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  > 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:  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 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
>  _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:  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
> > >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:  au/attachments/20230922/3cec4504/attachment-0001.htm>
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 16:37:01 +1000
> From: "Phil Wyatt" 
> To: "'Sebastian S.'" ,
>   , "'Andrew Harvey'"
>   , "'Mark Pulley'"
> 
> Cc: "'OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List'" 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
> Message-ID: <004b01d9ed1f$36833d80$a389b880$@wyatt-family.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I believe if the managing agency requests that the tracks be
> removed from the map then as good corporate citizens we should do
> everything possible to 

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
>  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
>  as a legitimate fork in
> the highway.
> 
> The latest incorrect directions with "turn sharp left" are probably the
result of
> missing turn restriction relations
> . 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] '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] 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  

>To: 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-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-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] 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-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. AI wrote:
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > We’re a small team based out of Hyderabad, India. We would be
>doing
>>> > minimal edits in Perth and contribute to OSM in the next couple of 
>>> > weeks, in-line with OSM and Australia specific tagging guidelines
>[Link
>>> >
>].
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Please refer our Wiki
>>> >  and
>Github
>>> >  project pages
>for
>>> > more information.
>>> >
>>> > Looking 

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-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  
highway=motorway_junction tag to identify a point along a
 highway=* with junction
refs or names where it is possible to exit the highway onto another road.
This is usually found along a
 highway=
 motorway, but
is also applicable to other roads with numbered or named junctions including
some   highway=
 trunk and
 highway=
 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:

 

  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
 destination=* tags,
not the   name=* of the
 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

[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

[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] 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] Mapping houses and addresses in Sydney - and WA

[Ian Steer]

>Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2018 22:10:19 +1000
>From: "Joel H." 
>To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org, d...@thinkmoult.com
>Subject: Re: [talk-au] Mapping houses and addresses in Sydney
>Message-ID: <884c4fa4-16cd-893d-8b62-3620f023e...@disroot.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>OSM is permitted to use the LPI Base Map, This contains street number where 
>they are.
>However I am not from NSW so I can't say how accurate LPI is. You are best to 
>do a ground survey, the Android app StreetComplete is good for this as long as 
>the houses have been mapped already.
>If you wish to use LPI, you can switch under imagery in JOSM (and maybe iD)

Does anyone know if there is a West Australian equivalent to the NSW LPI Base 
map ?




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

[talk-au] Perth Canning Rv wetland Relation: 8337801

[Ian Steer]

>Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 10:15:02 +1000
>From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
To: talk-au 
Subject: [talk-au] Perth Canning Rv wetland Relation: 8337801
>Hi,
>I have repaired Relation: 8337801  - wetland marsh that had been altered by an 
>Apple person.
>It was identified by OSMinspector as a probable error (and boy was it).
>It is now closed and has no crossing members. So technically better. But I am 
>far from local .. so it lacks verification.
>If someone knows the area they should be able to do better than my poor 
>attempts based on rough satellite views.
>I also included more bits in the Relation: Canning River (8337802) - makes it 
>easier on making the wetland relation.
>Thanks for any local help there.

I live reasonably close to that area, but verifying it is a bit arbitrary - 
where is the edge of a wetland?  as seen in summer? winter? etc.
Also, you can't go tramping around in a swamp to do a survey - it really has to 
be done from imagery.

I think your efforts will do just fine - thanks

Ian




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

[talk-au] Small culverts/bridges in bushland

[Ian Steer]

> 
> Hi,
> 
> Lately a mapper has been adding heaps of fords in SE QLD bushland along
> with more creeks/streams, however I've noticed quite a lot of the fords
> aren't actually fords based on my local knowledge of the area. I tried
> commenting on a changeset (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/58540304)
> 2 weeks ago and again a week ago without a response, they have been active
> in that time and appear to be a long time contributor, but I'm now at a
> loss on how to contact them.
> 
> My question isn't about what they've been doing, but about the fact I've
> not wanted to split ways and try to line up a tiny culvert or bridge when
> they are physically so small, however because they haven't been mapped
> someone is now incorrectly added fords. Many of the culverts are just a
> small pipe (sometimes as small as 20mm diameter and 0.5m long) with dirt
> over it to keep the trail dry (the trail is usually built up a little in
> the low lying area), and many of the bridges are only a metre long timber
> bridge especially those added for MTB.
> 
> The wiki states that bridge=* and tunnel=* should not be used on nodes, so
> I've not used them and in the past only mapped fords (many which have big
> sized gravel or stepping stones) and obviously use a shared node.
> 
> I've read a bunch of discussion on this topic and agree that splitting ways
> to model these is overkill as the tags on each way can get out of sync and
> get in the way, but removing the incorrect fords and not putting something
> in their place irks me. The wiki's comment about a ford: "You are both on
> the highway and in the waterway, and not separated logically as a stream
> under a bridge would be" makes complete sense, and I don't want shared
> nodes for these cases even though many streams are intermittent.
> 
> Finally my question, why couldn't we map a culvert as a node of a waterway,
> or a bridge as a node of a highway? The only other option I can think of is
> to add a note to a node of highway/waterway describing what is there so
> someone doesn't add a ford.
> 
> Thanks, Jono
> 
I have been “guilty” of adding small fords and culverts on bush tracks because 
JOSM gives me an error message if you have a waterway crossing a way without 
some sort of bridge, Ford, etc - and I try to avoid doing edits and leaving 
errors/warnings. 

Ian

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

Re: [talk-au] correct mapping of overtaking lanes

[Ian Steer]

I've had a go at one overtaking lane, and thought I'd put it out there for 
comment before tackling more.

Refer way 555706763

In this case, there is no overtaking (as in you can't use the lane in the 
opposing direction), but there are a couple (yet to be tackled) where it is 
permissable for the non-overtaking lane direction to use the overtaking lane 
(if not in use obviously).

Ian

-Original Message-
From: Marc Gemis [mailto:marc.ge...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 24 January 2018 6:38 PM
To: ianst...@iinet.net.au
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] correct mapping of overtaking lanes

possible tags:

lanes, lanes:forward, lanes:backward, change:lanes:forward, 
change:lanes:backward

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lanes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/change

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 8:11 AM,   wrote:
> Can someone point me to some examples of the correct method of mapping 
> overtaking lanes on country highways?
>
>
>
> I need examples for where it is both permissible and not permissible 
> for the contrary direction to use the overtaking lane.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Ian
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


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

[talk-au] Pacidic Highway mucked-up by construction changes

[Ian Steer]

I used OSM on my GPS when travelling on the Pacific Motorway between Port
Macquarie & South West Rocks recently, and routing was a disaster through
all the construction works.

 

It may just stem from the tagging of a bridge currently in use as
"construction".  I'm not confident-enough to go and make any changes myself.
I apologise for not knowing how to give the reference to the bridge in
question correctly, but I think it has a way number of 481729429.  It is
near the village of Kundaberg.

 

I am guessing that the routing engine refused to route over this Pacific
Highway bridge because it is tagged "construction" - but then again, the
highway either side of it is similarly tagged?  Is "construction" upsetting
the routing engine?

 

Can someone more confident with the impact of construction tagging please
have a look at this and try and fix it?

 

thanks

 

Ian

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

[talk-au] osmaustralia.org website and Garmin .img files - current status ?

[Ian Steer]

Does anyone know what's happening with the osmaustralia.org website, and the
regular updates of Garmin .img files ?

 

They used to be updated roughly weekly, but haven't been updated since
February.

 

(I use these files to update my Garmin GPS with the results of my (and
everyone else's) OSM updates.)

 

Ian

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

Re: [talk-au] Highway=path (David Clark)

[Ian Steer]

My request:

Firstly that people tagging paths consider adding the surface tag as well.
You probably already know the surface (as I always did even though I didn't
realise the significance of adding the tag) and if you're interested in
paths your likely one of those most interested in having it rendered in a
practical way.


David, 

As an off-road OSM user  path/track mapper, I'll certainly bear this in
mind

regards

Ian




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

Re: [talk-au] Historical rail lines (Ian Steer)

[Ian Steer]

Surely OSM isn't in the business of producing historical maps?  If so, where
do you stop (ie how old) - do the Europeans map Roman roads ?  It would be
confusing for people trying to use the maps to see a railway line marked,
with no physical evidence of its existence.

Ian

-Original Message-
From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
[mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org] 
Sent: Sunday, 25 November 2012 7:24 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 65, Issue 28

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
Re: Contents of Talk-au digest...


Today's Topics:

   1. Historical rail lines (Matt White)
   2. Re: Historical rail lines (Steve Bennett)
   3. Re: Tagging dirt and 4x4 roads - new approach (Steve Bennett)
   4. Re: Tagging dirt and 4x4 roads - new approach (David Bannon)
   5. Re: Historical rail lines (Ian Sergeant)
   6. Re: Historical rail lines (Matt White)


--

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:15:59 +1100
From: Matt White mattwh...@iinet.net.au
To: OSM Australian Talk List talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] Historical rail lines
Message-ID: 50b1b79f.4000...@iinet.net.au
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

A question for the list regarding historical/disused rail lines.

The old inner circle rail line in Melbourne is mapped in OSM, and I'm
unconvinced of it being a good thing. Here's a little bit of it that I can
talk about with some local knowledge of: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.780512lon=144.982887zoom=18layers=M

Given that there is pretty much no trace of the rail line left, why are we
mapping it? It was on the ground 30 years ago, but it certainly isn't now.

(That said, there are some small pieces of the track remaining - where it
crosses Rae St and Brunswick St Nth, two or three 15 metre sections + a set
of points just north of the end of Birkenhead St (including what appears to
be an old rail weighbridge), and a short three metre section in Edinburgh
Gardens, and the old North Carlton station building is still there)

If there are no complaints, I'm going to remove it. It's historical, and
appears on old maps, but does not exist today.

Matt



--

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 20:29:00 +1100
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
To: Matt White mattwh...@iinet.net.au
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Historical rail lines
Message-ID:
CA+z=q=ubdP81a1eLK9vSEc7pZxB7YHbH=7hfyvn-smk34wk...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Hi Matt,
  The question about mapping old, historical features is much wider than
just the Australian context. I'm pretty sure the current consensus is that
we old rail lines should be mapped - even if there is not much to see on the
ground. There might be more than you think - there's a station building (now
a community hall, I think), other things too, perhaps. There are probably
other former railways about with much less to see (the Rosstown Railway
comes to mind) - at least with this one there are physical remnants such as
tracks.

So, yes, I object. Feel free to raise the issue on the main OSM talk list
though.

Steve


On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Matt White mattwh...@iinet.net.au wrote:

 A question for the list regarding historical/disused rail lines.

 The old inner circle rail line in Melbourne is mapped in OSM, and I'm 
 unconvinced of it being a good thing. Here's a little bit of it that I 
 can talk about with some local knowledge of: 
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?** 
 lat=-37.780512lon=144.982887**zoom=18layers=Mhttp://www.openstreet
 map.org/?lat=-37.780512lon=144.982887zoom=18layers=M

 Given that there is pretty much no trace of the rail line left, why 
 are we mapping it? It was on the ground 30 years ago, but it certainly
isn't now.

 (That said, there are some small pieces of the track remaining - where 
 it crosses Rae St and Brunswick St Nth, two or three 15 metre sections 
 + a set of points just north of the end of Birkenhead St (including 
 what appears to be an old rail weighbridge), and a short three metre 
 section in Edinburgh Gardens, and the old North Carlton station 
 building is still there)

 If there are no complaints, I'm going to remove it. It's historical, 
 and appears on old maps, but does not exist today.

 Matt

 __**_
 Talk-au mailing list
 Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 

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

[Ian Steer]

I have been following this topic on a casual basis (ie I don't feel
passionately about it), but I think that what you have written sounds fine.

I guess that you will hear from people that feel passionately against your
views, but those that think that what you have written makes sense might
form the silent majority.

Don't give up - there will always be views at odds with your own.

Maybe all the others that think the proposal makes sense should speak up too
!

regards

Ian



-

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:01:38 +1030
From: David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
To: Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up.
Message-ID:
f9190472150e1a55b5dbc16b6431e4600a9a4...@webmail.internode.on.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8


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

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

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

Please consider

David,? 



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

Re: [talk-au] traffic lights on dual carriageway intersections

[Ian Steer]

 By choosing to place traffic light not on the intersection node, you
are failing to represent that this is an intersection of two roads,
controlled by traffic signals.

I don't see how it is failing to represent that - the intersection is there
(the ways intersect at nodes), and there are traffic signals *before* the
intersection (not smack-bang in the middle of the intersection)


 Instead you are choosing to represent There is a stop line here and
traffic signal and further on there is an intersection.

- but isn't that EXACTLY what we have - a stop line with a traffic signal,
with an intersection further on ?

- and if we were REALLY keen, the same *could* be done for single carriage
way intersections (but I'm not suggesting that that is a sensible option)

Ian


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