty good definitions on
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Grade. The subjective tag
 tracktype=grade1, according to the definition Paved track or
 heavily compacted hardcore could easily be replaced with the
 objective tags surface=paved or surface=compacted.
 
 
 I would argue that entering objective facts (e.g. surface=* in the
 previous example) is a much better option than subjective tagging. It
 requires no more information than you already have, and is no less
 practical for data consumers. It's actually more powerful, specific,
 clear, verifiable (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability),
 and reduces the dependency of mappers and consumers on the wiki to
 make sense of the data.
 
 
 Point is: if you insist on using subjective tags as a short-cut,
 please, please at least ensure they have objective definitions in the
 wiki.
 ___
 Talk-au mailing list
 Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



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

Re: [talk-au] Using multipolygon to create large lake

[David Bannon]

On Tue, 2013-04-23 at 19:27 +1030, Brett Russell wrote:
..
 
 Ok looks like I need to transition to JOSM.  Err, how do you even move
 around it?  

a quick paste from my notes, I refer back to them every time I have been
away from JOSM for awhile. Thats a sure sign of a bad user interface !


Zoom using the mouse scrollwheel. Alternatively use the zoom bar at the
top-left or press ctrl+',' and ctrl+'.' 
Zoom using slider topleft screen.
Pan using right mouse button and drag.


Very hard to use if you don't have a scrollwheel, on a laptop etc. You
can do a two finger thing on the touch pad but almost anything is likely
to happen when you do. And panning using the right mouse instead of the
left is just crazy. But apart from that, it does work well, very little
load on the network and quite robust. Certainly a better level of
control than the alternative.

Get used to the context sensitive way button bars appear (and disappear)
depending on what is selected on the right hand side, it does make sense
but a bit confronting initially.

Try switching the view to one of the alternatives, a different colour
scheme can make editing a bit easier too.

David


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

Re: [talk-au] Google copying from OSM maps

[David Bannon]

I mapped some roads in the state forest I like to play in and noted they 
were substantially wrong in Google at the time. Couple of months later, 
four or five ? they were fixed in google. Vic forest maps still show 
them incorrectly but of course that could be just old releases, maybe 
the State data has been corrected and has flowed on to google ?


Very hard to establish cause and effect.

I guess we want to see all maps accurate ?

David

On 14/02/13 11:28, Barker, Nicholas wrote:
Ok I've just spotted somethingit appears Google has added a couple 
of trails onto their bicycling maps layer that only appear on 
OSM...nowhere else. Namely the trail called Follow Me in Lysterfield 
Lake Park in Melbourne but probably all the others too..

Is this an issue?

__
NOTICE: This communication and any attachments (this message) may 
contain confidential information for the sole use of the intended 
recipient(s). Any unauthorized use, disclosure, viewing, copying, 
alteration, dissemination or distribution of, or reliance on this 
message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in 
error, or you are not an authorized recipient, please notify the 
sender immediately by replying to this message, delete this message 
and all copies from your e-mail system and destroy any printed copies.



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


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

Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns

[David Bannon]

Richard, I most certainly don't disagree with with you but maybe the
picture is a little incomplete ?

On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 11:52 -0500, Richard Weait wrote:

 ... if we wish to suggest a change then suggesting such a change along
 with a patch to execute it stands a much better chance of adoption.  

https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/1447  lodged four years ago,
several suggestions and examples of how it can be done. Its about
rendering unsealed roads differently from the default sealed. Its a
safety issue and very important in Australia. No progress.

 Also, and this is important, making a new style is really fun. 

Fun, but as I said, not easy. I have been doing so, trying to
demonstrate how to deal with unsealed and 4x4 roads. My time is limited
and I've made little progress. I of all people know how hard it is to
get developers and sys admins to doc what they have done !
 
 
  ... there is a brand new shiny tile cache server in Brisbane. 
http://blog.osmfoundation.org/2012/10/04/australia-server/

I believe thats a cache server, not a tile server in its own right. So
it caches and delivers what already exists on (eg) osm.org. If it could
deliver an Aussie view of Australia, that would be great ! That might
also be a good way to trial localized styles. That would be good!

 My point is not to discourage you 

No, of course not, like I said, we agree on most. I certainly would not
want to send any sort of message that I am unhappy with OSM. Far from
it! 

David

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



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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging dirt and 4x4 roads - new approach

[David Bannon]

Hi Russell, maybe you have followed the conversation ? If so, you will
see that I think we do need a new approach but are unlikely to get it
'approved' ? Oh well, won't be the first fight I have lost !

So, the fall back is really as now doc'ed on the Australian Tagging
Guidelines.

Use 4wd_only if its a 4x4 road, officially the only option is 'yes' but
I recommend people also use 'recommended' in cases where its marginal.
And 'extreme' for the really wild cases.

Note that your efforts will not appear distinctively on (eg) the main
slippery map on the OSM website. I have opened a ticket with the map
maintainers but no answer yet. Hmm...

All roads should have highway=[track, unclassified, tertiary, etc] and
source=survey and surface=unpaved. I'd also consider using tracktype=
but note that it will only be rendered differently if highway=track.
And, to make it worse, the roughest (ie the most fun) track is
officially grade5. As defined, that might be OK in England, pretty silly
in Oz. If you use grade6, grade7 and grade8 the OSM maps will show the
track as a grade3, thats potentially dangerous but really the correct
thing to do. 

Sigh .

The best way to handle changing conditions down the length of a road
(IMHO) is to break the road up into ways that have similar
characteristics and join them using merged nodes. That is, don't merge
the ways into one way.

It does not make sense to have sections that cannot be accessed
externally if you see what I mean ? Any discrete section should be
labeled with the worse case bit.

Hope this helps. And I hope you had a great time collecting that data !

David
 
On Sun, 2012-12-16 at 17:50 +1100, Russell Edwards wrote:
 Could I ask a newbie question on this topic?
 
 I want to update some roads that are 4wd-only in certain sections.
 
 Any new approach aside, what is the best way to do this -- a) what tag 
 do I use, and b) how do I handle the changing traversibility - separate 
 ways linked as a route, or... ?
 
 Thanks in advance
 
 Russell
 
 
 ___
 Talk-au mailing list
 Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



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

[talk-au] Blind obedience following routing tools.

[David Bannon]

I guess people are aware of this story, people in trouble for following
badly constructed maps -

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-10/apple-maps-strands-motorists-looking-for-mildura/4418400

Looks like its to be the lead story on the abc news tonight.

I bet we could all find examples in OSM that could cause similar
problems. 

David





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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging dirt and 4x4 roads - new approach

[David Bannon]

On Sun, 2012-11-25 at 20:35 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:

 One thought that occurs here would be to tag the *maintenance* of a
 track rather than its *current state*.

Yep, that would be useful info indeed. Not sure how 'collectible' it
would be though. The (dirt) road that I live on is graded reasonably
frequently but I could not tell you how many times per year or when it
was last done. And I live on that road !

 
 AFAIK the major issue with rendering changes is resources to implement
 them. So, if someone writes the code to do it, much greater chance of
 it happening.
 
Maybe, maybe not. The actual changes required are not that extensive
really. I have built a mapnik and pgsql system on my laptop using the
OSM config files. Its trivial to include new tags into the rendering
database. (Although unfortunately, 4wd_only has some technical
issues.) Getting Mapnik to then render them is more a matter of agreeing
on how to do it than actually doing it IMHO. Sadly, our desired dashed
casing is already used for tunnels, but possibly a different colour
will work, or dashed infill ? But importantly, we can copy, in part, how
its done for a tunnel.

Issue really is these guys will have some pretty heavy change controls
in place. And there will be some pressure to not add anything unless its
really proved essential, every extra bit of processing slows each
refresh.

So, we need a really good case rather than clever coding I'm afraid.

David 






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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging dirt and 4x4 roads - new approach

[David Bannon]

OK, time I decided we don't really have any prospect of changing
approved tags to address the dirt road situation. 

So I will push a model, sort of supported by the three votes recorded (!
). It will use existing tags (approved and unapproved) and accept that
maps such as OSM's are unlikely to ever show the results. On the other
hand, perhaps external projects will make better use of the data ?

Li Xia, I believe you have plans to use this sort of data, might be good
idea to confirm this works for you. (I have answered your two off list
messages but wonder if you got my answers ?)

I will push the idea that -

* All unsealed roads should have a tracktype tag and a surface=unpaved
tag.

* 4wd roads should have a 4wd_only tag and a tracktype tag. Maybe even a
smoothness tag if you like.

* We will ask the mainstream renderers to observe the above tags.

* Routers will be advised to note above.
 
I have update the Australian Tagging Guidelines page and add some data
to discussion tab. Particularly some numbers about current usage. And
why tags starting with a digit are a bad idea.

David

 
On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 10:06 +1100, David wrote:
 Sorry folks, its me again !
 
 A number of people have indicated that they agree we need to address this 
 issue even if they don't particularly like my first go at it. So lets 
 determine just what people here really do want.
 
 How about we vote for one of the several broad solutions possible ? I have 
 put together a list of all the solutions mentioned in our recent discussion, 
 if I missed one, please feel free to add it. See -
 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Davo
 
 I am right in saying other people with OSM credentials can edit my discussion 
 page ?  Please advise me if you cannot !
 
 You can and should vote for or against several options if you feel so 
 inclined.
 
 I suggest this might be better than more mailing list discussion, at present 
 that discussion, while positive and good natured is covering too much space. 
 If we agree on a broad model, we can then refine that if necessary on the 
 list.
 
 David 
 ___
 Talk-au mailing list
 Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



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

Re: [talk-au] tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up.

[David Bannon]

OK, I have to recognise that my proposed proposal is not attracting
any support. So I will walk away. However, that leaves the problem
unsolved and , I still think, dangerously so.

Are there any alternatives folks ? Should we (ie in Australia)
encourage people to use smoothness= for example ? I hate the tag name
and the values associated with it but maybe its the only game in town
? There are already considerably more horrible, very_horrible and
impassable values set against smoothness than 4wd_Only  tags and by a
considerable factor. It does offer a degree of fine grain against
4wd_only's 'yes' or not there.

However, (eg) OSM website map ignores smoothness= (unlike tracktype)
but that may be becuse not enough people are complaining about it. But
I must say, I would not feel anywhere near as confident asking
renderers about smoothness= as I would about an extended tracktype=.

Please consider

David,  

- Original Message -
From: Andrew Harvey 

  This is a complete failure of the cartography and if it represented
  unpaved vs paved as dotted casing then I would have been prepared
and
  expecting the surface change along the road.

Indeed, but as long as mappers present the renderers with a mismash of
data, we can expect no better !

  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

No, I don't really think my proposal fits into this catagory, but it
does take a more pragmatic view than many OSMs would. I understand it
may well be too pragmatic !

  I think your extension proposal make is more complicated as it is
  unclear what the scale represents since it isn't a linear scale for
one
  attribute. 

well, in that case, I think I have failed. My plan was always to seek
the simplest way through a very complicated maze. If its still not
simple enough, so be it !

  We have,
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/surface_unification
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/usability
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/mtb:scale
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:Sac_scale
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:4wd_only%3Dyes

Only useful use of surface= is unpaved. I have tried and failed with
tracktype=, the 'proposed' ones mentioned above are all either
abandonded or should be. mtb is about mountain bikes and so on. we are
really not addressing this problem folks !

  Although this issue does affect Australia due to the nature of the
  outback, it is a global issue. I think it would be best to take
your
  thoughts to the global tagging list at let the discussion happen
there.

 No, to be realistic, if I cannot get any support here in Oz, little
hope of doing so elsewhere.

Sorry about any awkard editing here, using an android device as I am
away and left my laptop powersupply at home!

David

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

Re: [talk-au] tagging 4WD and dirt roads - want it ?

[David Bannon]

On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 14:54 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
 ..
In summary, I would ask you to pull out attributes of a thoroughfare
 which make it 4wd only and tag those instead.


Andrew, thanks for the very carefully considered response. 

I agree with just about all the points you make but suggest your
conclusion may not quite address the driver for this proposal. This is
about getting knowledge into the hands of end users. Safety is a key
factor, I am sure you heard someone died on an outback track only two or
three days ago.

What I am trying to do is get a reasonably easy to understand and use
model in place so mappers put data into the database in a consistent way
and, critically, the rendering people and the routing people use it. At
present, we have a large number of tags that relate to this space but
the only one the renderers use is tracktype. They ignore
surface=unpaved, 4wd_Only, smoothness= and so on.

Your suggestion, that we focus on specific characteristics of the road
and describe them is a good thing and one I'd support if you were to
start working on it as a proposal. But it does not apply here.

While having breakfast I could easily think of ten items I'd like to add
to your list of road characteristics, I'm quite sure that if we sat a
few more 4wders around the table we could hit twenty in no time. If we
convert them all to tags we'd have two real and pressing problems -

1. Mappers could not cope with that many tags to address in a consistent
way, even if they did, think of the extra data that would be, in many
cases unnecessary. Subsequent validating of such a fine grain data would
be a daunting task.

2. Importantly - it would be impossible to get the rendering people to
even consider displaying such a range of data. And if the mainstream
rendering engines don't show it, the routing people ignore it. Truth is,
when an end user uses OSM to decide to go a particular way, he/she does
not fire up JOSM and examine the tags on each way, they look at a map,
or, worryingly, rely on a routing tool.

I believe we need something simpler, something that is an extension of a
tag that is already rendered, for example on the OSM website. Yes,
tracktype does focus on compactness at present but thats because in the
range of roads it currently addresses, thats the issue. I propose we
extent that range of roads.

WRT the mention of bad data that needs to be fixed, you must note that
this proposal does not make that issue any worse, indeed, by focusing on
one linear tag, tracktype, it might actually help. The problem is not
strictly linear but can be projected onto a linear tracktype scale at
the granularity proposed given the sort of knowledge any reasonably
experienced 4wder has.  Importantly, it's better than nothing and that,
I am afraid, is the likely alternative.

David



 Furthermore, the current tracktype grades although not well defined
 essentially measure the compactness of a surface. If you try to bring
 4wd only into the mix it could become complicated as you can very well
 have paved track or heavily compacted hardcore but so uneven and with
 large gaps that you would need the large wheels and ground clearance of
 a 4wd to traverse; yet have another unpaved uncompacted track with lack
 of hard materials with the same requirement on a 4wd due to uneven
 ground. This isn't as you suggest, bad data that needs to be fixed by
 mappers.
 
 In summary, I would ask you to pull out attributes of a thoroughfare
 which make it 4wd only and tag those instead.
 



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

[talk-au] tagging 4WD and dirt roads - want it ?

[David Bannon]

Righto folks, I have not had a lot of feedback about the drafted
proposal to tidy up how 4x4 tracks (and other) are described. I added a
bit about what happens when tags conflict after Li queried that but
thats all !

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Davo#Draft_4x4_road_proposal

Its fair to say that we'll need Australian votes to get this approved.
Can you please indicate that you will vote, either yes or no, before I
go to the trouble of formally putting the proposal up ?

Suggestions are also obviously very welcome.

Thanks.

David



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

Re: [talk-au] 4WD only tags

[David Bannon]

Hello Li

 what happens when a track is tagged with 4wd_only=yes and grade=6?

Technically I'd see no issue having both those key combos present. In
practice not good in that one must be wrong but that won't upset OSM.

In the mainstream maps, the way should be rendered according to grade6.
The renderers already recognise tracktype so its relatively easy to
extend to grades 6, 7 and 8. The renderers don't observe 4wd_only and
sadly probably won't.  

But other applications will still be free to note one or the other of
course. How they cope if they actually observe both and note the
conflict I guess is up to the app it self.

David

On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 23:32 +1100, Li Xia wrote:
 Hi David,
 
 Just scanned your personal page quickly while i had spare time so sorry up 
 front if i missed anything.
 
 A quick comment on the proposed grading. According to your proposal of 
 tagging grades 6-8, what happens when a track is tagged with 4wd_only=yes and 
 grade=6?
 
 Li.
 
 
 On 06/11/2012, at 2:23 PM, David Bannon wrote:
 
  
  OK Li, you ask and you shall receive !
  
  Here
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Davo#Draft_4x4_road_proposal
  is my very early draft. You and everyone else is welcome to get stuck
  into it, I am not thin skinned !
  
  The OSM proposal page says to to be verbose, no one need tell me to be
  verbose ! So if its too long, please indicate what needs removing. And
  obviously, error and omissions 
  
  I am quite unhappy that it really ends up undercutting the 4wd_only tag,
  they can coexist but I wonder if they will if this is successful. Its a
  shame really, I like 4wd_only and have used it but as I developed my
  arguments it became clear to me that we need a finer grain and its
  probably easier to add levels to tracktype than it is to 4wd_only. And
  it will be easier to get these levels rendered if we go for tracktype.
  
  David 
  
  David
  
  
  
  
  On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 17:28 +1100, Li Xia wrote:
  No probs david, and you'll be getting plenty of input from me, watch
  out ;-)
  
  
  A draft would be great. Let me know when it's ready to review.
  
  
  Li.
  
  On 05/11/2012, at 9:10 AM, David Bannon wrote:
  
  
  Thanks Li, I have not put that proposal up yet, waiting on a
  response to a related matter. Soon.
  
  And when I do, I'll not be wanting just your vote, it will be your
  input I will really need !
  
  Maybe I should put a draft up on my personal page while we wait ?
  
  David
  
  
  
  
 - Original Message -
 From:
 Li Xia lisxia1...@gmail.com
  
 To:
 David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
 Cc:
 OSM Australian Talk List talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 Sent:
 Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:37:52 +1100
 Subject:
 Re: 4WD only tags
  
  
 Hi David, although my opinion is that most render's try to
 simplify the the stylesheet so the map for ease of
 comprehension and would not make use of these additional
 attributes, I see your point and agree that it's useful data
 to have. Since my company focuses on 4WD maps and
 navigation, we will certainly take full advantage of this.
  
  
 BTW, do you have the link to the proposal page? Will go and
 cast a vote.
  
  
 Li.
  
 On 04/11/2012, at 2:41 PM, David Bannon wrote:
  
  
 Li, I beg to differ. While I agree that grading of a
 4x4 track is subjective, so is much of the other
 data in the OSM database. Must be that way.
  
 The real issue is how important the data is. As I
 have mentioned, I am concerned that maps are being
 rendered that ignore this data. Routing engines are
 potentially sending people down roads that they, and
 their vehicles are ill suited to. Bad things will
 definitely happen.
  
 The routing people are saying but these tags don't
 even show on the OSM maps, why should we worry ?. 
  
 And as to subjective, while there will always be
 borderline cases, I don't think it would be too hard
 to divide tracks up into -
  
 * 4x4 recommended - you will might be OK in a
 conventional car or (better still) an SUV but you
 have been warned.
  
 * 4x4 required - you really need a stock 4x4, a real
 one with (eg) low ratio.
  
 * 4x4 extreme - this is for the death or glory boys,
 they need experience and modified vehicles. This is
 a recent addition !
  
 I am pretty sure that if you and I spent a couple of
 weeks having some driving fun, we'd agree on the
 vast majority of the tracks we graded.
  
 David

Re: [talk-au] 4WD only tags

[David Bannon]

Hi Li, I still don't see a problem.

Firstly, I am not aware of any publicly visible map that uses the
4wd_Only tag. Maybe I am wrong, can you point me to one ?

But even if there is, and it renderes as you say, then its still OK
really. We'd see a dotted line and 4wd Recommended appended to the
name. Like the rest of the OSM database, incorrect date entered will
give incorrect results. 

I'd like to see all grade5, grade6, grade7 and grade8 roads rendered as
a single or double dotted line, Some, depending on their highway= tag
may have a coloured fill. The 6, 7 and 8 have text appended to the name,
5 does not.

In your example, grade6 will have 4wd Recommended) appended but we know
its also got 4wd_Only=yes set. Well thats wrong but its wrong because
the wrong tags have been stored in the database. If someone spots it,
maybe they will fix it and all will be good. Even if it does not get
fixed, people will still be alerted to the fact that it might be a road
needing thinking about. Thats better that what we have now were the
mainstream renderers ignore 4wd_only and we don't have a tracktype
higher than grade5.

David  



On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 21:49 +1100, Li Xia wrote:
 Hi David,
 
 Here is an example of why the grading combined with 4WD_only tags may not 
 work in 

 conjunction in rendering. let's say all 4WD tracks are rendered using dotted 
 lines 

 (very common on raster maps and widely adopted). What happens when it already 

 4wd_only=yes but it's also tagged as grade 6? Which tag should take priority?
 
 Isn't 4wd_only=yes and 4WD recommended some what contradicting?
 
 Li.
 
 On 07/11/2012, at 8:20 PM, David Bannon wrote:
 
  Hello Li
  
  what happens when a track is tagged with 4wd_only=yes and grade=6?
  
  Technically I'd see no issue having both those key combos present. In
  practice not good in that one must be wrong but that won't upset OSM.
  
  In the mainstream maps, the way should be rendered according to grade6.
  The renderers already recognise tracktype so its relatively easy to
  extend to grades 6, 7 and 8. The renderers don't observe 4wd_only and
  sadly probably won't.  
  
  But other applications will still be free to note one or the other of
  course. How they cope if they actually observe both and note the
  conflict I guess is up to the app it self.
  
  David
  
  On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 23:32 +1100, Li Xia wrote:
  Hi David,
  
  Just scanned your personal page quickly while i had spare time so sorry up 
  front if i missed anything.
  
  A quick comment on the proposed grading. According to your proposal of 
  tagging grades 6-8, what happens when a track is tagged with 4wd_only=yes 
  and grade=6?
  
  Li.
  
  
  On 06/11/2012, at 2:23 PM, David Bannon wrote:
  
  
  OK Li, you ask and you shall receive !
  
  Here
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Davo#Draft_4x4_road_proposal
  is my very early draft. You and everyone else is welcome to get stuck
  into it, I am not thin skinned !
  
  The OSM proposal page says to to be verbose, no one need tell me to be
  verbose ! So if its too long, please indicate what needs removing. And
  obviously, error and omissions 
  
  I am quite unhappy that it really ends up undercutting the 4wd_only tag,
  they can coexist but I wonder if they will if this is successful. Its a
  shame really, I like 4wd_only and have used it but as I developed my
  arguments it became clear to me that we need a finer grain and its
  probably easier to add levels to tracktype than it is to 4wd_only. And
  it will be easier to get these levels rendered if we go for tracktype.
  
  David 
  
  David
  
  
  
  
  On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 17:28 +1100, Li Xia wrote:
  No probs david, and you'll be getting plenty of input from me, watch
  out ;-)
  
  
  A draft would be great. Let me know when it's ready to review.
  
  
  Li.
  
  On 05/11/2012, at 9:10 AM, David Bannon wrote:
  
  
  Thanks Li, I have not put that proposal up yet, waiting on a
  response to a related matter. Soon.
  
  And when I do, I'll not be wanting just your vote, it will be your
  input I will really need !
  
  Maybe I should put a draft up on my personal page while we wait ?
  
  David
  
  
  
  
- Original Message -
From:
Li Xia lisxia1...@gmail.com
  
To:
David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
Cc:
OSM Australian Talk List talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Sent:
Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:37:52 +1100
Subject:
Re: 4WD only tags
  
  
Hi David, although my opinion is that most render's try to
simplify the the stylesheet so the map for ease of
comprehension and would not make use of these additional
attributes, I see your point and agree that it's useful data
to have. Since my company focuses on 4WD maps and
navigation, we will certainly take full advantage of this.
  
  
BTW, do you have the link to the proposal page? Will go

Re: [talk-au] scenic routes

[David Bannon]

Yep, good idea Wil. I don't see anything obvious in Map Features,
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features you really have two
choices, define your own or start a campaign to define a suitable key.
First is easier, second will do a heap better job as if most people do
it the same way, its going to be easier to find entries. If you go for
the roll your own solution, do doc it in the Australian page so local
people can at least follow you example.

I think its something you add to a road, so maybe its -

highway=*
tourism=scenic_route
.

However, most of the things defined under tourism
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tourism are really POI like, does
that mean they should not be applied to a linear thing ?

David


On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 23:32 +1030, wil ly wrote:
 Hi all,
 
 I have an angle for updating OSM. I want to find a file of all scenic
 drives. The ones sign posted with brown signs that you see when
 driving. For all my Googling, I can't seem to find a map or a file of
 these. It would be good to tag all such roads in OSM so it's easy to
 plan scenic trips. 
 
 I want to do this so I can discover more nice parts of Queensland.
 
 Wil
 ___
 Talk-au mailing list
 Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



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

Re: [talk-au] scenic routes

[David Bannon]

Ian, I don't think it (route relations for eg scenic routes) is doc'ed
on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines

Or not that I can find. Sounds like a good approach, should it be on the
above page so people can be suitably inspired ?

David

On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 09:17 +1100, Ian Sergeant wrote:
 Traditionally, I've seen these mapped as route relations
 
 type=route
 route=road
 network=T
 ref=number
 
 Where they are numbered tourist routes.  There are a fair few of them
 around, and this is documented on AU tagging guidelines page, I
 think..
 
 Ian.
 
 On 8 November 2012 08:47, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
 wrote:
 
 
 Yep, good idea Wil. I don't see anything obvious in Map
 Features,
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features you really
 have two
 choices, define your own or start a campaign to define a
 suitable key.
 First is easier, second will do a heap better job as if most
 people do
 it the same way, its going to be easier to find entries. If
 you go for
 the roll your own solution, do doc it in the Australian page
 so local
 people can at least follow you example.
 
 I think its something you add to a road, so maybe its -
 
 highway=*
 tourism=scenic_route
 .
 
 However, most of the things defined under tourism
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tourism are really POI
 like, does
 that mean they should not be applied to a linear thing ?
 
 David
 
 
 On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 23:32 +1030, wil ly wrote:
  Hi all,
 
  I have an angle for updating OSM. I want to find a file of
 all scenic
  drives. The ones sign posted with brown signs that you see
 when
  driving. For all my Googling, I can't seem to find a map or
 a file of
  these. It would be good to tag all such roads in OSM so it's
 easy to
  plan scenic trips.
 
  I want to do this so I can discover more nice parts of
 Queensland.
 
  Wil
 
  ___
  Talk-au mailing list
  Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
 
 
 
 ___
 Talk-au mailing list
 Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
 



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

Re: [talk-au] 4WD only tags

[David Bannon]

I think thats what the access tag is for ?

Access values are used to describe the legal access for highway=* 

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

However, as you could forcaste, there is no 4x4 or 4wd value approved.

david


On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 20:28 +1100, Ian Sergeant wrote:
 On 6 November 2012 19:27, Sam Couter s...@couter.id.au wrote:
 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
  So if there is a sign 4WD only, then we tag it
 4wd_only=yes, even if
  it otherwise it might look like a 2WD road? (That is, the
 road
  authority's assessment trumps our own?)
 
 
 The National Park's assessment has at least one important
 attribute:
 It's a legal requirement. You can be fined if you drive a 2WD
 vehicle on
 a track signposted 4WD only. It's not a suggestion or
 guideline.
 
 
 Do we want to consider
 
 4wd_only=designated - to indicated the law
 
 and
 
 4wd_only=yes - to indicate the suitability of the road?
 
 Apologies if this has been suggested and discounted before.
 
 Ian.
 
 ___
 Talk-au mailing list
 Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



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

Re: [talk-au] 4WD only tags

[David Bannon]

OK Li, you ask and you shall receive !

Here
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Davo#Draft_4x4_road_proposal
is my very early draft. You and everyone else is welcome to get stuck
into it, I am not thin skinned !

The OSM proposal page says to to be verbose, no one need tell me to be
verbose ! So if its too long, please indicate what needs removing. And
obviously, error and omissions 

I am quite unhappy that it really ends up undercutting the 4wd_only tag,
they can coexist but I wonder if they will if this is successful. Its a
shame really, I like 4wd_only and have used it but as I developed my
arguments it became clear to me that we need a finer grain and its
probably easier to add levels to tracktype than it is to 4wd_only. And
it will be easier to get these levels rendered if we go for tracktype.

David 

David




On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 17:28 +1100, Li Xia wrote:
 No probs david, and you'll be getting plenty of input from me, watch
 out ;-)
 
 
 A draft would be great. Let me know when it's ready to review.
 
 
 Li.
 
 On 05/11/2012, at 9:10 AM, David Bannon wrote:
 
  
  Thanks Li, I have not put that proposal up yet, waiting on a
  response to a related matter. Soon.
  
  And when I do, I'll not be wanting just your vote, it will be your
  input I will really need !
  
  Maybe I should put a draft up on my personal page while we wait ?
  
  David
   
  
  
  
  - Original Message -
  From:
  Li Xia lisxia1...@gmail.com
  
  To:
  David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
  Cc:
  OSM Australian Talk List talk-au@openstreetmap.org
  Sent:
  Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:37:52 +1100
  Subject:
  Re: 4WD only tags
  
  
  Hi David, although my opinion is that most render's try to
  simplify the the stylesheet so the map for ease of
  comprehension and would not make use of these additional
  attributes, I see your point and agree that it's useful data
  to have. Since my company focuses on 4WD maps and
  navigation, we will certainly take full advantage of this.
  
  
  BTW, do you have the link to the proposal page? Will go and
  cast a vote.
  
  
  Li.
  
  On 04/11/2012, at 2:41 PM, David Bannon wrote:
  
   
  Li, I beg to differ. While I agree that grading of a
  4x4 track is subjective, so is much of the other
  data in the OSM database. Must be that way.
  
  The real issue is how important the data is. As I
  have mentioned, I am concerned that maps are being
  rendered that ignore this data. Routing engines are
  potentially sending people down roads that they, and
  their vehicles are ill suited to. Bad things will
  definitely happen.
  
  The routing people are saying but these tags don't
  even show on the OSM maps, why should we worry ?. 
  
  And as to subjective, while there will always be
  borderline cases, I don't think it would be too hard
  to divide tracks up into -
  
  * 4x4 recommended - you will might be OK in a
  conventional car or (better still) an SUV but you
  have been warned.
  
  * 4x4 required - you really need a stock 4x4, a real
  one with (eg) low ratio.
  
  * 4x4 extreme - this is for the death or glory boys,
  they need experience and modified vehicles. This is
  a recent addition !
  
  I am pretty sure that if you and I spent a couple of
  weeks having some driving fun, we'd agree on the
  vast majority of the tracks we graded.
  
  David
  
  
  
  
  - Original Message -
  From:
  Li Xia lisxia1...@gmail.com
  
  To:
  David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
  Cc:
  OSM Australian Talk List
  talk-au@openstreetmap.org
  Sent:
  Sun, 4 Nov 2012 13:08:22 +1100
  Subject:
  4WD only tags
  
  
  Hi David, just my 2 cents on 4WD_only tags.
  
  By adding a 4x4

Re: [talk-au] 4WD only tags

[David Bannon]

Maybe the issue is that they cannot, in practice, sign every such bush
track ?

And I don't want them using my taxes to try ! Nope, I think its up to us
to make those decisions. And, dare I say it, apply common sense.

David

 

On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 14:22 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
 On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote:
  When we first proposed (and started using) the 4wd_only tag, there was a lot
  of pushback from people who complained that it was not a verifiable tag.
  Track type had the same response. We were able to show them that there are
  signs all over Australia that say 4WD only at the start of a road.  I think
  you'll get a lot of reaction trying to add levels of 4WD required where
  there are no signs to point at.  Feel free to advocate it, though, and to
  tag that way. If enough people tag things in a certain way, that's the
  surest way of setting a standard.
 
 So if there is a sign 4WD only, then we tag it 4wd_only=yes, even if
 it otherwise it might look like a 2WD road? (That is, the road
 authority's assessment trumps our own?)
 
 Steve
 
 ___
 Talk-au mailing list
 Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



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

Re: [talk-au] 4WD only tags

[David Bannon]

Thanks Li, I have not put that proposal up yet, waiting on a response
to a related matter. Soon.

And when I do, I'll not be wanting just your vote, it will be your
input I will really need !

Maybe I should put a draft up on my personal page while we wait ?

David
 

- Original Message -
From: Li Xia 
To:David Bannon 
Cc:OSM Australian Talk List 
Sent:Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:37:52 +1100
Subject:Re: 4WD only tags

 Hi David, although my opinion is that most render's try to simplify
the the stylesheet so the map for ease of comprehension and would not
make use of these additional attributes, I see your point and agree
that it's useful data to have. Since my company focuses on 4WD maps
and navigation, we will certainly take full advantage of this.
 BTW, do you have the link to the proposal page? Will go and cast a
vote. 
 Li.  
  On 04/11/2012, at 2:41 PM, David Bannon wrote: 
  
 Li, I beg to differ. While I agree that grading of a 4x4 track is
subjective, so is much of the other data in the OSM database. Must be
that way.

The real issue is how important the data is. As I have mentioned, I am
concerned that maps are being rendered that ignore this data. Routing
engines are potentially sending people down roads that they, and their
vehicles are ill suited to. Bad things will definitely happen.

The routing people are saying but these tags don't even show on the
OSM maps, why should we worry ?. 

And as to subjective, while there will always be borderline cases, I
don't think it would be too hard to divide tracks up into -

* 4x4 recommended - you will might be OK in a conventional car or
(better still) an SUV but you have been warned.

* 4x4 required - you really need a stock 4x4, a real one with (eg) low
ratio.

* 4x4 extreme - this is for the death or glory boys, they need
experience and modified vehicles. This is a recent addition !

I am pretty sure that if you and I spent a couple of weeks having some
driving fun, we'd agree on the vast majority of the tracks we graded.

David

- Original Message -
 From: Li Xia  
To:David Bannon 
Cc:OSM Australian Talk List 
Sent:Sun, 4 Nov 2012 13:08:22 +1100
Subject:4WD only tags

 Hi David, just my 2 cents on 4WD_only tags.

 By adding a 4x4 recommended tag will add to the complexity because
it's kind of subjective as to which roads/tracks are traversable in a
2WD vehicle, therefor adding another option for this key will further
complicate the issue. 

 Li. 
  

Links:
--
[1] mailto:lisxia1...@gmail.com
[2] mailto:dban...@internode.on.net
[3] mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org

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

Re: [talk-au] 4WD only tags

[David Bannon]

 
 Li, I beg to differ. While I agree that grading of a 4x4 track is
subjective, so is much of the other data in the OSM database. Must be
that way.

The real issue is how important the data is. As I have mentioned, I am
concerned that maps are being rendered that ignore this data. Routing
engines are potentially sending people down roads that they, and their
vehicles are ill suited to. Bad things will definitely happen.

The routing people are saying but these tags don't even show on the
OSM maps, why should we worry ?. 

And as to subjective, while there will always be borderline cases, I
don't think it would be too hard to divide tracks up into -

* 4x4 recommended - you will might be OK in a conventional car or
(better still) an SUV but you have been warned.

* 4x4 required - you really need a stock 4x4, a real one with (eg) low
ratio.

* 4x4 extreme - this is for the death or glory boys, they need
experience and modified vehicles. This is a recent addition !

I am pretty sure that if you and I spent a couple of weeks having some
driving fun, we'd agree on the vast majority of the tracks we graded.

David

- Original Message -
From: Li Xia 
To:David Bannon 
Cc:OSM Australian Talk List 
Sent:Sun, 4 Nov 2012 13:08:22 +1100
Subject:4WD only tags

 Hi David, just my 2 cents on 4WD_only tags.

 By adding a 4x4 recommended tag will add to the complexity because
it's kind of subjective as to which roads/tracks are traversable in a
2WD vehicle, therefor adding another option for this key will further
complicate the issue. 

 Li.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] unsealed and 4x4 roads revisited

[David Bannon]

Folks, following some suggestions off-list I have rewritted the
proposed unsealed roads section on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Tagging_Guidelines

Emphasis has now been placed on the roads people are thinking about
rather than the tags used. Makes it a bit more friendly to someone
wanting help describing a particular road. As the intention of the
text has not changed much and no one seemed unhappy with it, I'll
publish it in a couple of days if no further objections are received.

As a follow on, I intend to start lobbying to -

1. Get unsealed roads and 4x4 roads clearly marked as such on (eg)
slippery map in OSM web site.
2. Get the tracktype tag expanded to grade6 and grade7 being
equivalent to our 4wd_only tags
3. Get tracktype recognized as not just applying to highway=track.

David 


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

Re: [talk-au] Optimising map rendering for recreational use

[David Bannon]

 
Li, another complication worth thinking about. In theory, when we map
a road, the highway tag needs to relate to the purpose of the road
rather than the condition. This is a topic that has been under
discussion for the last week or so. And renderers really only seem to
be interested in the highway tag, ignore tags such as 4wd_only and
tracktype (for other than highway=track).

So, for example, roads such as the Tanami track or Plenty Highway are
technically, primary roads. And therefore rendered at quite a broad
zoom level. I got all upset about this as I am worried that
potentially visitors see a nice thick line and assume its a nice road.
(In fact they are great roads but not for the ill equipped!).

I have been pushing the idea if we are to stick to the politically
correct idea that highway is about purpose and not condition, then we
need a reliable way to warn people reading the maps AND importantly,
people building rendering engines what the condition might be.

Please see the discussion page on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines and
http://wikiopenstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype

I have suggested extending tracktype to, a) have additional levels of
difficulty and b) clarify that this grading really does apply to all
roads, not just highway=track

I do think that this might be a better way to achieve what you want
too. But the real issue is the mainstream renders and the routers
won't think about it unless its widely adopted and used. As they say
in the ALP, disunity is death !

David

- Original Message -
From: Li Xia 
To:
Cc:
Sent:Thu, 1 Nov 2012 15:01:11 +1100
Subject:[talk-au] Optimising map rendering for recreational use

 Hey everyone, have an idea about map rendering and want to get your
thoughts.
 One of the challenges is in rendering a useful map for recreational
use is displaying roads, tracks, trails and to some degree water lines
at appropriate zoom levels in more remote regions where the density is
lower compared with urban regions. 
  In my opinion, most map service online services or offline vector
engine experience the same issue. Here are some illustrations of the
issue, by comparing Google / OSM / Raster map of the same region:

 Google [1]  
 OSM [2] 
 Raster map [3] 
 As you can clearly see, at that zoom level, there's no deal on either
OSM or Google maps, where as the raster map is useful. yes you can
zoom in on Google or OSM, but with a smaller viewing port, orientation
is more difficult and you loose that overview which is try handy for
trip planning. 
 By using a tag specific for rendering purposes, this issue can be
overcome. Rendering engines can take advantage of these tags to
optimise rendering of various regions. 
 The tags are fairly self explanatory. By tagging a road with
render_as:trunk, this feature can be rendered at the same zoom level
as a trench road. Each class of road will have it's own tag so if a
highway:territory should be rendered at the same zoom level as a
primary, then tag render_as:tertiary. 
 What do you guys think? 
 Cheers  
 Li.  


Links:
--
[1]
http://www.mud-maps.com/li_temp/1211/Screen%20Shot%202012-10-25%20at%204.42.31%20PM.png
[2]
http://www.mud-maps.com/li_temp/1211/Screen%20Shot%202012-10-25%20at%204.42.26%20PM.png
[3]
http://www.mud-maps.com/li_temp/1211/Screen%20Shot%202012-10-25%20at%204.42.22%20PM.png

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

Re: [talk-au] [Imports] Importing locality names from GeoScience Australiadataset.

[David Bannon]

May I suggest one reason why OSM shows so many less localities than
officially listed by Geoscience ?

A very large number of localities really have nothing to identifty
them on site. Maybe a building or two, perhaps a church but in many
cases, just a cross road. Not even a sigh to say where you are. No OSM
mapper is going to plot such locations and, I'd suggest, its probably
appropriate that they don't.

A lot of the locations are towns that only existed for a short time
and many are ones that never existed, or existed just in the mind of a
planner. 

So the real question might be should such anachronisms find their way
into OSM ? 

David

- Original Message -
From: Paul Norman 
To:Li Xia , 
Cc:
Sent:Sat, 27 Oct 2012 01:38:30 -0700
Subject:Re: [talk-au] [Imports] Importing locality names from
GeoScience Australia dataset.

Hello,

 

If you’re considering importing you need to read
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines [1] and make sure
that you’ve followed all of the steps before uploading anything
else.

 

One of these is talking with the local community, which is why I’ve
cc’ed talk-au@ on this message

 

I would suggest a different source tag. The source tag is for
mappers, not for attribution (which is done at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors [2]). There is some
debate as to if you should have source on both the changeset and the
objects or just the changeset. If you do decide to have source on the
objects, I’d suggest just source=GeoScience Australia DATASET_NAME,
with an appropriate value of DATASET_NAME.

 

It’s worth documenting the data source and licensing. I think
it’s CC BY which is okay, but it’d be good to have this documented
on the wiki.

 

Are all of them place=locality or is it possible to get more detailed
tagging?

 

When it’s time to upload JOSM can work if you split the uploads
into smaller regions, which is a good idea anyways.

 

FROM: Li Xia [mailto:lisxia1...@gmail.com] 
SENT: Friday, October 26, 2012 9:49 PM
TO: impo...@openstreetmap.org
SUBJECT: Re: [Imports] Importing locality names from GeoScience
Australia dataset.

 

Hey everyone, 

 

A quick intro, I'm Li, founder of mud-maps.com [3] 

 

We are currently working on a rendering engine that supports OSM for
iOS and after running some number os the Australian OSM data, i've
noticed that it's lacking a lot of place names. Comparing OSM data to
GeoScience (GA) data, here are some numbers.

 

• place:locality = around 1000 as of 23 Oct 2012.

• GeoScience locality = around 20,000.

 

I've extracted the place:locality, hamlet, suburb, violate, town,
city data nodes from OSM australia and GA data and ran a name string
comparison to eliminate duplicates and would like to upload the
difference to OSM.

 

I have 2 questions:

 

1. Can anyone suggest tags other than the following?

name:

place:locality

source: © Commonwealth of Australia (GeoScience Australia) 2006. 

 

2. Using JOSM at the moment and uploads take a while, is there a
better way of bulk uploading data? 

 

Look forward to your suggestions.

   

Links:
--
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors
[3] http://mud-maps.com/

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

[talk-au] 4wd_only Tag - is it the right choice ?

[David Bannon]

 Folks, you have every right to call me fickle.  But maybe we need to
be realistic ? This is a follow up to the discussion about advice that
appears on Australian_Tagging_Guidelines and a programme to see better
default rendering of dirt and 4x4 roads.

Firstly, I approve of the 4wd_only tag, I have used it and thinks its
a excellent description. However, putting together my arguments I plan
to present to the OSM Guardians, I have been looking at alternatives.
I have not used tracktype in the past, mainly because I did not like
its uninformative discriptions and the fact that it was described as
being of limited relevance to Australia. Its interesting to see just
how many times 4wd_only is used compared to tracktype, here are some
stats -

4wd_only (yes and recommended)
Australia  - 930
Rest of the world -  264

tracktype (grades 1-5)
Australia - about 6000
Rest of the world - about 127,000

Now, I am not suggesting that tracktype is a dropin replacement for
4wd_only, far from it, the definition I read says to me it stops
before 4wd_only (see 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype ) but we might find
getting a grade 6 and grade 7 (or better still, 4wdRecommended and
4wdOnly) added to tracktype easier than getting 4wd_only=recommended
added to the list. And if we do, then with all those numbers, we may
be able to get special rendering, and, importantly special routing
rules apply to them.

I just did some (naughty) tests on the main OSM map and find that at
present, tracktype is ignored for anything other than highway=track,
the tracktype wiki page complains about this too. That would have to
change. But it is closer than we are with 4wd_only= tag. Nice thing is
the two could exist side by side -
4wd_only=yes 
tracktype=grade5

Indeed, seems that at present, all five grades of tracktype are
rendered differently. Ranges from grade one as a thin but solid brown
line to grade5's small dots. 

So, I know this is not what was discussed, but do people want to re
think the agreed position ?

David   


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

Re: [talk-au] 4wd_only Tag - is it the right choice ?

[David Bannon]

 
(Hmm, size limit in postings to list, makes sense...)

 Hi Ross, good points, not sure if they are great points however. I
think it might be a case of the path of least resistance.

 tracktype is ignored on everything except highway=track
Yep, thats the biggie ! However, 4wd_only is not rendered on any OSM
maps I am aware of either. You and I know better ...
So, it seems to me that its just as hard to convince the render people
about tracktype as 4wd_only. And tracktype has a lot bigger following.
I have already been told by one routing engine group that 4wd_only is
just an Australian thing.
If we follow the model, suggested by yourself (?) that we mark 4x4
tracks by appending (4wd only) to the road name, then that can be
applied to any road. 
Overall, I suspect its far from agreed that tracktype should apply to
only highway=track. If we all put our shoulder to the door

 .. my feeling is that because it's not rendered it's not used
Thats the reason I got excited. tracktype is rendered on the OSM
websites slippery map, see
http://www.users.on.net/~dbannon/tracktype.png  . Ranges from a
single brown line to a line of dots. So that means the rendering
engine is aware of the tag. It knows nothing about 4wd_only. So we'd
need start from scratch there.

 Australian understanding of 4WD is definitely different to the
European understanding.
And I would not have it any other way ! I just saw a note that says,
to the effect of In Germany, we are not allowed to drive on most
unmade modes. Sigh  
But yes, the current descriptions of tracktype are pretty much
English country gardens, but thats something we can work on.

David

- Original Message -
From: David Bannon 
To:, , David Bannon 
Cc:
Sent:Sun, 28 Oct 2012 13:48:28 +1030
Subject:Re: [talk-au] 4wd_only Tag - is it the right choice ?

  

 Hi Ross, good points, not sure if they are great points however. I
think it might be a case of the path of least resistance.

 tracktype is ignored on everything except highway=track
Yep, thats the biggie ! However, 4wd_only is not rendered on any OSM
maps I am aware of either. You and I know better ...
So, it seems to me that its just as hard to convince the render people
about tracktype as 4wd_only. And tracktype has a lot bigger following.
I have already been told by one routing engine group that 4wd_only is
just an Australian thing.
If we follow the model, suggested by yourself (?) that we mark 4x4
tracks by appending (4wd only) to the road name, then that can be
applied to any road. 
Overall, I suspect its far from agreed that tracktype should apply to
only highway=track. If we all put our shoulder to the door.

 .. my feeling is that because it's not rendered it's not used
Thats the reason I got excited. tracktype is rendered on the OSM
websites slippery map, see attached. Ranges from a single brown line
to a line of dots. So that means the rendering engine is aware of the
tag. It knows nothing about 4wd_only

 Australian understanding of 4WD is definitely different to the
European understanding.
And I would not have it any other way ! I just saw a note that says,
to the effect of In Germany, we are not allowed to drive on most
unmade modes. Sigh  
But yes, the current descriptions of tracktype are pretty much
English country gardens, but thats something we can work on.

David

- Original Message -
 From: i...@4x4falcon.com 
To:, David Bannon 
Cc: 
Sent:Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:22:55 +1000
Subject:Re: [talk-au] 4wd_only Tag - is it the right choice ?

 You point out the problem with this:

 tracktype is ignored on everything except highway=track

 You would have to modify this in the rendering anyway.

 As 4wd_only can apply to any highway= tag it is more appropriate.

 From memory this was part of the original discussion when 4wd_only
was 
 proposed.

 Additionally my feeling is that because it's not rendered it's not
used 
 and Australian understanding of 4WD is definitely different to the 
 European understanding.

 Have a look through the original proposal on the wiki and also the 
 smoothness discussion

 Cheers
 Ross

 On 28/10/12 11:00, David Bannon wrote:
  Now, I am not suggesting that tracktype is a dropin replacement for
  4wd_only, far from it, the definition I read says to me it stops
before
  4wd_only (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype )
but we
  might find getting a grade 6 and grade 7 (or better still,
  4wdRecommended and 4wdOnly) added to tracktype easier than getting
  4wd_only=recommended added to the list. And if we do, then with all
  those numbers, we may be able to get special rendering, and,
importantly
  special routing rules apply to them.
 
  Indeed, seems that at present, all five grades of tracktype are
rendered
  differently. Ranges from grade one as a thin but solid brown line
to
  grade5's small dots.
 
  So, I know this is not what was discussed, but do people want to re
  think the agreed position ?
 
  David

[talk-au] dirt roads - next step

[David Bannon]

 Hi folks, I have put  _my_  summary of this discussion on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Tagging_Guidelines
discussion tab. if I don't get beaten up too badly about it, I'll move
it to the main page. I am presenting it as the outcome of the group
discussion so please feel free to have a got at it if you want to.

Thanks to all the contributers, its been very positive (and we all
know that not always the case with these things !).

David

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

Re: [talk-au] Dirt Roads

[David Bannon]

Ross, thats pretty cool.

My plan at the moment is to document this discussion on the OSM wiki
and then start lobbying the people who maintain the OSM website's
slippery map to do just what you have done there. I guess we all
expected it to be do-able but nice to have it confirmed.

Would you mind if I used that link as a reference ?  I must admit I
don't know just how good the relationship between fosm and osm is ?

David 

- Original Message -
From: i...@4x4falcon.com
To:
Cc:
Sent:Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:20:56 +1000
Subject:Re: [talk-au] Dirt Roads

 Mapnik 2 will allow tagging of 4wd_only=recommended and 4wd_only=yes.

 An example of 4wd_only=yes here:

 http://map.4x4falcon.com/?zoom=14lat=-20.73023lon=116.99701layers=B0F

 The 4wd_only=recommended is similar but shows 4WD Recommended.

 It is a trivial matter with Mapnik 2 to use text substitution for
this 
 and what you actually show on the map can easily be changed.

 Cheers
 Ross

 On 22/10/12 06:53, Nathan Van Der Meulen wrote:
  Hi David
 
  Tho I can't say much about it yet, the outcome is for public use
(within
  a product). Once we have some details nutted out we hope to have
some
  more detail We can't define 4wd_only=yes from 4wd_only=recommended
due
  to software restrictions and other difficulties. But we are
certainly
  trying to get 4wd_only=yes defined, and surface=unpaved is already
done.
  Like most things in OSM, the end result really relies on proper
  placement and tagging - not only roads but also places etc.
 
  Matt, the Peninsular Dev Rd is certainly another example. In fact
there
  are heaps of Dev Rds that are state roads or major roads, but in
quite
  poor condition. Go to the extreme - National Route 1 across the
gulf.
 
  Nathan
 
 
 

  *From:* talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
  
  *To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org
  *Sent:* Sunday, 21 October 2012 10:00 PM
  *Subject:* Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 18
 
  Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
  talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
 
  To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
  http://lists.openstreetmaporg/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-owner@openstreetmaporg 
 
  When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
  than Re: Contents of Talk-au digest...
 
 
  Today's Topics:
 
  1. Re: Lanes tag (John Henderson)
  2. Re: dirt roads (John Henderson)
  3. Re: dirt roads (Matt White)
  4. Re: dirt roads (Ian Sergeant)
  5. Re: dirt roads (Nathan Van Der Meulen) (dban...@internode.on.net
  )
  6. Re: dirt roads (dban...@internode.on.net
  )
  7. Re: dirt roads (Ian Sergeant)
 
 
 
--
 
  Message: 1
  Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:03:49 +1100
  From: John Henderson 
  To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
  Subject: Re: [talk-au] Lanes tag
  Message-ID: 
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
 
  On 21/10/12 13:40, Paul HAYDON wrote:
 
   It occurs to me there's at least one other case which warrants
   tagging the lanes - a two-way road (or section thereof) having
only
   a single lane. I.E. when there are LESS than one in each
   direction, making passing difficult or unsafe at normal speeds.
  
   Any thoughts?
 
  I reckon that's quite legitimate if two cars can't pass.
Exceptional
  conditions should be flagged as appropriate.
 
  But I wouldn't think a road simply too narrow for two caravans to
pass
  should automatically get the lanes=1 treatment. Caravaners are
  especially aware of the need to drive to the prevailing conditions,
as
  are truck drivers.
 
  The width or est_width tags from
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features are more
appropriate in
  most such circumstances.
 
  John
 
 
 
  --
 
  Message: 2
  Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:12:04 +1100
  From: John Henderson 
  To: dban...@internode.on.net 
  Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
  Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
  Message-ID: 
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
 
  On 21/10/12 13:28, dban...@internode.on.net
   wrote:
   OK, I'm interested in what you say about lanes= John (and the
rest
   too!)
  
   I use lanes=1 to indicate that a road is generally only wide
enough
   for one car, if one approaches traveling in the other direction,
both
   need to slow a little and pull of to the side. Similarly for
   overtaking. Thats actually a pretty important factoid, lots of
   caravaners for example would studiously avoid such a road.
 
  That's especially important if pulling off the road is also
impossible.
  I can think of cases where roads cut into mountainsides have short
  sections too narrow for two cars, and have a drop on one side and a
rock
  face on the other.
 
  Don't forget the established use of tagging a way as
  

[talk-au] dirt roads - a summary

[David Bannon]

Hi Folks, a summary of discussion on dirt roads before I hack at the
discussion tab of Australian_Road_Tagging. Seems to me two issues not
completely clear -

1. Nathan sees all cases of highway=track implying 4x4 required. I
don't really agree, the dynamic range in this space is just too tight,
we need to use 'track' on roads that are both 4x4 and not 4x4. Thats
what 4x4_only tag is for. Whats the feeling here folks ?

2. Ian likes the idea that tracks or unsealed roads can be marked
4x4_only=no if someone has done a survey and decided that's
appropriate. Particularly in places where there may be some assumption
that the tracks are often pretty tough. I am not completely convinced,
see two problems, it does, to some extent, change the idea that
default is 'no'. Secondly, importantly, tracks change over time and
people opinions on what is and is not a 4x4 track vary. Saying you
will be OK in a conventional car is a lot stronger statement than
you might/will need a 4x4. Comments please ?

At present, mainstream rendering  emphasizes the purpose of a road.
Trouble is that (possibly uninformed) people look at the maps and
assume a thick prominent line means a well maintained, probably sealed
road.

I think there is some agreement that a means of showing the 4x4-ness
of a track on the mainstream (ie mapnik) maps is desirable and
possibly a safety issue. The best way to show this might be to append
4x4 to the name of tracks where 4x4_only is set to yes or
recommended (Matt).  

Similarly, showing sealed/unsealed may also be a good idea.

I note that if you look at the slippery map on osm.org, click Map Key
at a zoomed in level there is a key for unsealed road, a thick grey
dashed line. I spent an hour looking for an example of that on
Australian and overseas maps but found none. But thats what we want
?   

If we are to have even the slightest chance of getting changes in this
space, it will be because we all agree and play the safety card !

I will clarify lanes=1 where two cars cannot pass at 'normal' speed
(Paul, John). And no lanes= tag for default situation.

I will also suggest that survey is probably required for tracks, sat
or aerial sources risk missing things like water crossing or gates
that completely change the nature of the whole road. A safety issue
again.

David


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

[OSM-talk] extracts of OSM

[David Bannon]

Hi Folks, some advice please ?

I am interested in getting some OSM data covering the north of the North
Island of NZ, some where I am visiting shortly. However, there is not
extract available and its too big to pull down from the OSM website.

Seems my only choice is to pull down the while planet, and at 5 G thats
not really a choice when I am on the road

Any suggestions ?

David 


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] extracts of OSM

[David Bannon]

Beauty, great answer, thanks !

Downloaded easily in the airport lounge, lots easier than 5G would
have !

David

On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 08:44 +0800, D Tucny wrote:
 2009/1/19 David Bannon d.ban...@vpac.org
 Hi Folks, some advice please ?
 
 I am interested in getting some OSM data covering the north of
 the North
 Island of NZ, some where I am visiting shortly. However, there
 is not
 extract available and its too big to pull down from the OSM
 website.
 
 Seems my only choice is to pull down the while planet, and at
 5 G thats
 not really a choice when I am on the road
 
 Any suggestions ?
 
 
 There is an extract of NZ at
 http://downloads.cloudmade.com/oceania/new_zealand which is 6.6MB
 compressed
 
 Alternatively, you can use the OSMXAPI to download chunks of data
 defined by a bounding box (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Xapi)
 which allows for larger boxes than the standard API...
 
 d
 


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk