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

[Ian Steer via Talk-au]

As you say, they are trying to discourage walkers but nothing to indicate it
is not permitted to enter.

Path should be in OSM

Ian

> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 22:52:06 +1100
> From: Mark Pulley 
> To: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
> 
> On my last holiday I took a detour to re-check the Apsley Gorge track.
> 
> The asphalt path ends at a lookout
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/324186826
> 
> The ?controversial? path is still present south of here - I followed it
some of
> the way (about 350m), but didn?t follow it all the way to the end.
> 
> There is a sign just south of the lookout - Google Maps street view shows
the
> sign (the small yellow object near the southern end of the safety rail!)
> https://maps.app.goo.gl/9mDecm2GKpXxM48k6
> 
> On the left side of the sign, there?s a warning icon (exclamation mark),
then
> ?No safety rail?, another warning icon (man falling off edge of crumbling
cliff),
> then ?Unstable edges?
> 
> On the right side of the sign is the text ?End of track, no safety rail
beyond this
> point?
> 
> The sign is there to discourage walkers venturing further south, but it?s
not
> technically a ?do not enter? sign.
> 
> Does that help with what to do with this particular example?
> 
> Mark P.
> 
> >
> > On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley  <mailto:mrpul...@iinet.net.au>> wrote:
> >> A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just
this
> particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):
> >>
> >> 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information) 2.
> >> Partial revert, with a change in tags 3. Leave the deletion as it is.
> >>
> >> For this particular example, the results would be:
> >> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access
> >> tags 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or alternatively
> >> abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* 3. No reversion
> >
> > I would opt for 2, leave the way in place, but with access=no, a
lifecycle prefix
> on the highway tag like abandoned:highway=* or rehabilitated:highway=*.
> >
> > If there is signage that says closed for rehabilitation, we should
capture the
> closure reason somewhere, so OSM data consumers can present that reason
> for the closure to users, whether that be via rehabilitated:highway=* or
> something like, access:reason=rehabilitation.
> >
> 
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-
> au/attachments/20231214/f7dcd5fa/attachment-0001.htm>
> 
> --
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 
> 
> --
> 
> End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 198, Issue 6
> ***


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

Re: [talk-au] emergency highway airstrips

[Ian Steer via Talk-au]

Opps, sent too early, here's a second example:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/187347278#map=15/-31.9089/127.0839=
D


https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/187347277

Ian


> Whether it's right or wrong, I don't know, but here's another example:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/187347277
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2023 20:12:35 +1100
> > From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
> > To: OSM Australian Talk List 
> > Subject: [talk-au] emergency highway airstrips
> > Message-ID: <233db7e4-cb4c-4539-a3f3-87a375b54...@gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > How do we tag emergency highway airstrips, as used by the RFDS? I
> > thought this was documented on the Australian tagging guidelines but I
> cannot see it..
> >
> > I have used this as an example
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/493146070
> >
> > for a rough area cleared for the wings and a turning area.
> >
> > aeroway ??? aerodrome
> > military ??? airfield
> > name ??? Royal Flying Doctor Service Emergency Airstrip Stuart Highway
> > wikipedia ??? en:Highway strip#Australia
> >
> >
> > together with
> >
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/493146071
> >
> > for the centre line of the runway itself. Note the highway exists as a
> > separate way.
> >
> > aeroway ??? runway
> > ref ??? 13/31
> > source ??? survey
> > surface ??? asphalt
> >
> >
> > -
> >
> > Anyone have thought on this? I'm not certain of
> >
> > military ??? airfield .. may not always be military though this area
> > is surrounded by it.
> >
> > name ??? Royal Flying Doctor Service Emergency Airstrip Stuart Highway
..
> > more of a description possibly operator???
> >
> >
> > Once this is discussed .. then I'll put it in the Aust. Tagging
> > Guidelines thingy.
> >
> >
> >
> 


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

Re: [talk-au] emergency highway airstrips

[Ian Steer via Talk-au]

Whether it's right or wrong, I don't know, but here's another example:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/187347277




> Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2023 20:12:35 +1100
> From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
> To: OSM Australian Talk List 
> Subject: [talk-au] emergency highway airstrips
> Message-ID: <233db7e4-cb4c-4539-a3f3-87a375b54...@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> 
> Hi
> 
> How do we tag emergency highway airstrips, as used by the RFDS? I thought
> this was documented on the Australian tagging guidelines but I cannot see
it..
> 
> I have used this as an example
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/493146070
> 
> for a rough area cleared for the wings and a turning area.
> 
> aeroway ??? aerodrome
> military ??? airfield
> name ??? Royal Flying Doctor Service Emergency Airstrip Stuart Highway
> wikipedia ??? en:Highway strip#Australia
> 
> 
> together with
> 
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/493146071
> 
> for the centre line of the runway itself. Note the highway exists as a
separate
> way.
> 
> aeroway ??? runway
> ref ??? 13/31
> source ??? survey
> surface ??? asphalt
> 
> 
> -
> 
> Anyone have thought on this? I'm not certain of
> 
> military ??? airfield .. may not always be military though this area is
> surrounded by it.
> 
> name ??? Royal Flying Doctor Service Emergency Airstrip Stuart Highway ..
> more of a description possibly operator???
> 
> 
> Once this is discussed .. then I'll put it in the Aust. Tagging
> Guidelines thingy.
> 
> 
> 



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

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

[Ian Sergeant]

I understand what you would like the mission statement to be.

But right now, it's clear that we value ground truth.

If our mission is to change that should be a wider discussion.

I still don't see where the authority comes from to delete or revert a
genuine ground feature that someone has mapped in good faith.

We have tags to handle this scenario.

Ian


On Sun, Oct 8, 2023, 6:34 PM  wrote:

> Yes Ewen, I agree
>
> The OSM mission statement is at
> https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement
>
> I would like to see it also include something like Google's "don’t be
> evil"*
> Or doctors' "first, do no harm" or "primum non nocere"
>
> Tony Forster
>
>
> * Google changed "don’t be evil" to “do the right thing† in 2015
> and finally dropped it in 2018
>
> https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393
>
>
>
> > Hi all,
> >   A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those
> protecting
> > the environment over ground truth mapping.
> >
> >  On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits for
> an
> > outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the
> > potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may alter
> > food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage values,". In
> > Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in the
> > Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human activity.
> > In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist
> > protection.
> >
> > I feel the  lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances however it
> > might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to
> protect
> > fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps these.
> >
> > Ewen
> >
> > On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley  wrote:
> >
> >> A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this
> >> particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):
> >>
> >> 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
> >> 2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
> >> 3. Leave the deletion as it is.
> >>
> >> For this particular example, the results would be:
> >> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access
> tags
> >> 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or
> >> alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*
> >> 3. No reversion
> >>
> >> So far I count 5 people in favour of reversion, and 2 or 3 against (I
> >> wasn?t sure about the third!)
> >>
> >> Here?s my proposal:
> >> Partial revert of ways
> >> Way 29415025 - leave this deleted (as it was difficult to find at my
> >> survey in early 2022)
> >> Way 1052666246 - access to an informal lookout - leave this deleted
> >> Other two ways 29415022 and 630040313 reverted with addition of
> access=no
> >> (as NWPS don?t want people going there), and probably a note=* tag to
> >> describe the reason for the access tag
> >> (Possibly disused:highway=* as an alternative - this will prevent it
> >> appearing on the map. Unfortunately we don?t have a new survey of this
> >> area. The NPWS ranger doesn?t appear to want this showing on the map,
> but
> >> hasn?t given any indication on the actual status of the path. Is it
> >> officially closed? Other paths that have been closed in other locations
> >> have previously been marked access=no e.g.
> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/347707596/ )
> >> Delete the viewpoint tags on the ways
> >> Outline in the changes comments the reason for the reversion (i.e. the
> >> mailing list discussion).
> >>
> >> It would be nice to have a resurvey, but I wasn?t planning to go back to
> >> this location any time soon to do one.
> >>
> >> Mark P.
> >>
> >> On 2 Oct 2023, at 2:12 pm, Ben Ritter 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> (I'm a little late to this thread, but wanted to add my two cents.) I
> >> agree with Tom's take and have commented below:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 25 Sept 2023, 8:26 am Tom Brennan, 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Tricky one.
> >>>
> >>> I have sympathy for Land Managers. There can be many reasons why they
> >>> don't want people visiting a place, and why they don't want tracks on a
> >>> map which might encoura

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

[Ian Sergeant]

Aren't most places classified by the government authority as
cities/villages/towns/localities/suburbs?

Is it done by population currently?  I didn't think so..

Ian.


On Wed, 27 Sept 2023 at 14:21, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Have just raised this for discussion on both the Forum & Discord, so also
> throwing it out here.
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Tagging_towns_by_relative_importance%2C_not_just_population_size
>
> Any thoughts or comments welcome, in any place!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Ian Steer]

I think that if there has been *active* measures to rehabilitate the track
(eg "brushing over", track closed signs *and* barricades, then fair-enough,
delete/make invisible the track.

But if the land owner is not making much effort, we should map what's on the
ground.

Ian



> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 23:25:02 +1000
> From: Andrew Harvey 
> To: Mark Pulley 
> Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
> Message-ID:
>jeo...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley  wrote:
> 
> > I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS
> > has deleted some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers
> > National Park).
> >
> > These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion
> > were reverted. I re-surveyed them later that year.
> > These paths have been recently deleted again, initially edited by a
> > different NPWS employee. (Three different change sets, summarised
> > below.)
> >
> > I had thought the consensus last time was to leave the paths in,
> > tagged as informal=yes (unless the path has been formally closed, in
> > which case access=no can be used). Is this still the case? Also, do we
> > need to add a policy to the wiki for similar situations?
> >
> 
> We have
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_
> and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Path
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling
> _and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths>
> 
> Informal Paths (informal=yes) - these would still show up as for use, but
with
> the note that they may not be maintained, may not have signage etc.
> 
> Closed Paths (abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* + access=no) -
> These should not show up as for use, but still be present in OSM data for
> users looking for closed paths.
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-
> au/attachments/20230921/a752981a/attachment-0001.htm>
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:32:16 +1000
> From: "Sebastian S." 
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org, Andrew Harvey
>   , Mark Pulley 
> Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> I recall these discussions vaguely.
> Was not one of the reasons for removing them from the map as the rangers
> or gov wanted them to be renaturatin etc. So from that perspective I
> understand why not having them in a map is in their interests.
> 
> 
> On 21 September 2023 11:25:02 pm AEST, Andrew Harvey
>  wrote:
> >On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley  wrote:
> >
> >> I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS
> >> has deleted some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers
> >> National Park).
> >>
> >> These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion
> >> were reverted. I re-surveyed them later that year.
> >> These paths have been recently deleted again, initially edited by a
> >> different NPWS employee. (Three different change sets, summarised
> >> below.)
> >>
> >> I had thought the consensus last time was to leave the paths in,
> >> tagged as informal=yes (unless the path has been formally closed, in
> >> which case access=no can be used). Is this still the case? Also, do
> >> we need to add a policy to the wiki for similar situations?
> >>
> >
> >We have
> >https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycli
> >ng_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Path
> ><https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycl
> >ing_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths>
> >
> >Informal Paths (informal=yes) - these would still show up as for use,
> >but with the note that they may not be maintained, may not have signage
> etc.
> >
> >Closed Paths (abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* + access=no) -
> >These should not show up as for use, but still be present in OSM data
> >for users looking for closed paths.
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-
> au/attachments/20230922/3cec4504/attachment-0001.htm>
> 
> --
> 

Re: [talk-au] Routing problem near Albany, WA

[Ian Steer]

Ben, thanks for the suggestions - I'll give them a go.

Ian
> 
> The intersection in question is quite new, so I am not surprised that
there are
> cache issues as you guys have identified. Each routing engine will ingest
new
> OSM data on its own schedule.
> 
> One thing that I noticed with the spurious "at the fork, turn right onto
Albany
> Hwy" instructions in the original OSMR link
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car
> e=-34.9226%2C117.7915%3B-34.9670%2C117.8239#map=16/-
> 34.9652/117.8223>,
> is the lack of `_link` roads. I would expect the on- and off-ramps to be
tagged
> as `highway=trunk_link`. I suspect the routing engines are expecting the
same,
> and therefore seeing the Menang Dr slip road
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1077469017> as a legitimate fork in
> the highway.
> 
> The latest incorrect directions with "turn sharp left" are probably the
result of
> missing turn restriction relations
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction>. I would expect
> some "no_u_turn" restrictions where slip roads join the two-way hwy way.
> For example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1077469012. Some
> routing engines will infer this from the angle of the ways, but not all of
them.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ben
> 


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

Re: [talk-au] Routing problem near Albany, WA

[Ian Steer]

Do you mean where Menang Drv curls around and meets Albany Hwy at a
T-junction?  If so, I took the kink out yesterday (?) - maybe the renderer
hasn't caught-up with the change when you looked at it ??

Ian

>Hi
>Sorry if this is my misunderstanding but it seems that the same mistake
that is made by the routers is being made by some tile >rendering engines
too. The standard tile has a kink at the end of Menang Drive (1077469021)
which is not there. The >cycleOSM tile renderer does not do this. Likewise
the junction of Menang Drive
>(1077469008) is shifted NW by the Standard tile renderer but not the
CycleOSM tile renderer.
>Tony



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

Re: [talk-au] Routing problem near Albany, WA

[Ian Steer]

There's some weird s^%t going on that's for sure.  Yes, you can do what your
route intends - I just did it this afternoon.

Ian

-Original Message-
From: Phil Wyatt  
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 5:58 PM
To: 'Ian Steer' ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: RE: [talk-au] Routing problem near Albany, WA

This end has an issue if you can legally go round the Menang Drive loop

https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car=-34.9
6706%2C117.81758%3B-34.96606%2C117.82303#map=18/-34.96639/117.82031

-Original Message-
From: Ian Steer  
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 7:44 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Routing problem near Albany, WA

Ah - thanks Ben.  I wasn't aware of that service, I'll give it a try.

Encouraging that it's not just Garmin's GPS algorithm.

It is a mystery what's happening.

Thanks

Ian

>Subject: Re: [talk-au] Routing problem near Albany, WA
>Message-ID:
>   
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>I don't know what causes it, but you can see the same problem with OSMR:
>
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car=-34.
9226%2C117.7915%3B-34.9670%>2C117.8239#map=17/-34.96524/117.82097
>
>



___
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] Routing problem near Albany, WA

[Ian Steer]

My Garmin GPSMAP 66i gives misleading routing instructions at a new
intersection on Albany Highway near Albany when using OSM data.  I have
looked at the OSM data through JOSM and it all looks good.  I wondered if
anyone else can see what might be causing the strange routing instructions.

 

The explanation really needs pictures, so I've put them in Dropbox:

 

Screenshot 1 shows the first OSM way of the section in question (highlighted
in red) plus some annotations about the points where the GPS has
instructions for the two misleading manoeuvres:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mk7pmpucvp9y5q6/screenshot%201.jpg?dl=0

 

Screenshot 2 just shows the other OSM way that covers the section in
question:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wpfaip74htzbnyw/screenshot%202.JPG?dl=0

 

Screenshot 3 shows the routing instructions on the GPS:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4hy8r91c5syvq4d/screenshot%203.JPG?dl=0

 

I don't know how to give OSM way references, but the intersection is at
S34.9647 and E117.8205 (Menang Drive and Albany Highway)

 

Has anyone got any clues why the GPS would be doing what it is doing ?

 

Thanks

 

Ian

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

Re: [talk-au] Dual naming in NSW

[Ian Sergeant]

I think including a "slash" character in a name tag is really ugly.  That's
not the way that the GNB record them.  Unless someone can find some
information on the ground that records it that way?

I understand the desire to not diminish either name when they are dual
named, but I think it's wrong to think of alt_name as a "lesser" name.
Alternative means just that, it's an equally valid, but alternative name.
It's looks like exactly the type of scenario envisioned by the tag.

IMO it's a bad outcome to end up with multiple names in one tag separated
by a slash.

Ian.

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 at 12:45, Ben Ritter  wrote:

> I agree that in places where a joint name is in use, that should be
> documented as `name=Booraghee / Bradleys Head`as. From a data
> perspective, I think it is also useful to know that the english called it
> (in english spelling) `name:en=Bradleys Head` and the locals called it (in
> local romanised spelling) `name:aus=Booraghee`.
>
> I have no great understanding of the languages involved, but I want to see
> it as "Booraghee / Bradleys Head" on most maps (because that's part of
> our cultural style, as documented in the quoted policy). On the other hand,
> when I hook up a routing text-to-speech engine, I'm going to have a much
> better time pronouncing the spelling of `name:en` and `name:aus`. Even
> better after someone in the know replaces the vague and non-specific `:aus`
> form with the actual language(s).
>
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 at 09:27, Little Maps  wrote:
>
>> This may depend on the specific place but in many places I believe Phil’s
>> interpretation is correct and Andrew’s is inappropriate. Many places and
>> reserves now have joint management or co-ownership, and dual/joint names.
>> Joint names are not alternative names. John Roberts-Smith is John
>> Roberts-Smith. He is not John Roberts and/or alt-name John Smith. The Rock
>> Nature Reserve / Kengal Aboriginal Place is a legislated reserve. This is
>> the legislated name, as described in the management plan and signposted on
>> all new signs. Since OSM maps what is on the ground, we should include the
>> entire joint name in the one name tag. We are not listing alternatives, we
>> are presenting the entire, signposted, legal name in the one tag.
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Dual naming in NSW

[Ian Bennett]

I'm struggling to word this reply without being labelled racist or 
discriminatory, but I believe the
English names should remain and the "alt_name" field be used for local names.
Anything else will render OSM data unusable to the majority of people in this 
country.

Ian

On 6/6/23 8:06 am, Tom Brennan wrote:
> There are an increasing number of places/features in NSW that are getting 
> dual (aboriginal) naming.
> 
> For example:
> - Booraghee / Bradleys Head
> - Cooyoyo / The Castle
> - Fort Denison / Muddawahnyuh
> 
> From the point of view of the Geographic Names Board, there doesn't appear to 
> be any primacy given
> to one name or the other.
> 
> Is there a view as to how to record these in OSM?
> 
> The specific aboriginal language is not necessarily known.
> 
> There are obviously tags like 'alt_name' that can be used to store a second 
> name, but not sure if
> that's most appropriate in cases like this.
> 
> cheers
> Tom
> 
> Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
> Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 

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

Re: [talk-au] Why set coast line to nation park or administrative boundaries?

[Ian Sergeant]

On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 18:15, cleary  wrote:

>
> My knowledge is limited to NSW as that is the state in which I have
> previously made enquiries. Verbal descriptions of administrative boundaries
> have not been used in recent years. Boundaries are now defined
> geospatially, with the NSW Department of Community Services being
> responsible for producing the official maps. It is my understanding that
> the DCS NSW maps are as authoritative as can be obtained (except for the
> surveyors' charts from which the DCS maps are derived). I think the
> government pays a royalty to surveyors in order to be able to use the
> surveyors' data in government maps and licence others to use these maps.
>  DCS NSW certainly does not snap the boundaries to nearby features.
>
>
I'm not necessarily disputing this, but there are so many anecdotes and
opinions being expressed on this topic.  Could I ask if we have any source
or citation for this?  I mean the Department of Community Services doesn't
even exist any longer, and doesn't sound like it should have been producing
authoritative maps even when it did?  I don't even know what "as
authoritative as can be obtained", even means.  Is there legislation,
regulation, gazette?  And the government paying a royalty to "surveyors",
just sounds odd. Wouldn't a government normally engage surveyors in the
normal way, rather than paying royalties?


> I'm uncertain about the terms of use of the government data but,
> generally, when reproducing another person or organisation's resources
> (images, text etc) with permission, one is required not to distort that
> resource so as to not embarrass the donor.  Where a source such as the NSW
> Government has given permission to use its data in OSM, I feel we have an
> obligation to use it correctly. It would be wrong to show inaccurate
> boundaries and attribute them to the Government source.  As the person who
> initiated obtaining access to the NSW data a few years ago, I feel
> particularly embarrassed that we might mis-use it.
>
>
Clearly, if you change the location, you should update the source.  It's an
issue, but OSM does track that changes have been made and by who and why.
Our licence allows us to do this - and I'd argue it's the specific purpose
for the existence of OSM - that is you can change the data.  Nothing is
immutable.  All you need is a source, or ground-truth.

 The only reason I can see for snapping administrative boundaries to nearby
natural features is for convenience - but I see it as convenience at the
expense of accuracy.

>
>
I don't agree.  I think in many cases, for all practical purposes, the
boundary is the feature.  And the law has traditionally allowed for
accretions and erosion.  But if there is some legislative instrument that
defines the boundary by a particular accurate geospatial set that we have
access to, regardless of the feature, then I could be convinced to change
my mind.  And to my mind, if you committed an offence on national park land
above the high water mark, and tried to argue you were outside the park,
because of some geospatial alignment, I reckon you're cooked unless you
could find a legislative instrument to support that being the hard and fast
line.

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

Re: [talk-au] What are the best practices for mass updating cycle paths?

[Ian Sergeant]

I agree with Ben, and I'd be very surprised if the OSM map of the city
cycleways wasn't far more accurate than that produced by CoS.  Usually new
facilities are updated within days.

Ian.

On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 10:52, Ben Kelley  wrote:

> Practically, using this data would be difficult I think.
>
> Partly because there is a lot of stuff already mapped. The other problem
> is that I have found Councils' web sites are a bit optimistic about how
> much of their planned cycling infrastructure actually exists. It's hard
> to know what is "on the ground" from their data sets.
>
>   - Ben.
>
>
> On 7/2/2023 10:40 am, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> > Hi
> > Looking further City of Sydney Data Hub is licenced CC By 4.0 but OSM
> > has been waiting on the waiver since 2020 "CC BY 4.0 - waiver sent
> > 01/12/2020, "considering your request" on 03/12/2020"
> >
> > The licence for the cycle network data links to 2 logos, a CC by 4.0
> > logo and a "Open Data" logo which I can only find 2 other occurrences
> > of in the net and no definitions.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >> Hi
> >> First check that its listed at
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources
> >> If not ykou probably need to get them to sign a release
> >> Tony
> >>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I have been looking into cycle paths data in OSM and found that Sydney
> >>> doesn't seem to have this dataset:
> >>>
> https://data.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/datasets/cityofsydney::cycle-network/explore
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This data is focused on the city centre. Are there any
> >>> recommendations on
> >>> how I should get about this, or if there are any best practices or
> >>> guidance
> >>> when uploading datasets from official sources?
> >>>
> >>
>
> ___
> 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] 'Named' EV chargers

[Ian Steer]

I also agree - but if there are several superchargers at the same location,
do they all get the same name? (probably)

Ian

On 16 December 2022 1:33:21 pm AEDT, Andrew Harvey
 wrote:
>I think it's reasonable for it to have a name like "Tesla Supercharger 
>Hollydene, NSW". If Tesla refers to it as such, and you might ask 
>someone to meet you at the Tesla Supercharger Hollydene, then that's it's
name.
>Just like we would map name="Woolworths Dee Why", since that's what the 
>receipt would label it as, and what you might tell someone when 
>referring to the store. It doesn't stop you also tagging brand= and
branch=.
>


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

Re: [talk-au] Cycle permissions by a user

[Ian Steer]

I see that cyclists up to the age of 13 are permitted on footpaths in
Victoria, so technically, "bicycle=yes" is true, but to be pedantic, some
age restriction should be added.  I would have thought the default position
should be that bicycles are permitted.

My guess is that the other user does not ride a bike and does not like
bicycles sharing his/her path, and is on a bit of a crusade and no reasoning
or logic will be adequate to stop their mapping activities.

Ian

> Hi
> I have been monitoring the edits by a user who still "changes shared paths
to
> footpaths as no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted" in
Victoria
> Australia.
> 
> Most of these changes are small ways where there are unlikely to be
serious
> consequences, its not worth the petrol (or electricity in this case for my
> Nissan Leaf) to go out and inspect the way and I have said nothing.
> 
> I have commented on way 1008258040 in Changeset: 126886850 where
> bicycle=yes by the previous editor has been removed because there were
> "no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted"
> 
> There is good street level imagery. It is not a footpath in the sidewalk
sense.
> It looks OK for bicycles to me. Sorry to bother but I request a clear
> community consensus again on whether "no signs present to indicated bikes
> are permitted" is of itself  sufficient evidence that bicycles are
disallowed.
> 
> Sorry to bother you all
> Tony
> 
> 
> 
> 


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

Re: [talk-au] Boardwalk not rendering

[Ian Steer]

Ignore this - I tagged it incorrectly and someone corrected it in the
mean-time

 

Ian

 

From: Ian Steer  
Sent: Wednesday, 14 September 2022 4:15 PM
To: 'talk-au@openstreetmap.org' 
Subject: Boardwalk not rendering

 

I added some boardwalk into the Cape To Cape walking track (in WA's
southwest) and the Garmin maps I get from https://alternativaslibres.org/
don't render the boardwalk as a track (and my GPSr won't route along it -
not surprisingly).  It renders OK on the OSM "slippy map"

 

Have I done something wrong - or is it a rendering fault?

 

It is tagged as follows:

 

bridge=boardwalk (my sole edit was to add this tag)

highway=footway

motor_vehicle=no (I didn't add this - I think it is a useless tag but I left
it for consistency)

name=Cape to Cape Track

surface=unpaved

width=2

 

Ian

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

[talk-au] Boardwalk not rendering

[Ian Steer]

I added some boardwalk into the Cape To Cape walking track (in WA's
southwest) and the Garmin maps I get from https://alternativaslibres.org/
don't render the boardwalk as a track (and my GPSr won't route along it -
not surprisingly).  It renders OK on the OSM "slippy map"

 

Have I done something wrong - or is it a rendering fault?

 

It is tagged as follows:

 

bridge=boardwalk (my sole edit was to add this tag)

highway=footway

motor_vehicle=no (I didn't add this - I think it is a useless tag but I left
it for consistency)

name=Cape to Cape Track

surface=unpaved

width=2

 

Ian

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

Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?

[Ian Steer]

> Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2022 16:39:39 +1000
> From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?

> Ideally the GPX file would have at least the trail as a contiguous conga
line ...
> with the 'extras' off to the end ... that used to make following it
easier?
> 
> I would think that one file will all the variations (north/south bound,
season
> winter/summer) would be quite hard for the users to use and the
> maintainers to maintain... ???
> 
I have mused on the maintainability (since that is dear to my heart), but I
think having the north/south, summer/winter in one relation will be simpler
that breaking-out more sub-relations - and I think simplest is best.
Anyway, what I am proposing is a step along the way to a more complex
implementation which could be done if this approach doesn't seem to be
working.

Ian


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

Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?

[Ian Steer]

> 
> What would people think about a structure that had a Munda Biddi master
> relation, containing only 3 sub-relations:
> 1.  the existing relation containing the main route (including both north &
> south-bound one-way sections, plus the winter/summer routes)
> 2.  a new
> "Munda Biddi Collie Spur" relation 
> 3.  the existing Munda Biddi Alternate
> relation (that is presently a sub-relation of the relation containing the main
> route) containing all the hut spurs, huts etc
> 

- and I would give the winter section, and northbound one-way sections in the 
main route relation a role of "alternative"


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

Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?

[Ian Steer]

> From: Ewen Hill 
> Sent: Saturday, 10 September 2022 9:35 AM
> To: Ian Steer 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?
> 
>I have been thinking of this with the new Collie township spur and the
> other oddities and especially the huts that scatter the route which apart from
> one amazing hut that is smack bang in the middle of the trail, are normally
> just off the trail on short spurs. 
> 
>   Where it started with two relationships of MB-Main and MB-Alternative, I
> believe a master MB would be preferable containing all the huts, spurs,
> winter/summer variations and the main route. Where there is a spur like
> Collie (~16km?), an additional MB-Collie-Spur might be worthwhile.
> 
> Having a single master would allow users to easily extract the entire route
> and huts in one go and prepare them for their garmin and whatever GIS
> software they use.It would also give councils, emergency services, tourism
> operators etc. easy access to all of the relevant data.  I don't see the need 
> to
> maintain any other spur relationships unless the spur is ~> 2km as it's
> probably overkill and makes it more complex to maintain.
> 

What would people think about a structure that had a Munda Biddi master 
relation, containing only 3 sub-relations:
1.  the existing relation containing the main route (including both north & 
south-bound one-way sections, plus the winter/summer routes)
2.  a new "Munda Biddi Collie Spur" relation
3.  the existing Munda Biddi Alternate relation (that is presently a 
sub-relation of the relation containing the main route) containing all the hut 
spurs, huts etc


I note that the hut spurs could perhaps be left in the main relation and tagged 
with an "excursion" role (rather than dragged-out into a separate relation as 
they are now).
What are the pros and cons of leaving them in the main route and using the 
excursion role?

I suppose one disadvantage would be that sorting the route would show 
discontinuities ?

Ian


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

Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?

[Ian Steer]

> For the "north only" and "south only" segments, I would certainly keep both
> of these "directional" segments in the one "main" relation, but tagged with
> role tags:  usually "forward" if the direction of the way corresponds to the
> direction of travel, 
>  JOSM's relation editor also pays
> attention to forward and backward directional role tags, presenting them
> (after a click of the sort button) in a visually clear way.  

I'm a bit confused here.  Are you saying that even if the ways are in the 
correct direction (and even have oneway=yes), they should have a role in the 
relation of "forward" ?  (I don't see forward and backward roles in the wiki?)

> For the summer / winter routes, you may want to see if you can coax the
> opening_hours syntax to properly reflect the "time" that these are to be /
> should be used, and also do a rename

I think this is impractical because Parks & Wildlife divert the route depending 
on river levels, so it depends on the season.

> Thinking about this .. and coming from 'public transport' routes ...
> Use 2 relations
> One from 'x' to 'y' (and public transports uses keys 'from' and 'to')
> The other from 'y' to 'x'.
> So you'd have 2 Munda Biddi Trail route relations.. similar to the India
> Pacific train - one from Perth the other from Sydney.
> 
> This would make clear the north only and south only routes...

I am very reluctant to do this.  The main reason is that 95+% of the trail is 
bidirectional, and route changes occur many times per year.  This would mean 
having the edit two relations each time the route changes.  The other reason is 
that creating 2 relations would not solve the summer/winter route issue (and 
don't even suggest 4 relations )


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

[talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?

[Ian Steer]

I am a volunteer with the Munda Biddi Trail Foundation, and do my best to
keep the Munda Biddi Trail route relation (5810814) up-to-date.  The trail
is 1,000km from Perth to Albany.

 

There is a child route relation (Munda Biddi Alternate, 8900679) that
contains "odds and sods" not on the main route (typically spur trails into
overnight huts).

 

There are a few sections of the main trail that have alternate routes - some
for north-bound/south-bound, and one for summer/winter routes.

 

I don't know enough about the potential consumers of route relation data to
answer the following question:

- should the sections of track with alternate routes (eg north/south,
summer/winter) be in the main route relation? - or should I randomly select
(say) north-bound and summer routes so as to keep the main route strictly a
simple, point-to-point route (and shift the south-bound and winter routes
into the Munda Biddi Alternate relation) ?

 

My suspicion is that they should stay in the main route relation.

 

Regards

 

Ian

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

Re: [talk-au] Cycle tags on motorways

[Ian Sergeant]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 18:33, stevea  wrote:

> In the case of cycleway=lane, that IS paint, and I (and many others) map
> these all the time.  I see nothing wrong with “mapping paint” like this.
>
>
As long as it's not a separate way.  Paint can form a lane, but there
should be no indication that there is actual separation.  And doubly so on
motorways.  Cycling on one in most parts of the world would see you
arrested and starring on Highway Patrol with the stupid guy music in the
background.  In Australia it passes for cycling infrastructure.

This allows people to plan routes avoiding 100km/h+ roads, for example.

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

Re: [talk-au] Adding river crossings to Guidelines "road quality

[Ian Steer]

I would not like to see anyone presume that a hiker, mountain-biker or horse
rider could not forward a river.  Anyone tackling that kind of country is
probably prepared to do just that, and it might upset their map routing
planning by assuming they can't.  Adding to the chances of them fording
these creeks/rivers is that they are intermittent and might even be dry at
the time of year they are planning their trip.  Ditto for "non-extreme"
4WDs.

Please don't restrict the map unnecessarily.

Regards

Ian


> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2022 12:06:05 +1000
> From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> To: OSM-Au 
> Subject: [talk-au] Adding river crossings to Guidelines "road quality
>   / 4wd-only"?
> Message-ID:
>08qho...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Cleared a note to add a ford / river-crossing to a road in Cape York:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1025490234, & added both a "ford"
> node, & also changed the actual river crossing to a track with 4wd only &
> similar tags.
> 
> Wondering if we should include those sort of details in the Guidelines? eg
> 
> 4wd_only=extreme
> 
> bicycle=no
> 
> foot=no
> 
> highway=track
> 
> horse=no
> 
> motor_vehicle=yes
> 
> smoothness=horrible
> 
> tracktype=grade8
> 
> & possibly even hazard=wild_animals + animals=crocodile!
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Graeme


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

Re: [talk-au] Australian Tagging Guidelines Footpath Cycling

[Ian Steer]

Tony,

 

I'm wondering about the usefulness of adding foot=yes to highway=path and
highway=track.

 

I have never done this because I thought it would be assumed that
pedestrians (and cyclists) can use paths and tracks ?

 

In WA, where people have (in my opinion) wrongly classified a path as a
footpath (and hence excluded bicycles), I have often changed it to a path,
but never tagged foot=yes and/or bicycle=yes.

 

Ian

 

>Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 16:55:42 +1000

>From: fors...@ozonline.com.au <mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au> 

>To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> 

>Subject: [talk-au] Australian Tagging Guidelines Footpath Cycling

 

>Hi

 

>I have edited

>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Footpath_
Cycling

 

>(1) to record the different international English uses of footpath,
pavement and sidewalk

>(2) to give photographic examples as a base for discussion.

 

>Not intending to redefine anything, sorry if anything is controversial.

 

>Tony

 

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

Re: [talk-au] TheSwavu

[Ian Steer]

Anthony,

While I have not examined the technical merits of your case;

1. I wish you would follow the talk-au guidelines and have the subject more
specific than " Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13" - as it says at the top
of *every* digest

2. I wish you would delete most of the ancient correspondence and just leave
the small part you are responding to

3. Looking at the balance of the discussion, it would seem that you perhaps
ought to be sitting back and having second thoughts about your mapping
practices.  There have been several users who have explained in an
un-emotional manner that they seem to think TheSwavu is correct.  You seem
to be quite emotional about the matter and maybe should take a step back and
consider what others have been saying.

Ian


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

Re: [talk-ph] Metro Manila Postcodes Map

[Ian Lopez via talk-ph]

Jim,
There are queries that I used at some points in the past to retrieve postal 
codes in selected parts of Metro Manila, particularly Manila[0], Makati[1], 
Pasig[2] and Muntinlupa[3], that can be used in Overpass Turbo[4]. The queries 
can be modified to other parts of Metro Manila or Metro Manila itself. If you 
need assistance, please let me know as soon as you can.
[0] https://gist.github.com/ianlopez1115/a00b5bf4be4ada423b39835210c39b9c[1] 
https://gist.github.com/ianlopez1115/7a0b7392147bd00a907718ac0b166f3c[2] 
https://gist.github.com/ianlopez1115/9591bf857feecddc253109bbaa1b4b36[3] 
https://gist.github.com/ianlopez1115/df206b59472e2f8416de1af5705903c5[4] 
https://overpass-turbo.eu
-
 OpenStreetMap/Twitter/Telegram: ianlopez1115
Facebook/Messenger: ian.lopez 

On Tuesday, March 15, 2022, 02:17:26 PM GMT+8, Jim Morgan 
 wrote:  
 
 
Quick question: Does anyone know of the existence of a map of the postcodes of 
Metro Manila, showing their boundaries?

Either a pre-existing one in image form, or a method of querying OSM or some 
other database-driven map to get it. Or any other suggestions welcome.

My googling hasn't turned up anything yet.

Jim

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

Re: [talk-au] Aust. Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)

[Ian Steer]

>> I prefer hiking_scale:awtgs= as you know that it is a hiking scale .. 

>> even if you don't know what awtgs is.

>> 

>Fair comment.

> 

>> Routes are a different problem  while the worst one could be 

>> included .. what happens if/when things change? Possibly better to leave
it off?

>> Consider that some routes have alternatives, excursions...

>> 

>One grade for the entire route, which counts the worst bits of the whole
distance, plus separate grades for individual sections?

> 

>& can we just write this up for Oz use, or do we have to go down the full
path of RFC / Proposal / Voting? (Which will >undoubtedly be a Grade 5 trek!

>:-))

 

I'm thinking "hiking_scale:awtgs=".  This would have solved the problem of
my well-meaning German friend deleting my tags.

 

Since it is an Australian tag, I would have thought adding it to the
Australian Wiki would be sufficient. 

 

With regard to users applying a grade using this system, how about we use a
"source:grade=" tag?  Maybe if the AWTGS grade  has been sign-posted by the
trail manager (whoever that might be), it could be
"source:grade=as_signed"??  If a grade has been assigned by a user,
"source:grade=user" ??

 

Ian

 

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

[talk-au] Aust. Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)

[Ian Steer]

G'day all,

 

I'm trying to recall where we got to (if anywhere) on a consensus of how to
tag walking tracks with the Australian Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)
scale??

 

I originally tagged then with awtgs=x.  A well meaning guy in Germany then
deleted them thinking someone had made a typo in entering a tag and
suggested:

- using "hiking_scale:awtgs:  (as there were "hundreds of hiking_scale:"
tags in use in the European Alps")

- entering it into "the Wiki"

 

I would like to get a consensus so I can reinstate my tags.

 

regards

 

Ian

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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] The Two Towers (at Bentley)

[Ian Caldwell via Talk-gb-westmidlands]

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Aadvertising
Maybe add a new value of "tower" or use the existing "column".

Ian


On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 at 14:46, Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> How should we tag these two towers, that seem to exist primarily or
> only for advertising purposes, at Boundary Mill, Bentley, Walsall?
>
>
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/367659835
>
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Advertising_pillar,_Boundary_Mill,_Walsall_-_2021-11-12_-_Andy_Mabbett_-_01.jpg
>
>
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/367659836
>
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Advertising_pillar,_Boundary_Mill,_Walsall_-_2021-11-12_-_Andy_Mabbett_-_02.jpg
>
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
> Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
>
___
Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands

Re: [talk-ph] DPWH bridge data attributes

[Ian Lopez via talk-ph]

I have no objections with adding data in connection to this request, but it 
would be helpful if the last checked date (date of most recent inspection or 
survey by DPWH and/or its contractors) is present in the DPWH bridge inventory. 
Nonetheless, I'm hopeful that the request will be fulfilled and that the data 
will be released in due time.
Regards,
Ian Lopez
-
 OpenStreetMap/Twitter/Telegram: ianlopez1115
Facebook/Messenger: ian.lopez 

On Monday, October 11, 2021, 09:41:48 AM GMT+8, Erwin Olario 
 wrote:  
 
 This is a re-post [0] of a query I made in the OSMph Telegram channel.

I made an FOI request [1] from DPWH re their bridge inventory on behalf of the 
local community. They have additional requirements  (i.e. writing in "official 
letterhead", etc) but before I proceed, I'd like to know if there are any 
objections or concerns about this request from this channel. 
Depending on the quality of the data and if we get the permission to use the 
dataset,  it may be used to validate the information already in OSM, or 
conflate additional attributes not yet in OSM.
/Erwin

[0]: https://t.me/OSMph/20310[1] 
https://www.foi.gov.ph/requests/aglzfmVmb2ktcGhyHgsSB0NvbnRlbnQiEURQV0gtMjM2NjM0MzM2MjA4DA

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - » email: er...@ngnuity.xyz » mobile: 
https://t.me/GOwin» OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B | 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 
81CE 3A93 D56B___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
  ___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-au] Tagging hiking path difficulty - Australian Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)

[Ian Steer]

I have added a note in the Australian Tagging Guidelines about using “awtgs”.  
It is my first time editing the wiki, so I hope I’ve done the right thing.

 

Ian

 

From: Phil Wyatt  
Sent: Friday, 17 September 2021 3:52 PM
To: 'Andrew Harvey' ; 'Ian Steer' 

Cc: 'OSM Australian Talk List' 
Subject: RE: [talk-au] Tagging hiking path difficulty - Australian Walking 
Track Grading System (AWTGS)

 

Hi Folks.

 

Also be aware that there are also websites using their own ‘grading systems’ 
based on a combination of other systems (AWTGS and/or Australian Standards 
combinations or straight out their own gradings) so please ensure that they 
actually explicitly state that it’s the Australian Walking Track Grading system 
that they are using exclusively before tagging it as such.

 

https://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/safety/bushwalking-safety/australian-walking-track-grading-system

https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/recreational-activities/walking-and-camping/australian-walking-track-grading-system

 

All the systems are often misinterpreted by folks not in the land management 
field so please be careful. Officially signed classifications from the land 
management agency would be the only ones I would trust that have been applied 
correctly.

 

Like Andrew, I am not a fan of these classifications but tourism associations, 
promoters, some commercial guiding establishments and some walking clubs love 
them as a way to ‘guide people’ about the ‘general difficulty’ of the track.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Andrew Harvey mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> 
> 
Sent: Thursday, 16 September 2021 11:54 AM
To: Ian Steer mailto:ianst...@iinet.net.au> >
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Tagging hiking path difficulty - Australian Walking 
Track Grading System (AWTGS)

 

If it's signposted or we have compatible data for officially assigned 
classifications you use a new tag like awtgs=1-5. It would be a good idea to 
document this tag if used on the wiki so that others can understand how to 
apply it and use it.

 

We would need to decide if it should only be tagged for officially assigned 
classifications, or if every track we can assign a classification and tag that. 
I'm leaning towards only tagging those officially assigned.

 

Personally I'm not a fan of the grading system, but it does exist and so you 
can tag it.

 

The grading system (per descibed at 
https://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/safety/bushwalking-safety/australian-walking-track-grading-system)
 is comprised of a few independent variables, like

 

- steepness (which data consumers can determine via external terrain data)

- length (can be calculated)

- surface (could be covered by the surface=* tag, smoothness=* tag, and 
highway=steps)

 

We already have in use and documented tags in OSM for:

 

1. trail_visibility=*, which as currently documented covers both how well 
signposted a route is and how visible/easy to follow the path is

2. sac_scale=* which is kind of tagging the technical difficulty (eg. do you 
need to use your hands and arms to climb up the track, is it highly exposed on 
cliff edges etc.)

 

Then we also have existing tags trailblazed=* and 
information=guidepost/route_marker.

 

I try to map all these specific variables and elements which provides richer 
data, but I would also support including officially assigned AWTGS via awtgs=*.

 

On Thu, 16 Sept 2021 at 11:00, mailto:ianst...@iinet.net.au> > wrote:

I’m unsure in how to apply the AWTGS to walking/hiking paths.

 

I followed through a very long OSM discussion thread from 2020, but didn’t see 
any resolution(I don’t think the discussion was Australian specific)

 

What are others doing ?

 

Ian

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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] Australian maps for Garmin devices

[Ian Steer]

Ian, where did you go to learn what to do with this data ?  (eg a nice little 
website somewhere ??)

Ian

>Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:18:39 +1000
>From: Ian Bennett 
>To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [talk-au] Australian maps for Garmin devices
>Message-ID: <78b8c297-ae4b-0b92-1c4a-b395d50b5...@tpg.com.au>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

>Lads,
>   Anyone else use http://download.geofabrik.de/australia-oceania.html 
> other than me??
>   I have been using them for a number of years and I've had no problems 
> thus far. Data is "refreshed" 
>every 24 hours or so.
>   I had a few hoops to jump through with splitter.jar and mkgmap.jar to 
> get these (along with contour info from shonky >maps) onto my (very, very 
> old) GPS60CSX.
>   Full disclosure; I only use the '60 when bush walking, so I don't know 
> if routing works and other info works. That said, >POI's do display.
>   YMMV.

>Ian



--

Subject: Digest Footer

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


--

End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 166, Issue 28



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

Re: [talk-au] Australian maps for Garmin devices

[Ian Bennett]

Lads,
Anyone else use http://download.geofabrik.de/australia-oceania.html 
other than me??
	I have been using them for a number of years and I've had no problems thus far. Data is "refreshed" 
every 24 hours or so.
	I had a few hoops to jump through with splitter.jar and mkgmap.jar to get these (along with contour 
info from shonky maps) onto my (very, very old) GPS60CSX.
	Full disclosure; I only use the '60 when bush walking, so I don't know if routing works and other 
info works. That said, POI's do display.

    YMMV.

Ian

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

[talk-ph] OSMPH Wiki Pages Edit-a-thon

[Ian Lopez via talk-ph]

Hello and good evening to all. The OpenStreetMap Philippines community will 
hold a mini edit-a-thon on Saturday (February 13, 2021) from 1 PM [1] to 5 PM 
[2].
The edit-a-thon aims to add and/or update the documentation of activities plus 
other undertakings of the OpenStreetMap Philippines community in the 
OpenStreetMap Wiki.
Participants are encouraged to read and review the "Editing the OpenStreetMap 
Wiki" module [3] and the OpenStreetMap Wiki Guidelines [4] prior to the 
edit-a-thon. Please take note that the activity is limited to OSM contributors. 
However, the post-event documentation will be made available in the community's 
local channels such as but not limited to the OpenStreetMap Philippines mailing 
list, the OpenStreetMap Philippines Facebook page and other platforms. For 
comments and queries, please feel free to contact the OSM PH Wiki Pages 
Edit-a-thon Telegram group [5] or by replying to this email.
[1] 
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20210213T05=145=tz_et=136[2]
 
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20210213T09=145=tz_et=136[3]
 
http://docs.inasafe.org/en/training/old-training/intermediate/osm/306-editing-wiki-osm.html[4]
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wiki_guidelines[5] 
https://t.me/osmphwikipages - link is temporary and may be revoked after the 
event
-
 
OpenStreetMap/Twitter/Telegram: ianlopez1115
Facebook/Messenger: ian.lopez
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [Talk-us] Please unsubscribe me.

[Ian Dees]

Hi Nathan,

You need to unsubscribe yourself. Please follow the instructions here:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 3:05 PM Natfoot  wrote:

> Please unsubscribe me I am done with OSM for a while.
>
> Nathan P
> email: natf...@gmail.com
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [talk-au] Naming Ramps in Australia

[Ian Bennett]

As a user, I would prefer to hear what I'm looking at. In other words, the sat nav is saying what 
the signage is showing.


Ian

On 17/11/20 12:00 am, Aleksandar Matejevic (E-Search) via Talk-au wrote:

Hi all,
I have noticed that the majority of ramps in Australia tend to have descriptive names and that 
naming format/system is not unique. Also, it is 50-50 between named and unnamed ramps.


I have researched ramps across all Australia, looked at Mapillary, OSC, government data, OSM 
history. On street level imagery I could not find any named ramp. In some cases there was an exit 
number, and it was tagged as junction:ref because it is not a name of the exit, but all I could find 
were just destination signs.  However, on OSM, ramps had names which in some cases contained 
information for destinations (John Willcock Link (Eastbound) to Brand Highway) or their function 
(Pacific Highway On/Offramp). Government data was descriptive in some cases, there was no name in 
others so no consistency there also.


I think that ramps do not have names and therefore should not contain a name key in OSM (only if 
there is a specific name for it, then it should have a name key). Exit numbers should be added as 
junction:ref and signposts data should be added either as destination relation or destination key on 
the way so routing algorithms could pick that info and give instructions like: "Take the exit toward 
X,Y,Z". If there is a name, instructions will be like: "Take left to X,Y,Z onramp/offramp”.


I am raising this question in hope to get some kind of consensus how to treat these cases across 
Australia, so all the ramps have the same format (conclusion could be added to Australian Tagging 
Guidelines on wiki page for all editors to have as instruction).


What is your opinion on this?


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



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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping emergency beach access numbers

[Ian Steer]

Emergency Access Points sound perfect

 

thanks all

 

Ian

 

From: Alex (Maxious) Sadleir  
Sent: Thursday, 1 October 2020 7:09 PM
To: Phil Wyatt 
Cc: Ian Steer ; OSM Australian Talk List 

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Mapping emergency beach access numbers

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Demergency_access_point sounds 
good. 

 

There's a whole bunch of these along highways and beaches in Victoria 
https://www.esta.vic.gov.au/emergency-markers

 

On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 8:39 PM Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:

..or maybe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:emergency emergency access 
point?

 

Cheers - Phil, 

On the road with his iPad 





On 1 Oct 2020, at 7:36 pm, Ian Steer mailto:ianst...@iinet.net.au> > wrote:



G’day all,

 

I don’t know about the rest of Australia, but following some tragedies where 
emergency services didn’t know exactly where to go for some beach responses, 
many councils are now placing signs at the entrances to beach access tracks 
with a unique location number (eg “L7” for the 7th access point to Leighton 
Beach), along with emergency services contact information (eg dial 000).

 

How do we go about mapping these?

 

regards

 

Ian

 

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

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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] Mapping emergency beach access numbers

[Ian Steer]

G'day all,

 

I don't know about the rest of Australia, but following some tragedies where
emergency services didn't know exactly where to go for some beach responses,
many councils are now placing signs at the entrances to beach access tracks
with a unique location number (eg "L7" for the 7th access point to Leighton
Beach), along with emergency services contact information (eg dial 000).

 

How do we go about mapping these?

 

regards

 

Ian

 

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

Re: [Talk-us] While we're fixing things in iterations

[Ian Dees]

Hi everyone on this thread. It seems conversation has gotten way off topic
and heated, so I put a moderation hold on the list and won't let this
thread through for 24 hours or so.

Thanks,
Ian
talk-us moderator
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Fwd: Interest in Importing Athens-Clarke County Address Data Set

[Ian Van Giesen]

Dear all members of OpenStreetMap USA,

My name is Ian Van Giesen and I am a resident and mapper in Athens,
Georgia. I recently sent an email to the email for Imports-OSM discussing a
possible import of address data in my area.

For fear of repeating myself, I will simply let you know that I clarified
all details below, but if anyone has any input, feedback or guidance,
please let me know.

Thank you,
Ian

-- Forwarded message -
From: Ian Van Giesen 
Date: Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 12:41 PM
Subject: Interest in Importing Athens-Clarke County Address Data Set
To: 


Hello to whom it concerns in the Imports community of OpenStreetMap,

Hope all is well with you all.

My name is Ian Van Giesen and I am a resident and mapper of Athens-Clarke
County, Georgia, US. I strongly believe in the mission and framework of OSM
and am committed to helping build and maintain this global resource.

Recently, I have become very active in my area, adding thousands of
building outlines, adding data on sidewalks and 'walking the talk' by doing
some surveys on foot. I am now interested in adding addresses to the
buildings and houses I mapped, but am aware that doing this physically
could take a long time. Through some online research, I found that my
county provides an 'Open Data
<https://data-athensclarke.opendata.arcgis.com/>' portal with links to
various useful data sets, including one on Address Points
<https://data-athensclarke.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/63ac622f811944588fb87371542e2979_0?geometry=-83.601%2C33.844%2C-83.174%2C34.043>
.

I recently participated in a meeting for the only mapping related community
in my area, the Community Mapping Lab <http://www.communitymappinglab.org/>,
whose members mostly do not actively contribute or maintain OSM but
actively use its data for their projects. Upon proposal of importing
addresses, there seemed to be a welcome response to the idea, which I am
encouraged by.

I am reaching out to you, because according to the import guidelines
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines>, your input and
feedback is an important step in this process. I also notice that it is
suggested to refer to a wiki page for the import, which at the moment does
not exist, as I don't want to jump the gun, so to speak. I would of course
draft one, if I can get some gears rolling.

Generally speaking, does the import that I am proposing, namely to import
the 68,644 address points into OSM for the area of Athens-Clarke County
sound as though it would be both 1. useful and in line with the spirit of
OSM and 2. the most practical and efficient way to get this data onto OSM?

In any case, I look forward to your input and feedback. In addition, I
recently subscribed to the Import-US email list (I am not sure if what I am
doing is 100% the right thing by simply sending this from my email and not
some other platform).

Sincerely,
Ian
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [talk-au] Contributions to Road Geometry in Perth,

[Ian Steer]

>Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2020 19:23:21 +1000
>From: "Sebastian S." 
>Subject: Re: [talk-au] Contributions to Road Geometry in Perth,
>   Australia
>Hi,
>I have made excessive use of the node tag for islands.
>Particularly for pedestrian crossing.
>
>Splitting the road into two separate ways for only a few metres seems 
>excessive to me. Even when there is a several Meter long raised kerb 
>separating the lanes I would not >split the road.

Could you please elaborate on this method you have been using ?

Ian


On 1 September 2020 10:05:42 pm AEST, Andrew Harvey  
wrote:
>Heads up, looks like their team has started to map in Perth, see on 
>OSMCha
>-> https://osmcha.org/?aoi=80b50a6d-6bb5-48cb-8ac4-4b2ddd9d5d76
>
>Mostly looks okay to me, and mostly minor tweaks, though I raised a few 
>questions and issues on changeset comments but also listed most of them
>here:
>
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/840589945/history was added but the 
>existing road name and other applicable attributes were not applied.
>This
>same issue happens in quite a few other places too so appears to be 
>systemic. I've raised some changeset comments but worth including this 
>as part of the standard practice by your editing team.
>
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/842851495/history is that a 
>roundabout? I can't tell from the Maxar imagery, yet that is the 
>claimed source, how could you tell from the imagery what this is?
>
>I personally find splitting ways for a traffic island at roundabouts 
>like in https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/840189281/history a tad to 
>excessive (would prefer to just tag the node as traffic island and use 
>one way, gives a much cleaner dataset as the transition between dual 
>and single carriageways is always messy) but I guess it's not wrong and 
>both styles are popular in OSM currently. Does the community have a 
>view on this?
>
>Unclear source of the turn restriction in
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90223764#map=18/-32.04553/115.8
>0953
>
>On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 at 21:28, OSM NextBillion. AI 
>wrote:
>
>> Thank you cleary for valuable insights, we would be more cautious
>while
>> mapping in such areas. While Satellite Imagery is our prime resource,
>we’d
>> consider mapillary photos as well wherever available. We do have some 
>> expert assistance in our team for interpreting satellite imagery and
>map
>> something only if we’re double sure of it’s existence. We will refer
>to
>> mappers history before editing existing data to understand if it was 
>> created using local expertise and would change only if there is
>conclusive
>> evidence from satellite and mapillary imageries.
>>
>> We will reach out to local mapping experts through forum and/or
>changeset
>> comments if we require further help.
>>
>> Thank you all once again for the suggestions, we look forward to
>working
>> with you all. :)
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 at 05:35, cleary  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the interest in mapping in Australia and thanks for
>posting
>>> your plans on this list.
>>>
>>> I would add to the caution expressed by others.  I live in an urban 
>>> location in Australia but I have travelled in other areas within 
>>> Australia.  It has taken me quite some time to learn to interpret
>satellite
>>> imagery and I still have a lot to learn about this country.  After 
>>> personally visiting areas and noting what I see, and sometimes
>taking
>>> photographs, I then return home and compare my notes with what I see
>in the
>>> imagery and I am still surprised.  I think it can be quite
>precarious to
>>> map features using just satellite imagery unless you have expert
>assistance
>>> in interpreting the imagery.  For example, a common error by others
>has
>>> been to map lines of cleared vegetation as roads when they are
>actually
>>> fences. Even where an unmapped road exists, it is probably still
>unmapped
>>> because it is a private road and not accessible by the public - many
>of the
>>> roads on rural properties in Australia are private and, if added to
>the
>>> map, need to marked as such. Farmers get annoyed about intruders on
>their
>>> farms especially as biosecurity is a significant concern in parts of 
>>> Australia.
>>>
>>> So while I appreciate contributions to the map, I suggest that
>"armchair"
>>> mapping needs to be undertaken with a lot of caution.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2020, at 2:17 AM, OSM NextBillion. A

Re: [Talk-us] Mapcarta with wrong info in Utah - whom to contact?

[Ian Dees]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 8:34 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> 27 Aug 2020, 14:37 by ian.d...@gmail.com:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 03:03 Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us <
> talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Aug 27, 2020, 09:52 by frede...@remote.org:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 27.08.20 00:30, Alex Weech wrote:
>
> They appear to be pulling straight from Google
>
>
> Interesting! I didn't know you could (show an OSM map and pull POIs from
> Google).
>
> AFAIK it is not against OSM license but it is break terms of service set
> by Google.
>
>
> Since Google doesn't have a way to programmatically get this data about
> places, it's more likely that Google and Mapcarta used the same data source
> that list an incorrect phone number.
>
> At least some time ago Google Places
> API existed. Is it shut down now?
>
> https://developers.google.com/places/web-service/overview
> describes it as an existing
>

Yes, you can perform individual searches by address and/or place name, but
it gets expensive quickly to make thousands of these calls so it's more
likely that they're sharing a data source.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Mapcarta with wrong info in Utah - whom to contact?

[Ian Dees]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 03:03 Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> Aug 27, 2020, 09:52 by frede...@remote.org:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 27.08.20 00:30, Alex Weech wrote:
>
> They appear to be pulling straight from Google
>
>
> Interesting! I didn't know you could (show an OSM map and pull POIs from
> Google).
>
> AFAIK it is not against OSM license but it is break terms of service set
> by Google.
>

Since Google doesn't have a way to programmatically get this data about
places, it's more likely that Google and Mapcarta used the same data source
that list an incorrect phone number.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Mapcarta with wrong info in Utah - whom to contact?

[Ian Dees]

https://mapcarta.com/About_Mapcarta lists a contact email address:
m...@imedia.io.

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 3:16 PM Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> does anyone have contacts with Mapcarta?
>
> https://mapcarta.com/Eagles_Campground_2422656
>
> lists a camp ground that is not on OSM, and has never been, together
> with a phone number that belongs to the USDA forest service and they're
> not super stoked about would-be campers calling them to book.
>
> MapCarta claims to be using OpenStreetMap data (hence why the USDA
> forest service contacted us). But clearly this campground comes from a
> different source. (Which is just as well because Mapcarta doesn't have
> proper attribution.)
>
> (The phone number in question was indeed recorded for a different camp
> site in Utah, Monte Cristo Campground, and I've removed it from there.
> Doesn't solve the Eagles Campground riddle though.)
>
> Mapcarta doesn't have any point of contact on the site and the whois
> doesn't return anything useful either.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-GB] Cancelled event with note: DLYW Cornish White @ Fri 31 Jul 2020 15:00 - 16:00 (BST) (talk-gb@openstreetmap.org)

[ian . a . glen]

BEGIN:VCALENDAR
PRODID:-//Google Inc//Google Calendar 70.9054//EN
VERSION:2.0
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:CANCEL
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART:20200731T14Z
DTEND:20200731T15Z
DTSTAMP:20200731T080109Z
ORGANIZER;CN=ian.a.g...@gmail.com:mailto:ian.a.g...@gmail.com
UID:7r6u0u8npm2m74d1ap6dic8...@google.com
ATTENDEE;CUTYPE=INDIVIDUAL;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;CN=ta
 lk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org;X-NUM-GUESTS=0:mailto:talk-gb-request@opens
 treetmap.org
ATTENDEE;CUTYPE=INDIVIDUAL;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;CN=ta
 lk...@openstreetmap.org;X-NUM-GUESTS=0:mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
ATTENDEE;CUTYPE=INDIVIDUAL;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=ACCEPTED;CN=ian.a.
 g...@gmail.com;X-NUM-GUESTS=0:mailto:ian.a.g...@gmail.com
ATTENDEE;CUTYPE=INDIVIDUAL;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;CN=Sh
 ane Reynolds;X-NUM-GUESTS=0:mailto:shane.reyno...@itoworld.com
CREATED:20200731T075739Z
DESCRIPTION:Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to\ntalk-gb@opens
 treetmap.org\n\nTo subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web\, visit\
 nhttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb\nor\, via email\,
  send a message with subject or body 'help' to\ntalk-gb-request@ope
 nstreetmap.org\n\nYou can reach the person managing the list at\nta
 lk-gb-ow...@openstreetmap.org\n\nWhen replying\, please edit your Subject l
 ine so it is more specific\nthan "Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest..."\n\n\nT
 oday's Topics:\n\n   1. OSM and Ramblers Don't Lose Your Way - further coll
 aboration\n  - meeting tomorrow 3pm (Nick Whitelegg)\n   2. Re: Schedul
 ed Monument (Nick)\n\n\n---
 ---\n\nMessage: 1\nDate: Thu\, 30 Jul 2020 11:59:00 +\n
 From: Nick Whitelegg \nTo...\n\n-::~:~::~:~:~:
 ~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~::~:~::-\n
 Please do not edit this section of the description.\n\nThis event has a vid
 eo call.\nJoin: https://meet.google.com/tbi-nvhd-xzw\n-::~:~::~:~:~:~:~:~:~
 :~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~::~:~::-
LAST-MODIFIED:20200731T080108Z
LOCATION:
SEQUENCE:1
STATUS:CANCELLED
SUMMARY:DLYW Cornish White
TRANSP:OPAQUE
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR


invite.ics
Description: application/ics
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Invitation: DLYW Cornish White @ Fri 31 Jul 2020 15:00 - 16:00 (BST) (talk-gb@openstreetmap.org)

[ian . a . glen]

BEGIN:VCALENDAR
PRODID:-//Google Inc//Google Calendar 70.9054//EN
VERSION:2.0
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:REQUEST
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART:20200731T14Z
DTEND:20200731T15Z
DTSTAMP:20200731T075740Z
ORGANIZER;CN=ian.a.g...@gmail.com:mailto:ian.a.g...@gmail.com
UID:7r6u0u8npm2m74d1ap6dic8...@google.com
ATTENDEE;CUTYPE=INDIVIDUAL;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=
 TRUE;CN=talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org;X-NUM-GUESTS=0:mailto:talk-gb-req
 u...@openstreetmap.org
ATTENDEE;CUTYPE=INDIVIDUAL;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=
 TRUE;CN=talk-gb@openstreetmap.org;X-NUM-GUESTS=0:mailto:talk-gb@openstreetm
 ap.org
ATTENDEE;CUTYPE=INDIVIDUAL;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=ACCEPTED;RSVP=TRUE
 ;CN=ian.a.g...@gmail.com;X-NUM-GUESTS=0:mailto:ian.a.g...@gmail.com
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-OWNERAPPTID:-64001998
CREATED:20200731T075739Z
DESCRIPTION:Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to\ntalk-gb@opens
 treetmap.org\n\nTo subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web\, visit\
 nhttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb\nor\, via email\,
  send a message with subject or body 'help' to\ntalk-gb-request@ope
 nstreetmap.org\n\nYou can reach the person managing the list at\nta
 lk-gb-ow...@openstreetmap.org\n\nWhen replying\, please edit your Subject l
 ine so it is more specific\nthan "Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest..."\n\n\nT
 oday's Topics:\n\n   1. OSM and Ramblers Don't Lose Your Way - further coll
 aboration\n  - meeting tomorrow 3pm (Nick Whitelegg)\n   2. Re: Schedul
 ed Monument (Nick)\n\n\n---
 ---\n\nMessage: 1\nDate: Thu\, 30 Jul 2020 11:59:00 +\n
 From: Nick Whitelegg \nTo...\n\n-::~:~::~:~:~:
 ~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~::~:~::-\n
 Please do not edit this section of the description.\n\nThis event has a vid
 eo call.\nJoin: https://meet.google.com/tbi-nvhd-xzw\n\nView your event at 
 https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW=N3I2dTB1OG5wbTJtNzRkM
 WFwNmRpYzg0bXUgdGFsay1nYkBvcGVuc3RyZWV0bWFwLm9yZw=MjAjaWFuLmEuZ2xlbkBnb
 WFpbC5jb202NjkzNWM2ODA3ODVmNjVhZjJiNmVjNzM4NjdmYzFmMTM5MGFjYTVj=Europe%
 2FLondon=en_GB=1.\n-::~:~::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:
 ~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~::~:~::-
LAST-MODIFIED:20200731T075739Z
LOCATION:
SEQUENCE:0
STATUS:CONFIRMED
SUMMARY:DLYW Cornish White
TRANSP:OPAQUE
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR


invite.ics
Description: application/ics
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [talk-au] Aboriginal languages

[Ian Sergeant]

Suburbs boundaries are set by an authority.  They are verifiable - even if
not by ground truth.  They are accurately measurable and surveyable.  This
is the nature of the land system that we have worked within for centuries,
and which OSM reflects.  So they fit right in.

It's possible that Aboriginal lands are not so precisely defined.  There
may not be definite authority.

Rather than being "criminal" to not include them.  It just might mean it's
not the best database structure to model this data.  It even might be
presumptuous of us to assume that this model of mapping is even appropriate
to map this data.

Of course, if there is a usable, measurable form of this data, then sure,
lets do it.  I'm simply saying that there are many items that don't
naturally fall within OSM data for a number of reasons.

Ian.


On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 10:42, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 08:21, Ian Sergeant  wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> I don't see that mapping Nations is an option, I see it as almost
>>> criminal that we don't already.
>>>
>>
>> Surely the essential question to be asked here, is whether these
>> boundaries fit into the OSM model, which is largely inspired by the
>> ordinance survey, where every boundary can be placed as a surveyable marker.
>>
>> So, while they deserve attention and focus, if they can't be verified and
>> measured, then perhaps OSM isn't the right tool.
>>
>
> Suburb boundaries usually don't have anything physical on the ground to
> survey, but we still include them where they actually exist and are a
> concept that is recognised by people.
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Aboriginal languages

[Ian Sergeant]

>
>
>
> I don't see that mapping Nations is an option, I see it as almost criminal
> that we don't already.
>

Surely the essential question to be asked here, is whether these boundaries
fit into the OSM model, which is largely inspired by the ordinance survey,
where every boundary can be placed as a surveyable marker.

So, while they deserve attention and focus, if they can't be verified and
measured, then perhaps OSM isn't the right tool.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Moderation?

[Ian Dees]

Yes, I enabled moderation to cool off the "home rule" thread a bit.

I also stopped getting notification emails from the mailing list system
that any messages had been moderated. I didn't notice until I checked the
web interface. I've disabled the moderation for now.

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:04 AM Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> has someone switched on moderation for this list, and if so, why? I sent
> a message 6 hours ago and re-sent it one hour ago and neither seem to
> have gone through. Have I overlooked an announcement? Or is it just broken?
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] March Meeting

[Ian Caldwell via Talk-gb-westmidlands]

I plan to be there.

Ian


On Sun, 1 Mar 2020 at 14:17, Brian Prangle  wrote:

> Hi everyone
>
> Thursday March 5th 730 The Bull. Come with ideas for travelling meetings
> in the summer
>
> Regards
>
> Brian
>
> ___
> Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
> Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
>
___
Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands

Re: [talk-au] highway=motorway_junction

[Ian Steer]

 

On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 14:33, Andrew Harvey mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> > wrote:

In that particular example I don't think it's needed, since it's only an 
entrance to the motorway (not an exit) and South Street probably doesn't need 
these junction tags.

 

The tag is useful when exits are named or numbered to say there is a motorway 
exit at this point which such and such name and ref, it's different to 
destination sign.

 

eg. if you had an exit which was number 2 but exited to a road with ref 1, then 
he destination_sign relation would be ref=1 but the highway=motorway_junction 
would have ref=2. I've never seen numbered exits but they exist in other 
countries, and maybe here too.

 

If I've understood properly, we've got a few of them around here:

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0457042,153.3543885,3a,15y,133.24h,91.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skFYA0h_lsvqsWAualmVfFQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.1011105,153.403105,3a,15y,131.46h,91.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm4vuA4WcyuCaeBf1mkamNQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0085086,153.3437299,3a,15y,113.78h,91.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smpdDZK21i8RV9tOdn6Gl4g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@-27.9533827,153.343662,3a,24.7y,127.87h,102.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQ1cD8Na9AZrWjwcNdLAdxA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

 

So how should these be tagged?

Thanks

Graeme

 

Yes, that is what I thought highway=motorway_junction ought to be used for (but 
not where the exit is not numbered in any way)

 

Ian

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging showgrounds

[Ian Caldwell via Talk-GB]

As a local, I think it should be tagged as commercial. There is some event
there most weeks. It's a very commercial organisation.



On Mon, 24 Feb 2020, 09:58 Mark Goodge,  wrote:

> Morning all,
>
> Someone has commented on a change I made to the Three Counties
> showground last year when I changed the tagging to landuse=grass rather
> than landuse=commercial. Their suggestion is that it really ought to be
> landuse=recreation_ground, with a secondary tag of surface=grass.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/74103491#map=16/52.0834/-2.3235
>
> I've responded to that comment on the changeset, but I thought it would
> be worth throwing out here as well.
>
> I do think that tagging showgrounds as landuse=commercial is generally
> incorrect; it doesn't match the description of 'commercial' in the wiki
> and doesn't reflect the typical uses of showgrounds both when a show is
> on and when one isn't.
>
> The reason I tagged the Three Counties showground as grass is because,
> most of the year, that's precisely what it is - an open area of
> grassland. Unless there is an event on (which only happens for a
> minority of days in a year) it is just an open space.
>
> Looking at a few other showgrounds across the country, we don't seem to
> have any consistency.
>
> The East of England Showground is tagged as landuse=recreation_ground:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.5456/-0.3170
>
> The Suffolk Showground is tagged as a park:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.0330/1.2277
>
> So is the Staffordshire County Showgound:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.8255/-2.0643
>
> The former Royal Showground at Stoneleigh is tagged as commercial, but
> in that case that's probably now correct as it's no longer used as a
> showground and is gradually being redeveloped as a business park:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.3435/-1.5220
>
> The Great Yorkshire Showground isn't tagged as an area at all, just a
> network of roads and individual features:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/53.9830/-1.5065
>
> Similarly with the Norfolk Showground
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.6490/1.1793
>
> And the Bath and West Showground:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.1552/-2.5265
>
> So, what do people think? Personally, I think that showgrounds ought to
> be tagged as an area, because they do, typically, have clear boundaries
> and are distinct from their surrounding context. But I'm less sure what
> the area should be tagged as. I think commercial is usually wrong, for
> the reasons I've already given, but I can see an argument for either
> grass, recreation_ground or even park.
>
> Thoughts, anyone?
>
> Mark
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [talk-au] highway=motorway_junction

[Ian Steer]

sorry, yes – it’s lacram_telenav.

 

The changeset that caught my eye is 67193952

 

I just don’t understand what they’re trying to achieve.  There are gazillions 
of such intersections to be done if they head down this path.

 

I see that it is a member of a relation called destination_sign (3286190), 
which has lots of information about the signage on this exit.  Do they need to 
have the motorway_junction tag to record these details about the signage ??  - 
and why wouldn’t they be using destination= ?

 

Ian

 

 

From: Andrew Harvey  
Sent: Monday, 24 February 2020 11:14 AM
To: Ian Steer 
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] highway=motorway_junction

 

I don't really see the point of motorway_junction unless that exit has a name 
or number (ref), however it's still valid per the wiki as on nodes at which you 
can exit the highway, I think to avoid putting it on absolutely every 
intersection we should reserve it's use for highway=motorway or trunk/primary 
which have grade separated exits.

 

So based on what you've said, it does sound okay, but if you could link to a 
few changesets that would help?

 

Is that username lacram_telenav instead of lacrom_telenav? Per 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Telenav it looks like they are no longer 
working for Telenav, so if there is an issue or question we'll need to contact 
Telenav at eu-map-analy...@telenav.com <mailto:eu-map-analy...@telenav.com>  
for any questions.

 

On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 13:11, Ian Steer mailto:ianst...@iinet.net.au> > wrote:

lacrom_telenav has been adding highway=motorway_junction tags on exits from 
major roads around Perth – I think to designate destination signs.  It is 
associated with “noref=yes”

 

The wiki says:

 

Use the  <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> 
highway=motorway_junction tag to identify a point along a  
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> highway=* with junction refs 
or names where it is possible to exit the highway onto another road. This is 
usually found along a  <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> 
highway= <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway> motorway, 
but is also applicable to other roads with numbered or named junctions 
including some  <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> highway= 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrunk> trunk and  
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> highway= 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dprimary> primary roads.

 

The instances I have noticed are not on roads with named or numbered exits, 
therefore I am thinking this tag is inappropriate.  (I noticed it because it 
shows-up as an “e” on my GPS – which is a rendering issue I know)

 

The wiki also says:

 

 <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name> name=* for the name of the 
junction or interchange. Do not confuse the name of a junction with the 
destination(s) the junction leads to. In most cases worldwide, sign information 
describes destinations, not the name of the junction or interchange itself. If 
a signpost or indication displays destinations exclusively, this data belongs 
to  <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination> destination=* tags, 
not the  <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name> name=* of the  
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> highway=motorway_junction 
node.

 

I tried messaging this user a week-or-so ago and have had no response.

 

What do people think about this tag?  I don’t know what he is trying to achieve.

 

Ian

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

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

[talk-au] highway=motorway_junction

[Ian Steer]

lacrom_telenav has been adding highway=motorway_junction tags on exits from
major roads around Perth - I think to designate destination signs.  It is
associated with "noref=yes"

 

The wiki says:

 

Use the  <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>
highway=motorway_junction tag to identify a point along a
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> highway=* with junction
refs or names where it is possible to exit the highway onto another road.
This is usually found along a
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> highway=
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway> motorway, but
is also applicable to other roads with numbered or named junctions including
some  <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> highway=
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrunk> trunk and
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> highway=
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dprimary> primary roads.

 

The instances I have noticed are not on roads with named or numbered exits,
therefore I am thinking this tag is inappropriate.  (I noticed it because it
shows-up as an "e" on my GPS - which is a rendering issue I know)

 

The wiki also says:

 

 <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name> name=* for the name of the
junction or interchange. Do not confuse the name of a junction with the
destination(s) the junction leads to. In most cases worldwide, sign
information describes destinations, not the name of the junction or
interchange itself. If a signpost or indication displays destinations
exclusively, this data belongs to
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination> destination=* tags,
not the  <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name> name=* of the
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> highway=motorway_junction
node.

 

I tried messaging this user a week-or-so ago and have had no response.

 

What do people think about this tag?  I don't know what he is trying to
achieve.

 

Ian

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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Mappa Mercia this Thursday

[Ian Caldwell via Talk-gb-westmidlands]

I hope to be there.

Ian


On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 18:14, Brian Prangle  wrote:

> Good for me - I'll be there
>
> On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 13:12, Rob Nickerson 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> By my calendar it is the next meetup this coming Thursday. I am assuming
>> central Birmingham, likely at The Bull...?
>>
>> *Rob*
>> ___
>> Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
>> Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
>>
> ___
> Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
> Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
>
___
Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands

Re: [talk-au] Shoulder and cycle usage

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi,

Shoulders should always be tagged appropriately.

Shoulders legally in Australia can be used by all bicycles - whether or not
they have a bicycle stencil (painted bicycle sign)  And a bicycle lane is
legally indicated by a sign and not a stencil.  Legally the stencil has no
meaning at all.

My personal advice currently in Australia is to caution against indicating
there is bicycle infrastructure where there is no amenity.   Since, this is
a far greater problem in OSM than missing cycle routes and infrastructure,
and takes far longer to correct and survey.  Google Maps has actually come
from behind to lead OSM in this aspect now in Sydney in most areas.

That said, most motorways that have a wide shoulder, a cycle stencil, and
permit cycling have a bicycle lane indicated.  I think this is probably
appropriate.

Ian.

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 14:19, Sebastian S.  wrote:

> Hi, what is the view of tagging road shoulders and particularly when they
> have painted bicycle signs?
>
> Motorways would be another candidate.
>
> A wiki entry for shoulder exists but is very basic
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shoulder
> ___
> 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] parking and bike lane

[Ian Sergeant]

Generally yes.

There are a few different treatments.  The two main ones are where the
straight through cycle traffic remains to the left of a separated barrier.

Best example I can think of is at Ian Parade near concord.

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/PR6ShOVEl-hNO91xjsDwLQ

And there is also the fully separated off-ramp on-ramp style treatment.
There are also a few of those around Concord.  And also going through the
large roundabouts at North Nowra.  And other places.

As for cycle-lanes actually going through roundabouts.  Well, the classic
example would be on Darling Drive.  There used to be two where the
cycle-lanes went straight through, and there is one remaining.  It's a
terrible piece of infrastructure though.  There are some others around the
place.  If they don't cross exists they can be okay - but the ones crossing
exits are dangerous.

https://goo.gl/maps/r3LG7XajfvbEBRBQA

As much as we'd all like to have OSM to be our representation of how
cycle-friendly a road is, OSM in Sydney is already suffering a fair bit
from people entering their own interpretation of what is cycle
infrastructure.  So, I really think the best thing is to map it as it is.
But appreciate the motivation to try and let others know about the
continuity of a cycle route.

Thanks,
Ian.

On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 19:42, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 31/12/19 16:42, Ian Sergeant wrote:
>
> IMO clearly no.
>
> A router may even prefer to route around roundabouts and prefer a route
> where cycling amenity is actually continuous.  Map it how it is, and the
> router can decide based on the preferences (weightings) of the rider.
>
> Ian.
>
>
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2019, 8:05 am Sebastian S.,  wrote:
>
>> I agree that if there is nothing marked, however my question was rather
>> from a continuity point of view.
>> The roads into and out of the round about have cycle lanes. The cyclist
>> needs to merge with the road traffic to pass through.
>> Should the roundabout have cycle=designated or yes to ensure routing goes
>> through it?
>>
>>
>> On 30 December 2019 6:56:31 am AEDT, Andrew Harvey <
>> andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> If there's nothing marked on the road in the roundabout, then you can
>>> just omit the cycle lane tag from the roundabout.
>>>
>>> On Sun., 29 Dec. 2019, 2:21 pm Graeme Fitzpatrick, <
>>> graemefi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Graeme
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 at 16:52, David Wales 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I prefer to use separate ways for separate foot paths.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As do I.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 28 December 2019 3:02:30 pm AEDT, Sebastian Spiess <
>>>>> mapp...@consebt.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do welcome comments. In particular regarding how to go about the
>>>>>> cycle way and the roundabout.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Looks OK to me, but I've also wondered how bike lanes are supposed to
>>>> work through roundabouts, when there's nothing marked on the road?
>>>>
>>>
> For safety I think you will find all bicycle lanes end before any
> roundabout and restart after the roundabout.. helps stop cars exiting over
> cyclists, well it is supposed to...
>
> ___
> 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] Jervis Bay Territory admin boundary

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi,

I know that there is a lot of water under the bridge - but I think I did
much of this boundary after the great copyright expurgation..

The source I used for much of it was the actual defining legislation.  You
may want to consult that in your work.  The LPI base map may well be
better, and that wasn't available at that time.

"All that piece and parcel of land and water situate at Jervis Bay in the
Parish of Bherwerre, County of St. Vincent, State of New South Wales,
Commonwealth of Australia, area about 18,000 acres, commencing at a point
on the high water mark on the left bank of Sussex Inlet at its intersection
with the western boundary of portion 12 of 40 acres and bounded thence
westerly and north-westerly by that high water mark to the high water mark
of St. George's Basin, thence in a general easterly and north-easterly
direction by that high water mark to its intersection with the production
westerly of the southern boundary of portion 18; thence easterly by a
straight line formed by the western production of the southern boundary of
portion 18, the boundary itself, and its production easterly to the high
water mark of Jervis Bay; thence by a line across the southern part of
Jervis Bay bearing north-easterly to a point in the high water mark of
Jervis Bay at the northernmost extremity of Bowen Island; thence by the
high water mark of Jervis Bay and of the South Pacific Ocean along the
eastern boundary of Bowen Island to the southernmost point thereof; thence
by a line bearing south-westerly across the passage between Bowen Island
and Governor Head to the high water mark of the South Pacific Ocean on the
foreshore of the mainland, at the northernmost point of Governor Head; and
thence by that high water mark in a general southerly and south-westerly
direction to St. George's Head; thence in a general northerly, westerly and
south-westerly direction by the high water mark of Wreck Bay to the high
water mark on the left bank of Sussex Inlet before mentioned; and thence in
a general northerly direction by that high water mark to the commencing
point."

Ian.

On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 at 10:59, cleary  wrote:

> The Jervis Bay Territory/NSW boundary is shown such that Jervis Bay
> Territory overlaps into parts of Shoalhaven Council area and NSW suburbs.
> Obviously not correct. There seems to be no source provided for the
> location of the boundary, although much of it appears to be attached to the
> coastline (also source not apparent).
>
> There have been a lot of edits to this area and maybe someone more
> familiar with the location wants to repair the map in this area. If not, I
> propose to try to fix it, primarily using the NSW_LPI_BaseMap as the source
> for the boundary.
>
> If no one else wants to do it, I'll work in on it in a few days.
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] highway link is not linked to adequate highway/link ??

[Ian Steer]

From: Mateusz Konieczny mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com> >

Subject: Re: [talk-au] highway link is not linked to adequate highway/link
??

 

>> Is it intentional that
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/696446485#map=18/-32.14717/115.92374
 =N is highway=trunk?

>> I would tag it at highway=primary, maybe highway=trunk_link is
defensible, but it is unclear to me why it would highway=trunk

 

I didn't change the highway=trunk, I just added the link roads to match.
After checking the Aust wiki, I am inclined to agree with you that it should
be highway=primary but all similar roads in Perth are classified as trunks,
so I have left it at a trunk.

 

>> Also, I would expect https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/696452550 to be
highway=primary

 

again, not something I did, but I agree and have changed it to
highway=primary

 

>>"looking at the wiki on link roads" which pages you have checked? Maybe
something should be changed.

 

I was looking at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Link_roads_between_different_highways_ty
pes.  If Armadale Rd was legitimately a trunk, then what I did seemed to be
correct.

 

The other strange think was that part of Armadale Rd object itself did not
have a name tag, but was just part of an Armadale Rd relation.  I thought
this was a bit unusual, and have added the name tag (can't hurt can it?)

 

The funny thing was that after making the minor changes above and uploading
again, the same warning message did not re-appear.  All's well that ends
well I say.

 

27 Dec 2019, 10:06 by ianst...@iinet.net.au  :

> I've made an approximation of the new grade-separated interchange of
Nicholson & Armadale Rds in Perth in the changeset below.  I get the warning
"highway link is not linked to adequate highway/link" on all the trunk_links
I have added, and looking at the wiki on link roads, I can't work-out why ?

> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78916457

> 

> 

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Adding polygons of the aerodromes

[Ian Sergeant]

I'd say there is zero chance that any fixed wing aircraft have used that
strip in the past year.

It's closed to fixed wing craft, and it's absolutely not safe for use.  If
it is approved redevelopment (it's NPWS land, not council) it will likely
be redeveloped with only a single paved runway.

My opinion with airstrips is that we should err on the side of caution.
We've had OSM polluted over the years with imports from ourairports, etc -
that have seen even navigation beacons marked as airstrips.  And *lots* of
strips where there is no possibility of a landing.

And bear in mind that although OSM is not suitable for flight planning,
just about every GA pilot has the OSM maps with them in the cockpit - so in
an emergency it would be nice to thing that someone adding an airstrip at
least was pointing at a bit of dirt that would give you a chance of
survival, and not just colouring in.

And for non-security controlled strips - what a polygon would mean is
unclear.  The ownership boundary of the airport owner?  The fence (if there
is one).  Limits of access - if that is meaningful?

Ian.

On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 at 19:39, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 27/12/19 16:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 at 15:39, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Node: Katoomba Airfield (1042094263) is a little difficult.
>>
>
> I notice that the airfield is marked as "disused", but in the article, the
> new owner says they've had chopper flights come in over the last year?
>
> Should it be re-marked as an active helipad, at least?
>
>
> Think the fire fighting would have seen both helicopters and fixed wing
> aircraft (e.g. crop dusters fitted with water) using it in the last month
> or two.
> The council wants the strip to continue.
>
> I'd leave it as it is and see what happens in the longer term.
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] highway link is not linked to adequate highway/link ??

[Ian Steer]

I've made an approximation of the new grade-separated interchange of
Nicholson & Armadale Rds in Perth in the changeset below.  I get the warning
"highway link is not linked to adequate highway/link" on all the trunk_links
I have added, and looking at the wiki on link roads, I can't work-out why ?

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78916457

 

Ian

 

 

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

[talk-au] tagging of "demolished" roads

[Ian Steer]

Nanga Rd in WA's south west has been affected by bauxite mining and has been
re-routed.  I'm hesitant to simply delete the old alignment, and am
wondering whether there is an appropriate tag like "demolished=yes" to use
on it instead ?

 

Ian

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

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Ian Sergeant]

What does "official" mean?  It's official, in that the signs are placed by
the local council.  However they are not enforceable, because no law
(regulation, etc) gives them a legal meaning.

There is no definitive list of street signs that are advisory vs
enforceable.  But the RMS has a partial list on their website, and the
definitive is the Australian Road Rules (as in various state legislation).

Councils use them to discourage local streets for through use.  They advise
drivers that they aren't a main road - and they may have traffic calming,
etc on them and be otherwise unsuited in design for through use.  They
aren't used at all in many (most?) council areas.

In some cases, they may also have a reduced speed-limit on the same sign.
That would be enforceable.

It's pretty low value information to capture in OSM.  But the signs exist,
so we can capture them - but a access restriction would be inappropriate.
I've said before I agree with Andrew's proposed tagging for discouraged
access.

Ian.

On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 06:38, Sebastian S.  wrote:

> So the sign is put up by the council. Is it not an official sign?
>
> Could someone elaborate on the legal side mentioned here. E.g. is there
> catalogue of street signs in the road rules and this one is not among them?
>
> Are people confusing lax enforcement of the sign with it having no legal
> meaning?
>
> On 9 November 2019 11:37:49 am AEDT, Andrew Harvey <
> andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 02:24, Mateusz Konieczny 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Why it would be irrelevant?
>>>
>>
>>> access tag family is for legal access (with some space for officially
>>> discouraged access),
>>> access=destination is for "transit is illegal", not "local residents
>>> dislike transit traffic".
>>>
>>> OSM is not a place to add a nonexisting ban on transit traffic
>>>
>>
>> Yeah realised this later, see my other post in this thread at
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-November/013188.html,
>> which I suggested motor_vehicle:advisory=destination to tag a suggested or
>> advised but maybe not legally enforceable destination only restriction.
>>
>> On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 01:55, Mateusz Konieczny 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Is it "local traffic only" as in "resident only" or "no transit"?
>>>
>>> Is permission required to enter this area?
>>>
>>> AFAIK there is no tagging scheme for distinguishing "only with
>>> permission of
>>> homeowner" and "available to all residents of closed community".
>>>
>>
>> It just means this road is indented to be used if you're traveling to
>> somewhere along this road, but not if you're just driving through as a
>> shortcut.
>>
>> It's still public land, not private property.
>>
> ___
> 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] local traffic only

[Ian Sergeant]

I agree the meaning of "discouraged" is what we need here.  But motor
vehicles are only discouraged if they aren't local traffic.  Otherwise they
are perfectly fine.

So, I think the motor_vehicle:advisory=destination covers these two
concepts, and is a better representation.

Ian.

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 18:58, Benjamin Ceravolo 
wrote:

> I feel, as though discourage or discouraged is already an advisory term
> (you can't advise a recommendation if advise is a synonym of recommend).
>
> So I would think "motor_vehicle=discouraged" would be most appropriate.
>
> Just my thoughts.
>
> Ben
>
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 18:12, Luke Stewart 
> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps "motor_vehicle=discouraged"?
>>
>> From the wiki:
>> A legal right of way exists (see yes
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dyes>) but usage is
>> officially discouraged (e.g., HGVs on narrow but passable lanes). Only if
>> marked by a traffic sign (subjective otherwise).
>>
>> Although that may be getting too far away from the meaning of the sign,
>> but the original intention is to discourage through and non-local traffic
>>
>> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 15:31, Andrew Harvey 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access does say "Access
>>> values describe legal permissions/restrictions. What happens on the ground
>>> may be different: for instance, many footpaths are used as de facto bike
>>> paths, without a legal right to do so. (Various 'greyzone' tags have been
>>> proposed to deal with such situations, but this is controversial and is not
>>> described here.)"
>>>
>>> Similar to existing "maxspeed:advisory"
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:advisory perhaps if
>>> these aren't legal restrictions but still signposted on the ground we could
>>> use "motor_vehicle:advisory=destination". Does that work better?
>>>
>>> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 13:04, Luke Stewart 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As far as I have read, these signs are not enforceable by councils, nor
>>>> do they appear in the NSW (or Australian) Road Rules. So unless the road
>>>> itself is on private property and this sign is present, the access would
>>>> still be public and it has the same meaning as discouraging the use of the
>>>> street in favour of main roads.
>>>> ___
>>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>>
>>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Ian Sergeant]

I disagree with this one

1. I'm pretty sure they are not intended to have any effect to cyclists and
pedestrians.  Who are generally encouraged to use these kinds of streets.
I wouldn't like to think we're putting access restrictions that are going
to cause walking/cycling routing issues.

2. I'm also not sure these signs have any legal effect at all.  They aren't
privately owned.  The signs are just street decorations.  I'd be inclined
to

Ian.


On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 22:36, Nemanja Bračko  wrote:

> I would agree with David on this.
> In that way you will avoid routing thru these streets unless your
> destination is there.
>
> Sent from my phone
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, 12:33 David Wales  wrote:
>
>> I would use access=destination
>>
>> On 7 November 2019 10:21:26 pm AEDT, Sebastian Spiess 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello List,
>>>
>>> how do you map a 'local traffic only' sign as this one?
>>> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/FkY8gmlGX2NmhUARyveMQw
>>>
>>> Following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access states "...Note
>>> that "access only for residents" is private..."
>>>
>>> Would this not break navigation in apps etc?
>>> --
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>
>>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-ph] Suggesting removing names from expressway ramps (but keep on junction nodes)

[Ian Lopez via talk-ph]

I personally prefer to retain exit/interchange names from expressway ramps but 
I have no problem with moving such names to motorway junctions.

Aside: Are we the only country that has exit/interchange names on expressway 
ramps?

Regards,

Ian Lopez

-
Blog: http://ianlopez1115.wordpress.com/
OpenStreetMap/Twitter: ianlopez1115
Facebook: ian.lopez 

On Sunday, November 3, 2019, 6:40:22 AM GMT+8, Jherome Miguel 
 wrote:  
 
 I am suggesting removing exit/interchange names from expressway ramps 
(highway=motorway_link), so that the underlying destination info can be used 
for routing, while the common exit name (without the "Exit/Interchange" suffix) 
will be retained in the exit location node (highway=motorway_junction). This 
mapping will allow retaining the exit name on the map (as with the norm in the 
Philippines), while allowing destination info to be used for the router. 
Do anyone are okay about this? Further questions or 
comments?___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
  ___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-au] Mapping 'private roads' conclusion

[Ian Steer]

Sounds OK

(I'll have to change my mapping practices)

Ian



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

Re: [talk-au] Discussion C: mapping on the street

[Ian Sergeant]

I use Vespucci on Android.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.blau.android=en_AU

In addition to being a fully capable editor, you can add notes, and see
others notes at your location.

Ian.

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 09:06, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Discussion C: mapping on the street
> OSM is great. I showed it to an organisation as large A0 maps of Canberra.
> The largest size that I could print. The maps still covered the whole board
> table when I left. I demonstrated an android app to the CEO. They had never
> heard of OSM of course. "Its a bit like Google maps." I cannot tell you how
> often I have heard that. I hope it will get the conversation going. Thank
> you for everybody's efforts. :-)
> But to the point…
>
> mapping on the street
> It is new and exciting, with people in the cafes but OSM says the street
> building site. We have all experienced this.
> JOSM and ID editors are excellent, but you cannot take them with you. The
> ACTmapi Images 2019 are great, but they are almost a year out of date. GPX
> tracks help but the editing is post-processing. It would be ideal to
> correct the maps in real-time on the street. Canberra is changing so fast,
> it is hard to keep up with.
> It would be best to map on the street. When something needs correcting
> mark it with a comment (or photo) for correction immediately (FIXME). The
> app would run on the smartphone continuously showing the most current maps,
> can this be done?
> I welcome your comments.
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Discussion of state regulation and planing issues for OSM

[Ian Sergeant]

With regard to 4 & 5, I'd observe that even in it's anarchic form, OSM has
been very successful in reflect these changes very quickly. Buildings and
roads change during construction.  Alignments of paths change and get
corrected.  So, I wouldn't necessarily conclude that there is something
here that needs to be fixed.  And people advocating for their interests is
a strength.

The issue of physical existence of a path vs. permission to use such a path
is a still a fairly live one worldwide - and certainly not an issue just
for AU.   And regeneration is just one example of this.  Cultural,
military, privacy provide similar issues when decided where and how to map.

That said, in my experience OSM mostly seems to reflect the ground truth
more commonly than the government issued documentation in Australia.  I'm
always reluctant to see a good survey overridden by a government issued
plan.  And we run up against this all the time with cycling
infrastructure being added from a council plan where none may ever get
constructed or exist on the ground.  And lots of plans can be made and
change before a sod is turned.

Ian.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 09:43, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Country: Australia, Language: English, Topic: Regulation
>
> This AU email forum is the best there is, but I wish there was something
> more. So, I will bring this topic up here where there may be community
> support for something extra. From the header above this user group is
> already specific but is it specific enough? This group discusses mostly
> detail, but the details revolve around a concept and that is what I am
> interested in here. The recent Wollongong discussion bought this to light.
> The fundamental assumption is that OSM represents the real world.
>
> What is covered?
>
>1. Database design: The OpenStreetMap is a database and use is
>restricted by its design, key types and permitted values. There is however
>much scope in actual use that depends on interpretation.
>2. OSM standards: Some of this ambiguity is resolved in the best
>practice outlined in the OSM Wiki and worth knowing, as it is an attempt at
>standardisation and actively enforced by some members of the community.
>3. Regional standards: The AU email forum serves as a regional
>discussion forum to get some sort of consensus of how Australia issues are
>to be dealt with in Australia, i.e. adapting OSM to Australian
>requirements.
>4. State laws and regulations: Australia is a federation and each
>state has its own laws and regulations. Local government is another level.
>This autonomy shows up in OSM particularly in terms of permissions: who can
>do what. In this context, we need to consider private/public property,
>military and secure zones, and finally nature reserves and national parks
>with restricted access but special rules.
>5. Planning codes and zoning: This last one has got to do with how
>land is used over time which arises in OSM as life cycles and featured also
>in the Wollongong discussion as “regeneration”. It commonly arises with the
>rezoning of land, release of land for public use, leases on land for
>grazing and private use (parking). I have an interest in greenfield public
>land developments: rezoned or planned. Once it has funding (parliament) the
>project passes the hurdle that something changes in OSM, even though at
>this stage it may not be anything visible. There is community interest to
>see this on a map. There are many examples of this that include nature
>reserves and new suburbs. End of life issues are track regeneration but
>also track realignment which is common for mountain biking single track
>management. It is not uncommon to hide but keep old track realignments.
>
> This AU email forum does not seem the pace for the last two items, but the
> Wollongong discussion shows that awareness of these things is important for
> the OSM maps to make any sense. Particularly if the maps are for navigation
> (autorouting) or when render specialist maps (mountain biking or walking),
> then such information is critical. There may be a discussion for a track or
> area how to best define the permissions on paths and tracks.
>
> There is a lot of information on the web about this sort of thing on
> government and official websites. I have further written to state
> government departments requesting clarification and improvements. Local
> tensions are not uncommon with competing claims. This tension can be seen
> in the OSM community with certain keys toggling between individual
> preferences. Mappers are people and advocate their interests on OSM and
> sometimes join OSM specifically for this purpose.
>
> Are

Re: [Talk-GB] Showgrounds (tagging)

[Ian Caldwell via Talk-GB]

For the  Three Counties Showground in Malvern
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/35432806 is tagged with
landuse=commercial. Any given the number of events there most of which are
commercial. Commercial would be correct. That how the NEC is mapped
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243830271.

Ian


On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 at 20:55, SK53  wrote:

> I just came across <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/161362655> an
> agricultural showground tagged as leisure=park and realised I didn't know
> what a sensible way to retag it would be. Although there are a limited
> number in the UK (perhaps 100 or so) they do tend to be quite prominent and
> when major events take place at them (e.g., Scout Jamborees, National
> Eisteddfod) good tagging can be useful. I recall Richard Bullock mapping
> the Royal Cheshire quite a few years ago as it helped parents pick up their
> children after the scout Jamboree.
>
> Various (inconsistent) approaches have been used:
>
> * Newark <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/178396540> & Norfolk
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/40942963> mapped as tourism=attraction
> * Rutland <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/547075306> as
> leisure=recreation_ground (there are certainly sports pitches here out of
> events)
> * Royal Cheshire <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/67375462> as
> amenity=showground with landuse=grass.
>
> It strikes me that how grounds are a special type of events venue and
> perhaps rather than using amenity=showground it may be better to use
> amenity=events_venue with a subtag events_venue=showground. leisure &
> tourism tags may still be applicable, and landuse=grass can still be (mis-)
> used to show the area (see Newark & Royal Cheshire). Alternatives might be
> amenity=exhibition_centre, but this seems more for places like the NEC. The
> current wiki description circumscribes events venues fairly closely, so
> this would be an extension in meaning.
>
> I don't think anything in the UK (or Europe) is quite on the scale of the 
> Minnesota
> State Fair <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/39662664> which certainly
> merits tourism=attraction.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry
>
> Any thoughts,
>
> Jerry
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [talk-au] Residential Poolside Building

[Ian Sergeant]

In my view - the reason apple is mapping private tennis courts, is not
because it actually sees a benefit in mapping peoples backyard, it's
because it's using a level of automation that recognises them.  For OSM
it's nothing more than a colouring-in exercise.

I agree with Andrew that marking a building next to a private swimming pool
as anything other than "building=yes", almost always calls for pure
speculation.  Whether it's a pool shed, cabana or outside dunny.

Ian.

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 08:25, David Wales  wrote:

> I think in this day and age, we can't really consider anything private
> if it's visible from space...
>
> Apple appears to be mapping backyard tennis courts now.
> https://www.justinobeirne.com/new-apple-maps
>
> Just make sure that you tag them as access=private !
>
> On 12/8/19 7:58 pm, Warin wrote:
> > On 12/08/19 19:46, Benjamin Ceravolo wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I've been tracing in residential swimming pools and I have not as yet
> >> found an appropriate tagging for the small poolside buildings that
> >> (from my experience); may have an area to get changed and to store
> >> pool-toys, chemicals and other pool care items.
> >>
> >> My current guess is just to mark it as: building=yes
> >>
> >> If there are any other tags I have missed or if I'm just being blind
> >> and missing something obvious, I would like to hear your
> >> option/response.
> >
> > Caution: there are some who object to 'private' things being mapped.
> >
> > These buildings my have toilets and showers too, tags exist for these.
> > I would like a tag for changing rooms, some sports venues have them,
> > some beach side buildings have them. Amenity=changing_rooms?
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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-us] Website showing the best time to survey with GPS.

[Ian Dees]

Also take a look at http://satpredictor2.deere.com/lookup, found by
searching Google for "when is the best time for gps", which lead me to this
interesting set of StackOverflow answers:
https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/181/is-gps-more-accurate-on-specific-hours-of-the-day,
too.

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 5:20 PM Eric H. Christensen via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> I was told there was a website that forecasted the best times to do survey
> work with GNSS based upon diversity of satellites in the sky, solar
> activity, etc. Does anyone know what site this is?
>
> Thanks,
> Eric
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [talk-au] Proposed deletion of part of the Gwydir River

[Ian Sergeant]

I'm with Andrew on this one.  It sounds like your research is likely
superior to any other recent survey done in the area, and we're not
wikipedia here - we value ground truth / original research and it would be
a shame it it couldn't be mirrored in the map.

Personally, I'd change it to

waterway=no
note="blah"

because otherwise an armchair mapper will put it back (and I would too,
guilty as charged).  It's ugly and non-standard, but I'd do it anyway.

Ian.

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 22:52, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> I think you've done a top job detailing the situation, so I'd go with your
> findings from on the ground.
>
> We're not here to simply mirror the NSW LPI Base Map, so I wouldn't worry
> too much about what it says.
>
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 18:25, cleary  wrote:
>
>> In the past, I added some parts of the Gwydir River to the map using the
>> NSW LPI Base Map because I could not see a clear waterway on satellite
>> imagery. Since then, I have visited the area twice and cannot actually find
>> a river where it is shown on the map. Much of the "river" is in private
>> property but public roads cross waterways at various locations.
>>
>> The western end of the Gwydir River seems not to exist except on the NSW
>> LPI Base Map and maps which have used it as a source (including OSM).
>>
>> As far as I can ascertain, the river used to dissipate into wetlands and,
>> if there was enough water, the seepage from the wetlands re-formed into
>> waterways. However intensive irrigation has resulted in such low water flow
>> that the wetlands are largely dust and water seems never to flow beyond
>> them (except perhaps in major flood events which are relatively rare).
>> Water from the eastern Gwydir may flow west to the Barwon River via Carole
>> Creek into Gil Gil Creek, via the Gingham Watercourse and via the Mehi
>> River.  But the so-called Gwydir River, west of the wetlands, does not
>> appear to exist except on the LPI Map. And part that of the waterway that
>> does exist is signposted by the Moree Plains Shire Council with a different
>> name (Big Leather Watercourse) at the two places where it crosses public
>> roads.  GNB uses this name for another branch of the river nearer to Moree
>> but locals, including the local council, seem to have a different view.
>>
>> When visiting the area, I found water to be difficult to discuss with
>> locals as there are some strong points of view. Maintaining a river on the
>> map may be a political imperative for government but is not consistent with
>> OSM's philosophy of mapping what is actually on the ground at particular
>> locations.
>>
>> After reflection, I think the Gwydir River does not really exist west of
>> the wetlands and I think it should be deleted from OSM, even though it is
>> shown on the LPI Base Map. I propose to delete this section of the river
>> and follow the local council signposted name for the more westerly waterway
>> that does actually exist at Morialta and Watercourse Roads.
>>
>> I would appreciate any views on this issue.
>>
>> ___
>> 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-us] What's protecting the map?

[Ian Dees]

On Sun, Jun 9, 2019, 15:38 Paul Johnson  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 1:23 PM Nuno Caldeira 
> wrote:
>
>> But what happens if the Foundation is taken over by people with
>> commercial interests?
>>
>>- You still own the rights to any data you contribute, not the
>>Foundation. In the new Contributor Terms, you license the Foundation to
>>publish the data for others to use and ONLY under a free and open license
>>
>>
> This got me thinking, particularly considering the license change a few
> years ago and what a fiasco that was.  What's protecting the map here?
> What's to stop a prolific contributor from taking their ball and going
> home, to the overall detriment of the map?
>
> To be clear, this *is not something I am going to to*.  For the sake of
> playing Devil's advocate, what is to stop me from, after nearly a decade,
> taking my data and going home?  This would leave a roughly 400 kilometer
> wide hole centered in Tulsa, some serious breakage in metro Portland and
> thousands of pockmarks around the world.  If I were to pull out and take my
> data with me, it would swiss cheese the map.
>

What does "taking my data and going home" mean? You've already given OSMF a
license to use the data you've contributed so far, so there wouldn't be any
reason for OSMF to remove the data from a legal perspective. I suppose you
could go around and delete the data you've contributed, but that would
likely be considered vandalism and your changes reverted.

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

Re: [talk-au] Caltex on name-suggestion-index

[Ian Sergeant]

Strictly speaking, I don't think that's true.  Some Caltex operated sites
still branded as Woolworths Caltex, and offered the Woolworths facilities.
You couldn't tell just by looking who owned what.

Of course, now Woolworths has sold all its fuel outlets, and doesn't
operate as a fuel retailer any longer.

I'd go by the name on the sign - as these are likely to change over the
past few months as the Caltex owned stores all revert to form.

Ian.

On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 14:51, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir 
wrote:

> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:55 PM Charles Gregory 
> wrote:
>
>> Are "Caltex" and "Caltex Woolworths" identical in some parts of Australia?
>>
>> "What is the difference between [the 535] Woolworths Caltex and [the 680]
> Caltex locations?
> Woolworths Caltex is a Woolworths owned fuel location, that sells Caltex
> fuel. The shop at a Woolworths Caltex is a Woolworths store.
> The shop at a Caltex location can be a Star Mart, Star Shop or The
> Foodary."
> https://www.caltex.com.au/woolworths
>
> The map on their website makes a distinction between the two when you
> click on it https://www.caltex.com.au/find-a-caltex
> ___
> 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-gb-westmidlands] Collaboration with shire tansport authorities

[Ian Caldwell via Talk-gb-westmidlands]

I am OK for  Worcestershire

Ian


On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 at 11:46, Brian Prangle  wrote:

> Hi everyone
>
> Mainly for west mids mappers but cross-posted to talkgb for a wider
> audience.
>
> For some time I've collaborated with TfWM who make extensive use of
> OpenStreetMap. Together we've refreshed the entire NapTAN dataset for the
> West Midlands and we're engaged on an ongoing basis in solving data quality
> issues where the OSM data throws up errors with their bus routeing software.
> Word spreads and at a regional meeting of  shire transport authorities
> there was a request for contact with local OSM volunteers in the following
> areas:
>
> Herefordshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Stoke, Telford, Warwickshire,
> Worcestershire
>
> If anyone wants to volunteer please get in touch with me and I can put you
> in touch. It will mainly involve dealing with errors they spot such as
> missing/wrong roadnames, missing/wrong roads. With TfWM there's been an
> average of one of these week, sometimes bunched together followed by weeks
> with nothing - so not a heavy workload and worth the effort to improve the
> data.
>
> If my experience is anything to go by, there'll be an initial peak and
> then they'll realise, with a little prompting, it's easier and quicker to
> fix the errors themselves. But it's good to have an initial period of
> handholding as  I think they are respectful  of causing any damage
>
> Regards
>
>
> Brian
> ___
> Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
> Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
>
___
Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands

Re: [talk-au] Aboriginal art sites

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi Sebastian,

Thanks for your thoughts.  I'm sure we're all well intentioned.

If I understand your proposal, what you're saying is we build a wiki page that 
lists the relevant authority and what should not be mapped in that area.  Then 
a local mapper would check against that when mapping significant local features?

So that raises two issues I see.

Firstly, since it's defined in the negative it relies on someone seeking out 
the local authority and recording their wishes.  Rather than imposing a 
positive obligation to seek permission.  In that way it seems a little 
different to what others seem to be proposing.

Secondly, we may end up with a wiki page with the areas and significant 
features all laid out.  Which may be counter to what we're trying to achieve 
here.

Ian.

From: Sebastian S.
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Aboriginal art sites
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org, Graeme Fitzpatrick, Ian Sergeant
Cc: OSM-Au


I second that the elders wishes should be respected.

With regards to documenting.
One way would be to mark the local indigenous area/tribe/... And then outline 
in the wiki what should not be mapped in order to respect the wishes. I recall 
a recent blog post or Diary entry regarding indigenous communities mapping.

In a sense this falls in the same category as 'I don't want my backyard shed or 
pool mapped from satellite images'. Although the cultural aspects are not the 
same :-)

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

On 3 April 2019 8:17:25 am AEDT, Graeme Fitzpatrick  
wrote:


On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 20:27, Ian Sergeant 
mailto:inas66%2b...@gmail.com>> wrote:
How do we actually contact "local elders"?

Would have to be done "on the ground" in that local area

  Where do we record their consent?

Possibly in Notes? Maybe the Oz Data Catalogue page 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue or similar?

  What if they change their minds?

Then I think we would need to delete the entries, similar to the way that you 
can request your premises not be shown on Google Maps. I have seen a comment on 
the Tagging list that some town in the US requested that all it's minor streets 
be deleted from all online maps to prevent rat-runners from driving down them!


Are we saying other mappers should delete these sites if they see them on the 
map?  How do they know if approval was obtained?

I would hope that people have done things "properly". As mentioned though, if 
the site is advertised / signposted, then it's fine to map. But if you're 
walking in the Kimberley & find a cave full of paintings, then you should ask 
for approval before mapping them. This was discussed a while back about mapping 
a track up in that area, but I can't find the reference in the archives

is this form of censorship practised anywhere else in OSM - maybe for other 
indigenous people - that we could copy their model?

I don't know? I'll post the question on the Tagging list.

P.S. It's Strait - not "Straight".

Thanks! Corrected :-)

Thanks

Graeme


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

Re: [talk-au] Existing OSM precedent | Re: Aboriginal art sites

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi,

I'm not really concerned with the term.  Or even wanting to discuss the
philosophical arguments behind it.  Happy to use a different word if that
keeps the discussion focussed.  Although, personally I don't think we
should be frightened of it.  What we're doing here is self-censorship to
protect vulnerable groups and sites - and we're comfortable with that.

As to the practical nature of this discussion, we don't seem to have many
answers.  This just seems to be call to mappers to take care and consider
the impact of what they are mapping to the site.  And if that's it, I'm
fine with that.

The assumption that there is a group with one voice that we can use as
guiding and authoritative I don't think extends to many of these sites.
The notion of advertising and signposting is interesting, especially with
those sites that are well documented in guidebooks, blogs, etc, but locally
unsigned.  If I see a site that has been mapped, I can't actually figure
out how I could tell if I should remove it or not.  And as nothing in OSM
is every really deleted, should we have a policy to redact it?

But again, as many of these sites are available to anyone willing to spend
half an hour in a public library, it may be sufficient to just have this as
a guideline to mappers, and just add a thin layer of obscurity that seems
sufficient to reduce the risk from the instagrammers, etc.  If that's the
aim.

Ian.



On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 19:39, Rory McCann  wrote:

> On 01/04/2019 12:27, Ian Sergeant wrote:
> > is this form of censorship practised anywhere else in OSM - maybe for
> > other indigenous people - that we could copy their model?
>
> I don't think "censorship" is a helpful term here.
>
> But there has been a practice in OSM to *not* map certain things, such
> as private/non-publicized domestic violence shelters, or the nesting
> sites of endangered birds. So the same logic applies here I think.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Aboriginal art sites

[Ian Sergeant]

How do we actually contact "local elders"?  Where do we record their
consent?  What if they change their minds?

Are we saying other mappers should delete these sites if they see them on
the map?  How do they know if approval was obtained?

Or is this just intended as a guideline, and not be enforced?

It seems all a bit impractical to me.  The information is out there.

is this form of censorship practised anywhere else in OSM - maybe for other
indigenous people - that we could copy their model?

Ian.
P.S. It's Strait - not "Straight".

On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 15:14, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 13:27, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, please.
>
>
> OK.
>
> Added this:
>
> Aboriginal & Torres Straight Islander sites
>
> Please practice extreme care when mapping sites (e.g rock art, ceremonial
> places) that may be of significance to Aboriginal or Torres Straight
> Islander peoples.
>
> Only map those sites that are sign-posted, or have been publicly
> advertised.
>
> In all other cases, please consult with the local Elders before mapping
> any site, & abide by their wishes if they say they don't want them mapped.
>
> Thoughts or comments?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Bushwalking site using OSM

[Ian Bennett]

Fabulous. Expect a few next week :-)

On 28/3/19 10:06 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:

Hi Ian, Absolutely, most importantly if anything is missing in OSM, then add it 
in.

The walks database I use is open source at https://gitlab.com/beyondtracks/beyondtracks-walks you 
can open a new issue there for any missing walks or problems, or if you're keen you can send a merge 
request, but an issue is sufficient.


On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 18:59, Ian Bennett mailto:ibenn...@tpg.com.au>> wrote:

Andrew,
         Can anyone contribute?? If so, can you advise the hows and whats 
please.
         We are heading up to Weddin NP (near Grenfell, NSW) to do a few 
"stomps" and I always
take my
GPSMap60CSX when we go.

Ian

On 28/3/19 7:56 am, Dion Moult wrote:
 > This site looks fantastic Andrew! You should do a little blog post or 
something about the
 > under-the-hood on how it all works. That can help others create the same 
:)
 >
 >
 > Sent from ProtonMail mobile
 >
 >
 >
 >  Original Message 
 > On 27 Mar. 2019, 11:17 pm, Andrew Harvey < andrew.harv...@gmail.com
<mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> wrote:
 >
 >
 >     I just launched a new map based on OSM data 
https://www.beyondtracks.com/map/
 >
 >     It aims to show much more detail at low zoom levels compared to most 
OSM map styles out
there.
 >
 >     On Tue, 8 Dec 2015 at 18:03, Andrew Harvey mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>
 >     <mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com <mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>>> 
wrote:
 >
 >         I just wanted to share a project I've been working on recently, 
which
 >         provides bush walking information, mainly in NSW.
 >
 > http://beyondtracks.com/
 >
 >         Most of the route geometries have come from OpenStreetMap, the
 >         basemaps are using OpenStreetMap, I've pulled in points of 
interest
 >         along the walk from OpenStreetMap and the search uses names of
 >         features near the walk from OpenStreetMap.
 >
 >
 > ___
 > Talk-au mailing list
 > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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] Bushwalking site using OSM

[Ian Bennett]

Andrew,
Can anyone contribute?? If so, can you advise the hows and whats please.
	We are heading up to Weddin NP (near Grenfell, NSW) to do a few "stomps" and I always take my 
GPSMap60CSX when we go.


Ian

On 28/3/19 7:56 am, Dion Moult wrote:
This site looks fantastic Andrew! You should do a little blog post or something about the 
under-the-hood on how it all works. That can help others create the same :)



Sent from ProtonMail mobile



 Original Message 
On 27 Mar. 2019, 11:17 pm, Andrew Harvey < andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote:


I just launched a new map based on OSM data 
https://www.beyondtracks.com/map/

It aims to show much more detail at low zoom levels compared to most OSM 
map styles out there.

On Tue, 8 Dec 2015 at 18:03, Andrew Harvey mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I just wanted to share a project I've been working on recently, which
provides bush walking information, mainly in NSW.

http://beyondtracks.com/

Most of the route geometries have come from OpenStreetMap, the
basemaps are using OpenStreetMap, I've pulled in points of interest
along the walk from OpenStreetMap and the search uses names of
features near the walk from OpenStreetMap.


___
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-us] Online mappy hour

[Ian Dees]

Thank you so much for hosting this again, Martijn!

The time sounds good to me.

On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 12:07 PM Martijn van Exel  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> You may remember that I hosted online ‘virtual mappy hours’ a few years
> ago.
>
> I thought it was nice and I want to resume them.
>
> Some topics for a next one:
>
> * State of the map US — what would make you want to be there? Thinking
> about presenting? Some details about the planning process
> * Imports — I feel like we’ve seen quite a few proposals lately. Opinions?
> Did you submit a proposal and want to discuss?
> * Ask the board — I’ll invite someone from the board to attend for a Q
> * MapRoulette — If you all are interested I am happy to talk about the
> latest features or walk you through how to set up a challenge.
> * your favorite topic, let me know.
>
> How does next Thursday 6pm PDT / 9pm EDT sound? I’m open to alternative
> times, if you’re interested in joining you get to help decide when we’ll do
> it :)
>
> There will be a video option (zoom) but you will also be able to dial-in
> if you don’t fancy proprietary tools on your computer. I’ll send details
> once we settle on a day and time.
>
> Looking forward to chatting!
>
> Martijn
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-GB] Common Land has stopped rendering

[Ian Caldwell via Talk-GB]

For now, for the commons around Malvern I will add landuse,  In most cases
landuse=meadow.

Ian


On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 at 12:54, Edward Catmur  wrote:

> They're going to be retagged anyway to get them to render in the main map,
> so I doubt that's a solution.
>
> Any conclusion on how to tag them now?
>
> Perhaps leisure=park, park=common?
>
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, 12:51 SK53,  wrote:
>
>> Yup, it's gone. I think the standard thing is use Andy's (SomeoneElse)
>> map which is likely to retain features of value & relevance to British &
>> Irish map users.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 at 12:35, Ian Caldwell via Talk-GB <
>> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>>> In the last day or two the standard renderer as stop rendering  common
>>> land (leisure=common) see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/311973831
>>>
>>> Ian
>>> ___
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Common Land has stopped rendering

[Ian Caldwell via Talk-GB]

In the last day or two the standard renderer as stop rendering  common land
(leisure=common) see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/311973831

Ian
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-us] motel vs. hotel

[Ian Dees]

I think your description of motels as parking directly outside rooms is
good, but I've seen plenty of motels that had multiple stories.

Wikipedia's page on motels is good and has this definition:

"a type of hotel consisting of a single building of connected rooms whose
doors faced a parking lot and in some circumstances, a common area or a
series of small cabins with common parking"

On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 6:49 PM Peter Dobratz  wrote:

> How do you distinguish between the tourism=hotel and tourism=motel tags?
>
> The criteria that I was imagining is that a motel is a single story
> building where you have the ability to park you car directly outside of
> your room. A hotel would be other types of buildings such as multi-story
> where most guests cannot park directly outside their room.
>
> There's the curious case of the two Motel 6 facilities directly across the
> road from each other.  I had marked these as tourism=hotel based on the
> building architecture, but maybe all Motel 6's should be tourism=motel?
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1645570
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thanks,
> Peter
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] March Meeting

[Ian Caldwell via Talk-gb-westmidlands]

I should be there

Ian



On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 at 19:42, Br

Ian
Prangle  wrote:

> Hi everyone
>
> This Thursday 7 March is our scheduled date for our monthly meeting. I've
> checked that the Bull has re-opened so see you there at about 730
>
> Regards
>
> Brian
> ___
> Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
> Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
>
___
Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands

Re: [Talk-us] Mapathon Results - Spartanburg SC

[Ian Dees]

This is great, Mike! Thanks for sharing.

Did you happen to take any photos? It'd be fun to have you write up
something about how you found this data, set up the Tasking Manager
project, and did the work at the Mapathon for the OSM US blog.

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 9:54 AM Mike N  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We had a mapathon coordinated by
> https://tasks.openstreetmap.us/project/76 to visually inspect all roads
> and update them from GIS data as appropriate.   Much of the GIS data was
> newer and there were many road name corrections (names or Road ->
> Avenue, Drive -> Street, etc). In addition there were many residential
> cases of single>dual carriageway or dual>single, blocked streets, etc.
> Some of the GIS road data was out of date or incorrect - we may try to
> feed it back to them if we can find a contact who has the time.
>
>In any case, more automated conflation techniques can now be applied
> to that area for more focused updates since the roads conform to reality.
>
>TIGER:Reviewed for the area:
> http://product.itoworld.com/map/162?lon=-81.95092=34.96795=9
>
>Recent edits (last 90 days):
> http://product.itoworld.com/map/129?lon=-81.98411=34.86548=9
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [talk-au] Question on how to fix this intersection

[Ian Sergeant]

I agree there should be a better way, but I would solve this problem
by bring the road split to the east of the the intersection in this
case.  The road divides on the eastern side of the intersection
anyway.

Then there will be no option but to continue straight.

Ian.

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 09:55, Dion Moult  wrote:
>
> G'day all!
>
> In the intersection of Liverpool road and Burwood road in Burwood, Sydney 
> (see attached), if I am travelling in the direction shown by the red arrow, 
> then my GPS device should tell me to continue and drive straight at the 
> intersection. However, because at that junction, the map splits up Liverpool 
> Road into two roads, OSMAnd tells me to turn left there, which is quite 
> confusing.
>
> What is the appropriate way to fix this mapping? Or is it a problem with 
> OSMAnd?
>
>
> Dion Moult
>
>
> ___
> 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] more SEO spam?

[Ian Bennett]

Concur. Be ruthless. These people are akin to nuisance callers and should be 
publicly flogged.

Ian


On 30/1/19 7:22 pm, nwastra wrote:
We seem to be getting a lot of business edits in this form lately with only a name and description 
tag, often with address details or just spam in the description tag.
As is usual with spam like business edits, they use a throw away email to make the edit and you 
never get a response from any query.

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=66761372
I am in favour of deleting them as SEO spam.


___
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-us] US Bureau of Land Management Boundaries

[Ian Dees]

On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 10:42 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> This data is no less verifiable than national forest boundaries and
> federal wilderness boundaries; these generally need to be checked against
> official sources, just as BLM boundaries will.
>
> Municipal boundaries are perhaps even harder to verify than boundaries of
> BLM land and National Forests in some States.
>

Those things shouldn't be in OSM either. They make it harder for people to
map and are out of date the moment the data is converted. If you want to
see this information on a map, it's available from the original source for
you to add to your own map. It's the same sort of data that can not be
improved by the community, so It doesn't belong in OSM.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] US Bureau of Land Management Boundaries

[Ian Dees]

Hi Brad, thanks for proposing this import and posting it here.

I would strongly prefer that we not import boundaries like this into OSM.
Boundaries of all sorts are almost impossible to verify with OSM's "on the
ground" rule, but BLM boundaries in particular are such an edge case (they
have no other analog in the world, really) and almost never have apparent
markings on the ground to check. Since these boundaries aren't visible,
this data can never be improved by an OpenStreetMap contributor. The
boundaries are defined by the government, and any sort of change to them
would make them diverge from the official source.

But having said that, I'm curious why you wanted to import this data? Did
you want to have it show up on the osm.org map? Are you trying to build a
custom map? Or are you excited to participate and improve OSM? If it's the
latter, there's lots of other data that is a better fit to import into OSM:
address points and building footprints come to mind, for example.

-Ian

On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 9:03 PM brad  wrote:

> I'd like to import BLM (US Bureau of Land Management) boundaries into
> OSM.This is not an automated import as you can see from my workflow.
>
> Workflow:
> Download shape file from PADUS (1 state at a time):
> https://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/data/download/
> Load into Qgis and filter for BLM boundaries
> Clean up as necessary (there are some extraneous ways at state
> boundaries & elsewhere)
>
> Convert to OSM with ogr2osm and the following tags
>  tags.update({'type':'boundary'})
>  tags.update({'boundary':'protected_area'})
>  tags.update({'operator':'BLM'})
>  tags.update({'ownership':'national'})
>  tags.update({'protect_class':'27'})
>  tags.update({'source':'US BLM'})
>  use the shapefile attribute 'Unit_Nm' as the name
>
> Import with JOSM
>
> The San Luis unit (CO) is here for your inspection.
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/qxv5gny2396ewki/sanLuisBLM.osm?dl=0
>
> Comments?
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] January meeting

[Ian Caldwell]

The bull is closed

Ian

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019, 11:29 Rob Nickerson  See you all there :-) I will bring the new hi Vis vest for you to see.
>
> Rob
>
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2019, 11:09 Brian Prangle 
>> Me too!
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 10:03 PM Rob Nickerson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> January 3rd is the first Thursday of the month so OSM meetup time.
>>> Anyone able to make it given proximity to the holiday?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Rob
>>> ___
>>> Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
>>> Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
>>>
>> ___
> Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
> Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
>
___
Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands

[talk-ph] Review of GlobalLogic edits in the Philippines

[Ian Lopez]

Hello and happy New Year to all.

In the wake of issues between OpenStreetMap contributors in Thailand and 
editors from GlobalLogic [1] I've decided to review a selection of edits in the 
Philippines done by the GlobalLogic team over the past 12 months.

As soon as I started my review, I immediately spotted at least one iffy 
changeset [2] which deleted all roads in Carnasa/Carnaza Island in northern 
Cebu. The said changeset was reverted afterwards [3]. In addition, I saw a bad 
practice, which is deleting and re-creating a feature, as what happened to the 
area around the Magellan Shrine in Lapu-Lapu City [4]. However, not all edits 
are destructive as new roads were added in places such as Pampanga [5]

>From what I've seen so far, there is a common theme among GlobalLogic edits, 
>such as addition, reclassification and modification of streets. In fact, most 
>of the edits revolve around highway data.

For those interested in reviewing the edits made by the GlobalLogic team, I 
left a link at the bottom of this email [6].

[1] as documented in 
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s4/client/snv?noteGuid=9b42fabf-eed1-4e60-a576-894d8cb4d635¬eKey=048c3a2daac0289b=https://www.evernote.com/shard/s4/sh/9b42fabf-eed1-4e60-a576-894d8cb4d635/048c3a2daac0289b=Response%2Bto%2BGrab%2527s%2BResponse%2Bon%2BOSM
[2] see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/65332385, visualization at 
https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=65332385
[3] see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/65913856, visualization at 
https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=65913856. Prior to the deletion, an 
editor from the GlobalLogic team added roads in the island 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64226169, visualization at 
https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=64226169)
[4] see 
https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=59139193=18=10.31114=124.01558=B00TTTFT
 for visualization
[5] see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/62328028, visualization at 
https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=62328028[6] see 
https://osmcha.mapbox.com/filters?aoi=ffa1c52a-9020-4bd1-8d20-6cbb70bcd5be, URL 
only works when logged in to an existing OpenStreetMap account 
-Blog: http://ianlopez1115.wordpress.com/
OpenStreetMap/Twitter: ianlopez1115
Facebook: ian.lopez
 ___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Ian Dees]

Hi folks,

This conversation is over. If we can't have a conversation about highway
tagging without making personal attacks, then we can't have the
conversation.

Please work harder to stay on topic, have empathy towards your fellow
mapper, and have constructive conversations.

The mailing list is in "emergency moderation" mode for the night.

-Ian

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 6:30 PM Nathan Mills  wrote:

> The reason you don't get it is because you are not listening. Nobody has
> said the motorway tagging should continue through the intersection. The
> debate is entirely about where the classification change takes place. There
> are several instances in Arkansas where a motorway ends similarly. In
> AHTD's highway log, they cease to be a motorway wherever legal access
> control or the character of the road changes. Sometimes they do make the
> demarcation at an interchange (usually at the point where the intersecting
> roadway crosses) when the continuation is a short distance.
>
> Given Arkansas law, the state's view is nearly always easily seen from
> speed limit signs thanks to very specific per se speed limits based on
> highway classification. Sadly (for this particular discussion), Oklahoma
> doesn't, though speed limit changes do often accompany clear changes in
> roadway classification.
>
> The overall point being that there are in fact times when classification
> changes at a place other than an interchange.
>
> It's been many years, but I recall there being a speed limit reduction
> northbound coming down the hill to the intersection in question. And again,
> I fail to see how adding an intersection magically changed the 3/4 of a
> mile between Apache and where the median disappears to accommodate the
> Gilcrease intersection. (I incorrectly called the extension past the
> Tisdale Apache in a previous message. I forget the actual name, west of the
> Tisdale, but it has one that is not Gilcrease)
>
> It would be nice if you would stop acting as if there is no room for
> reasonable people to have differing opinions on this since even various
> state governments have differing opinions on the matter. It's mildly rude
> to pretend that yours is the only logical possibility, especially when
> several people have considered your argument and still don't agree.
>
> All that said, at the moment you're the only person currently local to the
> instant case, so given the guideline that encourages us to defer to local
> mappers if their edits aren't broken in some technical way or obviously
> depart from reality, you're more than welcome to tag it the way you did if
> you like.
>
> Still, it was a change from what another local had tagged originally. The
> TIGER import became irrelevant in relation to this discussion when someone
> took the time to add the other carriageway. This isn't a situation where
> the edit in question was being made to a way that was created by the TIGER
> import and not touched by anybody except a few bots since, so the norms
> surrounding that scenario aren't applicable.
>
> -Nathan
>
> On December 2, 2018 5:03:31 PM EST, Paul Johnson 
> wrote:
>>
>> The commonly accepted definition of freeways in the US excludes surface
>> junctions, whereas expressways (trunks) does include intersections.  I
>> honestly am surprised a group of roadgeeks isn't more attuned to this
>> distinction.
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 3:15 PM Adam Franco  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 1:36 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bryan Housel  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I do understand your point, but a dozen or so people on talk-us and
>>>>> the six or so people on that changeset 64919426
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, 1 person, an AA roads troll and like 5 sockpuppets.  There's also
>>>> a number of people in this thread that do agree with me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> discussion all disagree with you.  Is there nothing that would make
>>>>> you reconsider?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Get the commonly used definition of a freeway changed to include
>>>> intersections.  Good luck!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since you are asking for more declaration of support/opposition, I'm a
>>> relatively disinterested-in-motorways mapper that has been following along
>>> with this thread. Paul, I think your read of a motorway definition is
>>> overly rigid and I agree with Richie, Bryan, and the others that a motorway
>>> classification may continue beyond the last interchange.
>>>
>>> If one is traveling past the

Re: [Talk-us] Strange city boundary: Lee, Illinois

[Ian Dees]

Nope, I'm saying all those wiki pages are correct. CDPs are boundaries for
statistical purposes, not city boundaries.

But I agree there are too many wiki pages :).

On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 10:04 AM Martijn van Exel  wrote:

> Hmm.
>
> I guess https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_admin_level is
> really not correct then where it says: "Census Designated Places (CDPs) are
> boundaries maintained by the Census Bureau for statistical purposes. CDPs
> should be tagged boundary=census, ideally without an admin_level=* tag.”
>
> Almost all Utah admin8 are in fact TIGER CDP boundaries:
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/DFS
>
> Also,
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary=administrative#10_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries
>  is
> incorrect where it states that admin8 are "state municipalities: cities,
> towns, villages and hamlets (infrequent)”
>
> Furthermore,
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_States/Boundaries is
> also incorrect and suggests "Census-designated places (CDPs) are
> statistical, not administrative areas. Project TIGER fixup deletes outdated
> CDPs and retags relevant ones from boundary=administrative admin_level=8(or
> 7) to boundary=census, no admin_level=*.”
>
> Finally, there seem to be too many wiki pages covering this :) But that’s
> not unique for this topic.
>
> I guess we have some work to do!
>
> Martijn
>
> On Nov 14, 2018, at 8:54 AM, Ian Dees  wrote:
>
> A friendly reminder that Census's TIGER data we have previously imported
> as admin8 polygons aren't actually official city boundaries. They're "Census
> Designated Places <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census-designated_place>"
> which are just named "concentrations of people". In some cases the Census
> may have gone to the trouble of incorporating city boundary information,
> but my guess is that the majority of cases are just "Census blocks that
> look like they're part of the city".
>
> Having said that, there really isn't a good national-level dataset of city
> boundaries and Google uses CDP boundaries for their search results...
>
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 9:49 AM Martijn van Exel  wrote:
>
>> Sorry that link is bad. https://cloud.rtijn.org/s/ZLen9D8M3tYaAgj
>>
>> On Nov 14, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
>>
>> I looked at a few place boundaries in Utah and compared with current
>> TIGER files.. Definitely needs work..
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/e1113me8y9t1my5/Screenshot%202018-11-14%2008.42.30.png?dl=0
>>  (colored
>> = current OSM, grey = TIGER places shape file 2018)
>>
>> Martijn
>>
>>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Strange city boundary: Lee, Illinois

[Ian Dees]

A friendly reminder that Census's TIGER data we have previously imported as
admin8 polygons aren't actually official city boundaries. They're "Census
Designated Places "
which are just named "concentrations of people". In some cases the Census
may have gone to the trouble of incorporating city boundary information,
but my guess is that the majority of cases are just "Census blocks that
look like they're part of the city".

Having said that, there really isn't a good national-level dataset of city
boundaries and Google uses CDP boundaries for their search results...

On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 9:49 AM Martijn van Exel  wrote:

> Sorry that link is bad. https://cloud.rtijn.org/s/ZLen9D8M3tYaAgj
>
> On Nov 14, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
>
> I looked at a few place boundaries in Utah and compared with current TIGER
> files.. Definitely needs work..
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/e1113me8y9t1my5/Screenshot%202018-11-14%2008.42.30.png?dl=0
>  (colored
> = current OSM, grey = TIGER places shape file 2018)
>
> Martijn
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[talk-au] National Cycle Networks..

[Ian Sergeant]

Hi,

I've noticed over the past few years a National Cycle Network "creep"
in Australia.

Personally, I'm not sure that Australia has anything that would really
count as a national cycleway network.  This concept was developed in
the UK and Europe where they really do have developed national routes.

I am prepared to accept that perhaps the (now scrapped) coastal
cycleway may approach a national route - and I know that has been
mapped in places.  But if we choose to map those sections we have to
appreciate that the route has many gaps.

This was particularly concerning when I saw that Bulli Pass was mapped
as part of a National Cycleway Network.  This is a section of steep
road, with no shoulder, used by heavy vehicles.  There is no bicycle
facility, no signage, no nothing.

So, sure, bicycles are free to ride wherever they want. And I'm not
saying this can't be cycled safely.   But I think marking sections
like this is arbitrary at best, and at worst dangerous.

I'd like to hear any viewpoints that agree or differ?  Otherwise, I
might start cutting out these sections of these routes that I know
aren't signed and have no amenity.  Sure - we may have a disconnected
route, but that's the ground-truth as I see it.

I'd like to talk about the possibility of removing some of the high
speed road with no shoulder sections too (at least from the national
cycle routes).  If we look at how Google Maps does this, it's much
more reliable than the proliferation of dodgy routes that we currently
have in OSM.  The expectation of a national cycle route should be our
best facilities, not a windy 100km road with no shoulder.

Ian.

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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] October Meeting

[Ian Caldwell]

I hope to be there.

Ian


On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 21:44, Rob Nickerson 
wrote:

> Great. See you there (back at our usual: The Bull, Price Street).
>
> *Rob*
>
>
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 20:36, Eike Ritter  wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> > I can make it. We're back in Birmingham for Winter. As I will need to
>> > travel in, I will only do so if others are confirmed as attending. Hope
>> > to see a few of you there.
>> >
>>
>> I will be there.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Eike
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
>> Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
>>
> ___
> Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
> Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
>
___
Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands